Newton Residents Vote to Tear Down Sandy Hook Elementary, Rebuild for $50 Million

[Kennetic]

guns are not in everyone's reach (well, except for that one town in Georgia I think where it is mandatory for everyone to own a gun).

There are...you know....laws and such.

That would be Kennesaw, GA and it's a city ordinance but they're not going to do anything to you if you don't own a gun. They do, however, have one of the lowest crime rates in the state.

 

[HavoK 09]

my middle school was where our dictator, salazar, was taught and it still stands.

this is a silly way to spend money, taking down the building wont make things better and what would the new building do to prevent another case like this?

 

[soren7550]

*snip*

*snip*

Can y'all please stop arguing about gun control, improvised weapons, and such? It's getting way off topic and I'd rather not have the mods lock this thread.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

*snip*

*snip*

Can y'all please stop arguing about gun control, improvised weapons, and such? It's getting way off topic and I'd rather not have the mods lock this thread.

Right, sorry for being brash about the subject. Apologies and edited as the reasonable, level-headed individual I'd like to be someday.

 

[Strazdas]

so instead of trying to move on and continue living despite the tragedy, not only we glorify it in media, we also spend millions and destroy buildings because of a killer.
Well congratulations, mr mass murderer, you just won.

What? That's so stupid and wasteful. It accomplishes nothing other than wasting money. How the hell did they get enough people to vote for this thing that it actually passed?

You're right, how dare a town vote to build a new school building!? Schools should remain exactly the same buildings they've been for decades if not centuries. I mean, it's not like technology, construction, and infrastructure needs for a building, let alone a place of education, have improved at all in the last 80-odd years...

And you would be right if not the fact that the sole reason they did it was because "we want it destroyed because a mentally ill perosn did bad things there".

 

[Strazdas]

Hey, all you have to do is convince the ~75% of Americans who believe the Second Amendment should stick around that they're wrong.

Not really. seeing how much on the fence america now is lets say 50% of them are for and 50% are agaisnt gun control. In order to overturn a constitutional amendment you need 66.67% (and A LOT of hoops to jump though).
so if we take that 50% is for gun control, you only need 16.67%, or 37.77% of those that believe second amendmant shoudl stick around, to be convinced otherwise.

But to be fair, can you blame them?

Can i blame them for acting irrational stuck in situation that happened a year ago constantly reminding themselves of the very thing they are attempting to forget with this project to begin with?
Yes i can. They are the ones who keep bringing the killer up and letting him be famous. They are the ones who constantly traumatize themselves.

What?

You DO know how expensive large buildings and all their furnishings are, right?

I don't know how large Sandy Hook was, but if it was meant to educate more than 600 kids, I'm surprised it doesn't cost more. A computer lab's equipment alone can set you back hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone the materials, labor, inspections and specialists needed.

Due to sadly having a very close case of government leaking money on a large buiding here recently, yes indeed i know how expensive are large buildings. they are not 50 million dollar expensive.
My school accomodated over 1000 kids. It probably wasnt worth quarter that. 600 kids is not a very large school. for 50 million you can build a skyscraper.

eh, look on the bright side, at least it'll create jobs for illegal immigrant workers that dont pay taxes and get paid half-wage.

fixed this for you.

First and foremost, it assumes the various people in the military would all uniformly be willing to attack American citizens. It's certainly possible, and I can envision a situation where it happens, but even a halfway decent PR effort on the part of the rebels would make most of the boots-on-the-ground military very, very unwilling to actually act.

Second, insurgencies are pretty much perfect against the modern US military. See: Afghanistan and Iraq. It's not likely to actually win any decisive battles against the US military, but it's more than capable of harassing them and waging a fierce hearts and minds campaign. Because they don't need to win any battles. They just need to make it expensive, and turn the populace against the government.

Once that happens, it doesn't matter what the military has. As long as the people aren't willing to obey, the government and its various tools are utterly meaningless. Being the leader of a country of one isn't exactly an accomplishment, after all.

So you think americans rifles would help with that how? do you think soldiers would have more moral dilema shootign armed civilians shooting at them or unarmed ones? you are not wrong, just beside the point.

Insurgencies were capable fo harrasing always agaisnt all militaries, becuase of how they act, that is, hit and run without lasting effect. in our situation populace is already agaisnt the government anyway so there is no point here.

If the army is not willing to shoot at americans, whether they have guns or not wont matter. if the army is willnig to shoot at americans, whether they have guns or not wont matter. so the original point by the otherp erson stands.

 

[2xDouble]

so instead of trying to move on and continue living despite the tragedy, not only we glorify it in media, we also spend millions and destroy buildings because of a killer.
Well congratulations, mr mass murderer, you just won.

What? That's so stupid and wasteful. It accomplishes nothing other than wasting money. How the hell did they get enough people to vote for this thing that it actually passed?

You're right, how dare a town vote to build a new school building!? Schools should remain exactly the same buildings they've been for decades if not centuries. I mean, it's not like technology, construction, and infrastructure needs for a building, let alone a place of education, have improved at all in the last 80-odd years...

And you would be right if not the fact that the sole reason they did it was because "we want it destroyed because a mentally ill perosn did bad things there".

That doesn't matter. The town said "hey, do you guys want to build a new school? It will cost taxpayer money.", and the people said "Yes, go ahead and do that. We'll accept the charges.". They wanted a new school; they got permission to build a new school; they're willing to pay for the new school. The reasoning behind it is irrelevant.

 

[Parasondox]

Well the UK has something similar where if it's the home of a known high profiled murderer, especially where loads of the crimes were committed, they would just leave that home derelict, keeping it fenced off and covered or knock it down and make it into a pathway/park. Some real estates would sell it for as low as £1 cause they know no one would buy it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Apparently, it costs just as much to renovate as it does to replace.

On one hand, this stinks of pork barrel spending and using the tragedy to spearhead something different.
On the other, it's an ancient school that's well past code.

Still seems wasteful weighing it out.

Classic American way of avoiding real issues. The entire country is immature. They think like 12 year olds. It's not gonna solve anything. It's not gonna fix anything. It's just going to cost more.

Oh come on Jensen.
I expect this over-generalized shame-game crap from 2 post trolls looking to make trouble, not you.