• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sandy Hook survivor Grace Fischer slams Vance's 'lock the doors' plan for school shooters

Credence

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
17,856
Reaction score
29,043
Location
Long Island NY
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Sandy Hook survivor Grace Fischer has slammed JD Vance’s suggestion that schools should “make the door locks better” to deal with shootings. The 18-year-old campaigner, who was six when she survived the horrific mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut on 14 December 2012, said Vance’s proposed solution was “unacceptable.”

“It’s not about making schools safer, because they should be a safe space already for children. His solution is unacceptable,” she told ABC News. “It doesn’t make sense to make schools with stronger windows…I think we need to get more gun control.”

During last week’s debate against Tim Walz, Vance suggested that “making the doors lock better” was one measure to tackle gun violence in schools.

“What do we do to protect our kids? And I think the answer is, and I say this not loving the answer, because I don’t want my kids to go to school in a school that feels unsafe or there are visible signs of security, but I unfortunately think that we have to increase security in our schools,” Vance said.

Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-hook-jd-vance-school-shooting-b2624450.html
 
Lock the doors.

Lock the doors of the prisons. Put the Gun Nuts inside first though.

I'd support it.
 

Of course, they don't identify any federal gun laws that would make a difference.

Here's another option: stop terrorizing our children over something so rare. If you want to save a lot of lives, including the lives of a lot of children, pass some stricter driving laws.
 

She is a member of the Sandy Hook Promise group but tone deaf Vance thinks just locking the doors would make a difference.

Sandy Hook Promise — Preventing Gun Violence

Sandy Hook Promise educates and empowers youth and adults to know the signs to prevent violence and school shootings. Join our movement.
www.sandyhookpromise.org
 
So what? That doesn’t give her special mystical powers to help solve this issue. She is young and impressionable.

Sandy Hook Promise is using the deaths of school children to infringe on the rights of those that have done nothing wrongs. The gun control groups want these tragedies in order to push their agenda.

JD Vance said that ONE measure was hardening schools. Not the only allowed solution. Liars, damn liars, and gun control proponents.

Maybe we should protect our children as well as we protect our politicians. The FL Guardian program seems to be adding a good layer of security at schools that implemented it.
 

It will. Certainly more than banning rifles because they have pistol grips, or renaming "red flag laws" as "temporary transfer orders."

Why does she care so little about the thousands of children needlessly dying in preventable car accidents?
 
Last edited:
Noodlegawd said:
It will. Certainly more than banning rifles because they have pistol grips, or renaming "red flag laws" as "temporary transfer orders."

Why does she care so little about the thousands of children needlessly dying in preventable car accidents?
Click to expand...

Cars are not sold as killing devices. Guns are.

Do you suggest banning cars?
 
Noodlegawd said:
It will. Certainly more than banning rifles because they have pistol grips, or renaming "red flag laws" as "temporary transfer orders."

Why does she care so little about the thousands of children needlessly dying in preventable car accidents?
Click to expand...
What is it you get out of beating that dead horse that keeps you coming back to it? The sound it makes? The shock travelling up the stick into your hands? The puff of dust that comes off the hide when you hit it?
 
Grand Mal said:
What is it you get out of beating that dead horse that keeps you coming back to it? The sound it makes? The shock travelling up the stick into your hands? The puff of dust that comes off the hide when you hit it?
Click to expand...

Most ironic statement of the century. There are hundreds of threads in this forum started by people beating the dead horses of school shootings and gun control.
 
Noodlegawd said:
Most ironic statement of the century. There are hundreds of threads in this forum started by people beating the dead horses of school shootings and gun control.
Click to expand...
Why are there so many people talking about school shootings and gun control? Because they're all idiots who can't see the obvious parallel between guns and cars like you can? Must be frustrating to be the only one who can see how simple the issue is.
Uh, are you sure that doubling-down on the child safety angle is the best thing for your cause?
 

I'm perfectly happy to point out that school shootings are not a big enough problem to warrant doing anything significantly different. The problem is that there's always an obvious next step in that discussion.

Would you respond to that with something other than an ad hom? Or should we just skip to the next step?

By the way, I think all the gun control zealots perfectly understand what I'm talking about - they're just too hypocritical to admit it.
 
JMB1911A1 said:
So what? That doesn’t give her special mystical powers to help solve this issue. She is young and impressionable.
Click to expand...

Straight to the ad hom attacks on gun violence survivors. You people have no shame.
 
Noodlegawd said:
I'm perfectly happy to point out that school shootings are not a big enough problem to warrant doing anything significantly different.
Click to expand...
So you're good with the status quo. But an awful lot of people aren't. An awful lot of people want to make it even less of a problem.
Noodlegawd said:
Would you respond to that with something other than an ad hom?
Click to expand...
Did you read where a little girl in the Uvalde school took some blood off her dead classmate and smeared it on herself to play dead and fool the shooter? 11 years old. You good with that?
 

Ad hom it is. I'm no more "good" with it than you are with thousands of kids dying in preventable car accidents so you can own a car that can go 100mph.

About 5 children were killed in actual school shootings in the past year. That's not a big enough issue to terrorize our kids with lockdown drills, or to pass new laws significantly reducing our rights.

Queue the litany of emotional nonsense arguments. Do you have any left?
 
So she's a complete and total idiot.

Not surprising out of an 18 year old.

Schools already have the absolute strictest gun control that can. That didn't work.
Credence said:
During last week’s debate against Tim Walz, Vance suggested that “making the doors lock better” was one measure to tackle gun violence in schools.
Click to expand...
Vance is right. An armed gunman is essentially an intruder. A good way to thwart would be Intruders is to present barriers to entry. It's worked for millennia why all the sudden would it stopped working? Is it because the only solution could be more gun control and every other solution has to be dumped down until we get there?
Why is visible signs of security is such a bad thing? When I walk into the vault at the bank get my precious items out of the safety deposit box I feel very much at ease by the amount of security there.
Credence said:
Read more: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...y-hook-jd-vance-school-shooting-b2624450.html
Click to expand...
I think the problem is no solution can happen until we get gun control and that's not really about stopping school shootings it's about gun control. So it's using dead children to appeal to something very few people actually want.
 

Yeah that'll do it
/s
 
When the bellows to ban "assault weapons" begin in the context of Sandy Hook, let's remember that murderer didn't use an assault weapon as defined in the last federal "assault weapon ban".
 
RF667799 said:
When the bellows to ban "assault weapons" begin in the context of Sandy Hook, let's remember that murderer didn't use an assault weapon as defined in the last federal "assault weapon ban".
Click to expand...
I think this is more of an indictment of what assault weapon really means. I go by the 1994 ban. So you can have an AR 15 as long as it doesn't have a bayonet attachment and a muzzle break.

I guess that's what the sandy hook shooter used.
 
RF667799 said:
When the bellows to ban "assault weapons" begin in the context of Sandy Hook, let's remember that murderer didn't use an assault weapon as defined in the last federal "assault weapon ban".
Click to expand...

That's why they want to change it to require only one meaningless feature to qualify as an "assault weapon."
 
Noodlegawd said:
I'm perfectly happy to point out that school shootings are not a big enough problem to warrant doing anything significantly different.
Click to expand...
We know.


It’s ok that kids die in classrooms to a segment of the US population.

We’ve been told this. Over and over and over.
 
BirdinHand said:
We know.


It’s ok that kids die in classrooms to a segment of the US population.

We’ve been told this. Over and over and over.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like it's okay to pretty much the entire population that thousands of kids die in easily-preventable car accidents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…