I have zero doubt your intentions are good here. But I think there are several drawbacks. First, a trained teacher with a pistol is going to be outgunned when these folks have assault rifles. Second, a trained teacher is bound to make a mistake and the gun may come out at the wrong time in the wrong situation. Third, a kid could get their hands on that gun so there’s a gun in use when there otherwise might not have been one. Fourth, the comparison to armed security for political figures seems misplaced because the sad reality of having to have guns around them versus kids is very different. Sending a kid to a school to sit in a room with a gun every day is a bridge many parents do not want to cross. Many would rather focus on keeping these assault rifles away.

Again, understood your intentions are good and maybe it would help. My views above show I do not agree but I am often wrong. My wife tells me daily.

The leaked video is disturbing. It's easy to judge from behind a keyboard, or from the next day. It's a lot easier to be the guy in the back of the stack rather than the first guy through the door. They were there within 3 minutes, they outgunned the shooter many times over. And they just sit there. One checks his phone to look at his Punisher wallpaper, some get hand sanitizer while they just sit in the hallway doing absolutely nothing. For well over an hour, they just sit there. I find it difficult not to consider them simply LARPing cowards, while their coworkers chose to arrest and detain parents instead of, you know, address the murderer. They are there, heavily outgun him, and just sit there as defenseless children are slaughtered. More effort was expended suppressing the parents of the victims than the psychopath. I find it difficult to think of these police officers as men at all.

One incident is not a valid data set, school shootings are incredibly rare mathematically even if that's not the narrative. This incident should be more of a human tragedy than used as a political bludgeon, but it doesn't seem to 'help' either side. With ~80 minutes to do whatever the hell he wanted, having a scary looking model of rifle becomes irrelevant. Whether semi-auto or bolt action or a muzzle loading musket, it doesn't matter in this situation. The advantages of an AR type rifle provide no real gain in this situation. Quicker shooting is very important in a gunfight; lightweight ammunition means a lot on a long hike in the field. it means essentially nothing in a closed off environment without a time factor against defenseless children. Meanwhile, the complete lack of any desire by the authorities to address the situation does not aid an argument that armed guards will help. I believe Parkland was the last such incident, and there to the armed wing of the state declined to actually do anything. That a paid security guard will choose to do what ~15 cops won't seems unlikely.

I do think a teacher who wants to carry should be allowed to; as the 2nd amendment allows. Unlike a security guard, a teacher who is armed in a s situation like this incident (which is truly incredibly rare statistically) does not have to be a hero and put themselves in harms way to take the chance of getting the bad guy. The teacher in the classroom will probably die if they do not shoot back; they are there and trapped like the kids. They can't just stand outside.

they showed video of the uvalde texas police officers walking around the hallways and also parkland shooting was lawsuit against officers for not doing anything, i find it hard to believe a teacher with personal relationship to students would act the same..

right, many of your arguments are standard arguments..........when someone doesnt like a position they usually cite that someones postion wont solve ALL....there is no 100%.......yeah a teacher can be out gunned but there may other situations where students may not attack a school at all because some teachers are armed and they dont know who is armed or from what locked door they are going to come from, plus there would likely be an armed guard...arent all armed guards also outgunned? Most police are outgunned in inner cities but we dont ban officers trying to do their job......can walk and chew gum at same time and still work on getting rid of certain assault rifles and have armed teachers

There are metal detectors at schools for a reason..and they dont catch all guns..so why have any metal detectors......but if students can sneak them through, why just let students haved guns and not the teachers..

as far as a student getting their hands on a teachers gun, this can also happen in anyone's house and why there is a gun locker...... i wont go on but you can be certain there are strong counter arguments to what anti armed teachers keep saying, meanwhile kids are getting killed ..

correct i think teachers would engage more......i do not agree with your analogy......fire does not stop fire, or by having fire it doesnt not prevent fire from burning down a building (though conrolled fires in a forest are done)

a Gun can prevent someone else's gun from killing someone or better yet, deter someone from bringing a gun as there will likely not be 30 minutes of wait time while a shooting spree is going on...

Exactly. The kids in that school, and fellow teachers, would be like his extended family.

No, it’s not that I think your solution isn’t perfect. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It’s that I think your solution would have a net negative effect. I’d prefer solutions that do more good than harm.

Then start proposing some.

My proposal don’t work for you folks. Requirements that every gun purchaser take a class and show proof he or she owns a safe. Maybe a law that parents of underage kids that gain access to their weapons and use them in a school can be thrown in jail, greater restrictions on assault rifles. As for the current weapons that are out there, these laws can be applied forward. If you own an assault rifle, go out and buy a safe or if your kid gets hold of it you are going to jail.

For the three hundredth time, assault rifles are already heavily, heavily restricted and cost tens of thousands of dollars and months of waiting times. The NFA bans any assault rifles not registered by January 1, 1986. You cannot go and buy an assault rifle at the store.

Troll better.

Owners of assault rifles have to have a safe and if their kid uses one in a school they go to jail. Address actual points. You’re the biggest troll on this site bar none.

I stated an actual, verifiable fact. See, you're just shitposting. You're the only one here who isn't even sincere.

What do you think about a law that say anyone who currently owns an assault rifle will go to jail if someone gets hold of it and uses it in a mass shooting? Address actual points. I feel like I’m talking to a (fairly dumb) wall.

I don’t see how a victim of theft should be treated as a perpetrator. When has this ever happened? I know you’re just trolling as your original reply and your stalking made clear, but you really should try harder. You’re still pretending not to even know what an assault rifle is after being told 50 times. There are very, very few of them and they are incredibly tightly regulated, a toy for the elite. The registration closed in 1986.

A kid gets an AR-15 from their home and shoots up a school. If their parents didn’t lock it up properly they face consequences. If an AR-15 isn’t your definition of an assault rifle, then substitute in an AR-15 and similar. Calling me a troll when you’re the single biggest troll on this site is amazing. Keep it coming.

It’s not MY definition of an assault rifle. There is a thing as actual reality. You don’t even know what it means and have steadfastly refused to even read. You have been told a fact and are, for the 30th time since you got triggered that I called PWCC a fraud ring, spazzing out when confronted with the actual fact.

You need help. Go and get it. You need a healthier obsession.

That would be a horrible law. Anybody with internet can break into pretty much any home safe in less than a minute. Safes are not that safe. A rare earth hockey puck magnet or 2 will open most in seconds. The ones with key pads are even easier to open.

We have discussed how worthless safes are in the past when used to keep high end cards away from robbers. A member posted several videos on how easy they are to open. It was pretty eye opening.

You need to learn how to address arguments and not go into attack mode when you realize you’re not so bright.

So when I sell a gun to someone it’s very apparent that someone will ill intentions may easily get it from them? Seems like a bad deal.

Again, you were told a fact. You keep ignoring that to pull crap out of your ass. That you want to ignore that you are factually wrong is your right, but to respond to a fact by calling the other person an idiot kind of proves the point. Get a better obsession.

Yes that is unfortunately how life works. Locks and safes only keep honest people honest.

Utopian ideas aren't real world solutions.

Let’s arm teachers and hope for the best. Good plan.

'
Lets not arm teachers and hope for the best when shooters come in.. (and also let students bring in arms who avoid the metal detectors)

.looks like its been working thus far....looks like a much greater plan.

It's like you guys need a translator while everyone is speaking english.
(Not uncommon between groups with no common specialized language)

So, a few definitions. and information.
Single shot- Each round must be loaded individually maybe with mechanical help, but it requires a person to do it.
Semi- Automatic- The gun loads the next round itself. But the operator still needs to pull the trigger. Most hunting rifles are made this way, and also many shotguns.
Fully automatic- Pull the trigger, it shoots until you let off or run out.
(selective fire not included for simplicity)

Assault weapon
One side- any gun with a set of possibly scary looking features. Pistol grips accessory mounting rails, that perforated tube grip thingy on the front etc.
Other side
a- There isn't really any such thing, no manufacturer calls their product that.
b- There are however guns that are fully automatic. And these have been heavily regulated for close to 90 years.

The key laws covering fully automatic.
1934 NFA. requires tons of paperwork, a then heavy tax on transfer, and registration, and an in depth background check. For all automatic weapons as well as a host of others, like shotguns with less than 18 inch barrels, weapons built as part of another object like a sword cane. and much more. Last I checked, only three crimes had been committed with an NFA registered firearm.

1968 Gun control act
Until this went into effect, it was possible to register a previously unregistered NFA weapon. So if you inherited grand uncle Eddies tommy gun you could make it legal. After? Not so much.
(A friend considered buying a sword cane, and NFA item, but it was not registered. He asked the ATF the question hypothetically what it would require to make it legal, and the answer was reams of probably unavailable paperwork, and even then they might not do it. )

1986 gun owners protection act.
Made transfer of fully automatic firearms illegal unless the firearm was legally owned prior to May 19 1986

Making Uncle Eddies Tommy gun worth a bundle of cash! Hope your relatives registered it...
-------------------------

In my opinion, the assault weapons bans we have had are basically banning things based on their appearance.
Many hunting or target shooting rifles are much more powerful than an AR-15, but are "safe" because they have no features that make them look like a modern military firearm.
Sort of like banning a car because it's a "sports car" which would also ban most Volkswagen Beetle based kit cars. but the Tesla performance models that look like a fairly ordinary car would be just fine.

I would bet anything that more than 50% of people who want to ban "assault rifles" think the "AR" in AR-15 stands for "Assault Rifle."

Your post is right, and I think most of the gun banning crowd are pretty ignorant of these facts.

I would support

More in depth background checks
Better reporting of problematic behavior so the current background checks could catch it. That failing seems to be very common in mass shootings.
Opening up the backround check system to the public. Mass currently requires a background check on private sales, but they must be done by a licensed dealer. A financial gift to the few remaining around here.

more support for mental illness both detection and treatment.
An easier path to restricting someone whose mental illness shows up in violent tendencies.

Redefining what a mass shooting is.
Currently it's any shooting with more than a certain number of victims. (I think it's 3, but could be wrong)
So many things are included in that, from the obvious ones where someone shoots at a random group at an event, to a gang shooting up a rival gangs corner, to someone taking out their own family to a brawl at an event leading to shootings.
All tragic, but all so very different and not worthy of being lumped together under the same heading.

“Assault Weapon” - a term made by banners that has no consistent definition or actual meaning, varying between jurisdiction and banning mostly cosmetic features, almost always rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what that thing even is or mechanically does.

“Assault Rifle” - an actual mechanical thing, a class of rifle that has largely supplanted the battle rifle in military service. An assault rifle is a rifle or carbine, that used a detachable box magazine (a clip is something different), an intermediate lower powered cartridge, and the ability to fire more than one round with a pull of a trigger. Civilian AR-15’s are, factually, not assault rifles.

I think my posts have pretty well identified the actual root causes of why we're seeing an uptick in school shootings/violence in society. It will takes a few generations to correct these issues, so in the meantime, my goal is to make sure any potential shooter is down/dead before the kids/teachers are. Fighting fire with fire in this case IS a viable solution.

I guess if we are calling people who don't want unfettered access "banners", I'll use "willy-nillys" to differentiate the groups.

The willy-nillys fought with all of it's might background checks and waiting periods. They still fight the closing of the 'gun show loophole'. The FBI doesn't complete background checks on hundreds of thousands of requests within the 3 day period (noted, not all result in purchase), meaning that legally, the sale can be completed. (Although the few gun shops I have patronized made it clear that they wait for the background all clear.)

Waiting period / background checks have been shown to put a dent in ineligible individuals purchasing firearms legally. Something like 35% rejection due to felonies or DVI's. Make every purchase everywhere subject to the same standards.

Also, I fully support charging individuals who have their unsecured / unattended firearms stolen / accessed and subsequently used in a felony. And, no, in the center console of your unlocked vehicle is NOT secured.

Willy nillys, who's with me?

"Banners" was used while discussing bans on mostly cosmetic features and design elements. So quite literally.... banning.

I am somewhat surprised at how much of this thread has been spent with people getting upset at or refusing to use the dictionary. This is not usually such a problem in these debates elsewhere.

Good effort but you will not get thoughtful responses.

They are thoughtful responses you just don't like them because they do not agree with you.

I HAVE had a gun stolen out of my locked house. Why by any stretch of the imagination should I be held responseable for a gun that some POS stole from me?

I was working at Whiteman AFB and living off base. I had a week off so took a short vacation. When I got home one of my guns was missing. I instantly called the PoPo to report it. They did show up but acted like it was no big deal and didn't even want to do a report.

Weirdly the thieves stole by far the cheapest gun of the 4 in the room a Ruger 9mm. I did get it back almost a year later because it ended up being 2 people that broke into my house. One of them got arrested on a different charge and turned in his friend for stealing my gun to get his current charges reduced.

Well you see, you should be charged with a crime because holding the actual criminal responsible does little to serve the political agenda, while if you are held responsible they can score some points. We're right back to a few hundred posts ago, just criminalizing the other side, regardless of how many other principles, laws and rights must be trampled or ceded in order to do so.


Let's see if anyone will agree with this new legal principle when it is applied to anything beyond guns, that if the victim of a crime does not do enough to stop the crime, they are legally culpable and should be charged (I am unclear if the argument is that they should be charged with a new crime of negligence or that they should be charged with the acts of the actual perpetrator).

1) A homeowner has a hammer stolen from their garage. The hammer is unsecured, the garage door unlocked but closed. The burglar later uses the hammer in a homicide. Should the homeowner be charged with a crime and imprisoned?

2) A young woman walks down a dark alley in a seedy side of town late at night in a very short skirt. Is she to be charged alongside her rapist?

3) A man wearing nice clothes that signal he has some wealth is out in a high-crime neighborhood. He is robbed, and offers no real resistance to the robber. Is he to be charged alongside the robber?

The answer, of course, is no. Charging the victim of the crime is, of course, a complete bastardization of the purpose of law. It violates every liberal principle. History shows us that principles are easily ignored when one sees a chance to criminalize people they don't like.

I can't wait to see what the next loony proposal is to criminalize groups of people someone doesn't like.

Thoughtful responses do not have to agree with me by any stretch. A serious response addressing points is what is thoughtful. Yours qualifies in my view. I think the idea is if you have weapons, don’t secure them, and a child in your home gains access to it and goes on a shooting spree then you face consequences. Not if someone breaks into a safe.

Ben, in 10 pages there have been many attempts to label any group other than the willy nillys as "banners". When several (apparently) WNINO posted a suggestion that 'made sense and they could live with', REAL willy nillys threw down the "what part of shall nots" and "criminals don't follow laws' tripe.

OK. So let's grant that any firearm located in a home (couch, microwave, cereal box, safe) is considered secure and not subject to possible prosecution. Let's say LOCKED vehicles are secure.

Can we agree that storing in an unlocked vehicle is not? And if it is stolen that it just might be considered negligent? Who knows, maybe if it is found on some kids shooting cans in a field, a fine approximately like parking at an expired meter. If it's used to shoot a convenience store clerk, I'd have to insist on a minimum of a running a red-light ticket.

Edit: post not directed at Ben personally. :)

Because of the location I live and the way it works here. I can only say no matter the location of the gun the thief is responsable period. As an example it is hot as BLEEP here today. I can guarantee I can go to the parking lot of easily 5 different stores and there will be a vehicle with the windows open and a gun out in the open.

In all seriousness if the window is open or the car is locked with the windows up. The difference between the time it would take to steal the gun is at the most 5 seconds. To me it is plain and simple, you only punish the thief.

Now a gun laying out in the open around small kids is a whole different thing.

The one thing I hope we can all agree on is our dfferences on this subject stay in this section. As an example I think every post a fellow member made in the Covid thread is beyond moronic. Saying that I personaly think he is a great guy and would never hold that one small thing against him in the overall scheme of life. I truly wish you all a great day if we agree or not.:)

Only here can a victim become the perpetrator and be held liable ...
I sure hope my axes, chainsaws, kitchen knives are never stolen and used in any kind of assault.... wait does that make it an assault kitchen knife..

If you have a gun which can legitimately kill many people rather quickly, take reasonable steps to prevent it from be used by someone else to do bad things. A knife does not carry the same risk. It’s a cavalier post like that that makes me scared about what’s going on with these guns. Be responsible owners. Seems like it should be a basic requirement but it has not been.

Differing opinions or ignorance of a subject matter may be frustrating sometimes, but is just discussion or debate. For me, it rarely affects a relationship. I don't speak to one acquaintance anymore due to Qanon, JFK Jr, Jewish space laser stuff. :rolleyes: That is not just a difference of opinion.

But I will not tolerate racists, anti-Semites, or 'true' homophobes. That is not just a difference of opinion. :mad:
Just a bigot, I still have hope. ;)

right i dated a girl who said she understand what mainstream historians say what happened in the holocaust and she asked what does the 'other' side say...i said there is no other side...

As for being responsible for no matter what for having a gun stolen under 'strict liability' you rarely would see that...i do support making people purchase insurance in order to own certain guns or to be able to carry them on your person as opposed to in your home ..

To illustrate the absurdity, and the extreme lenghts some anti-gun people will go, there is a movement now for victims of shootings to sue gunmakers.

A company makes a legal product which is not defective and works as intended, but they are sued because a criminal uses it to hurt someone.

This kind of thing is why I'm generally suspicious of people who point first at the gun, rather than the criminal, when assigning blame.

But it is OK for Congress to pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued? I know that issue was at the tippy-top of Americans' list of priorities. No faith in the legal system?

It’s ironic the same people that have a gun taken from them don’t want repercussion but guessing they want a female victim of rape to bear the burden of that crime. Sigh. Feels like we’re regressing.

I think a product, that is legal, must be defective in order to bring suit against it. If I get hit by a guy with a baseball bat, I think it would likewise be absurd for me to sue Hillerich & Bradsby.

When people propose 10,000% taxes on ammunition, or try to sue gun manufacturers out of business, it's just an end run around the 2nd Amendment.

Then they should have written the law to protect all manufacturers of any product, no?

And if you and 17 others were killed at 30 yds by a Louisville slugger, I would file an amicus curiae on your behalf. I think a hammer would be more of a threat though. More aerodynamic.

This never happened. They did not pass a law prohibiting gun manufacturers from being sued.

A law was passed in 2005 to ease the burden of frivolous lawsuits,banning sueing gun manufacturers and dealers for a lawful sale or manufacture of an arm that a criminal later used in a crime (which were mostly losing in court already). Just like how you won't have success suing Dewalt because a family member was killed with a hammer. A gun company or dealer can be sued for pretty much everything else, like any other company, and they are.

There was one guy in here arguing using actual facts earlier, but most of the rest of the arguments from the other side have just used claims that are simply factually wrong, misunderstood existing regulations, and made claims about guns that are mechanically false.

Same thing was said about cigarettes. I tend to agree though - if the law allows it, a manufacturer shouldn’t be sued for producing what is legal at the time. A seller that doesn’t follow the rules though, they should be held accountable.

"To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued
against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms
or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the
misuse of their products by others."

Sounds pretty prohibity to me? Any other codified restrictions for any other industry, offhand? Who decides frivolous? People who also cite the "McD's coffee lawsuit?

They also throw "trade associations" into the mix. Wonder who wrote the text?

The portion you pointed too is exactly what I said. It bars them from being sued because somebody else misused their product, a very narrow and specific type of frivolous lawsuit. Read the bill. Read what you quoted. It is not a general prohibition against sueing them, they can be sued and are sued. They are legally liable for all of their actions like anyone else and any other company. They just aren’t legally liable for the actions of other people. Just as a lawsuit against a knife manufacturer because a person stabbed someone will not succeed.

The reason the bill was for gun manufacturers specifically is because these frivolous lawsuits started to be used as a political bludgeon, to tie up manufacturers in expensive lawsuits to try and pull an end run around the 2nd. The left doesn’t seem to care about suing manufacturers of other objects used in murders, because it doesn’t further a political goal. There appears to be no political will from them to address homicides not committed with a gun.

As I have saud before, there are plenty of legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation. It continues to baffle me why none of them are used, and instead claims that are simply factually false are made instead. Almost every claim to fact used to support an opinion being made by banners and regulators in this thread is simply and provably false, misstating existing regulations, being mechanically wrong, and refusing to learn what the terms they throw around actually even mean. Manufacturers and dealers are liable for all of their actions, and few industries have to go through as much monitoring as they do. Research what happens to FFL’s who break the rules. There is not a prohibition on suing them; you just have to sue them for their own actions and not the actions of people they are not affiliated with.

Can you provide a summation of this study?

I've seen videos of car chases, where the criminal jacks someone else's car and does property damage/physical harm to others. Should the owner of the car that was stolen be charged?

We should have common sense laws restricting Assault Paper that causes paper cuts.

Pretty sure Big Pharma is protected by this exact thing, including most recently their COVID "vaccines".

So no, very little faith in the legal system.

I'd be interested to read what you think are the legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation.

Thanks

I posted some of them earlier in this thread. You’re welcome.

Agreed. It’s simply look at the second. Well I can look at the first and understand there have been many, many legitimate restrictions placed on speech and religion that do not run afoul. When it comes to the second, any legitimate restrictions are met with such odd protest. No one is trying to ban guns. Just trying to balance good and bad and save lives at the end of the day.

Yes, some people are. 10,000% tax on ammunition, suing gun manufacturers as being responsible for murderers using their products to commit crime... these are not reasonable things and are clearly designed to drive gun manufacturers and retailers out of business.

There ARE people trying to ban guns and they are coming at it from several different angles, including, someday, tearing down the 2nd Amendment.

And who will be the big winners? Gang members and other assorted murderers, who will have an entire society of defenseless sheep to slaughter with little concern for their own safety. And, like cocaine, heroin, and other illegal things, they will have another product (guns) they can sell at huge markups, since they'll have a monopoly on that business.

cgjackson222 proposed banning semi-auto and anything capable of holding more than 5 rounds, as I recall, constituting most all post-civil war technology.

The troll whose views flipped around once he saw an opening for his personal vendetta proposed a de facto ban on every gun of any kind with a 10,000x tax on any ammunition.

Several others have proposed bans too but aren’t in the current rendition of the debate.

Words have actual meanings. Anyone with a dictionary knows this.

This is what I’m talking about when I point out the lack of sensible argument from the other side. Don’t try and have it both ways and straight up lie about terms, existing bills, and mechanics. Pretending that a ban isn’t a ban is just idiotic. Make a logically valid argument (I.e., a good one - one that is not self contradictory, and consistent with the dictionary and verifiable facts). It is not difficult to do so. I’m an idiot, the rest of you can surely make an argument that passes elementary Aristotelian logic.

An argument should always be valid, whether one agrees with it or not. This simple hurdle still isn’t being cleared. Logic is 2,500 years old and has not changed much, one doesn’t need to be a scholar to get the basics and form a coherent, rational thought. Insisting that words do not mean what they mean, that mechanical items perform in a way they factually do not, and being dead wrong about existing laws do not form a logical argument.

This is really not hard. It’s difficult to fathom how a logical argument still hasn’t been made.

I understand that fear but I don’t think it’s warranted. Most sensible people on the left do not want to leave you defenseless a d let that be the outcome. They’re truly just trying to work on a better solution to these mass shooting, and admittedly not focusing as much as they should on single killings. At any rate, work with them, don’t assume they are villains.

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

Okay, I'll just read all 400 of your posts....

When you get done could you please update all of us?:rolleyes:;):D

I think I've acted as curator here enough; that your side has several times needed me to find the posts for them to try and attack is a little weird. You could read 777 to start.

I post too much. Got me there. Man, I've been burned real good.

They might not mind if you completely agreed with them.

We seem to have a lot of those threads. PWCC, PSA, eBay trying to protect buyers, the list could go on and on. They do make for fun reading though.

Haha

Not sure why you've pointed me to post #777. I don't see any legitimate arguments against the 2nd and for regulation in that one. Just you droning on again, lecturing us about logic.

I oppose the current system that lets a kid buy a gun legally and then use it a day or two later to blow up a bunch of school kids and teachers. You seem to be ok with this and not realize the good guy with a gun theory is bs. It’s weird.

I'll probably regret this, but if it is nearly impossible to identify school shooters, what exactly makes you think you would be successful identifying law abiding, trained, concerned personnel?

It's a good place to start, since you apparently need help in making a logical argument. I'm sure your side can do it. I'm sure you could read the previous post specifically naming several of the routes to go to use a consistent and logical argument, if you still can't figure out how a logical argument works to make one yourself.

With all of my droning on, I'm sure you can find something to legitimately attack very quickly.

Nice non-response. You have advocated leaving kids in schools defenseless.

How do you know who is going to go on a killing spree before it happens? If we locked up people who wrote about butchering other people, killing family members with guns, knives, or chainsaws, Stephen King would've been incarcerated these past 50 years.

It is pretty easy to identify a security guard or a police officer with a cursory background check, as most employers do. Are we going to claim we cannot identify people without a criminal record and a valid security guard permit? This is a simple thing. I don't really think a security guard will do much, but it is very easy to identify qualified individuals for the job.

Not every post is an "attack" on you. Was hoping we could potentially find some common ground if you actually feel there are some legitimate ways to further regulate guns. Alas, it was wishful thinking.

I have repeatedly said, in posts in the earlier part of the debate you were in, I do not support gun control and I support the 2nd Amendment. That is completely different from a good argument, i.e. a logically valid one. There are plenty of valid arguments I disagree with, most debates have valid arguments on both sides. Alas, it was wishful thinking to think one might finally be presented here.

Better be careful though, at this rate you'll have a significant number of posts soon and merit some scorn.

You think everyone is "scorning" and "attaching" you. I was simply pointing out that it was a big ask to have someone sift through all of your posts to find one of your points. But if you want to get your nose bent out of shape every 5 seconds, that's up to you.

Your last few posts are complaining that I post too much and insulting me. Which is fine, but yes, attack is the correct word for it.

Congrats, you’ve found a typographical error to hit me with. Double burn.

If you want to engage intellectually, you should understand that reading peoples' well thought out and informative posts is a prerequisite.

It seems you want to argue but are too lazy to read what is posted.

Yeah, too lazy to read almost 800 posts. Shame on me.

Let me just quit my job and put my 5 year-old up for adoption, then I'll read your posts.

You have time to post inane comments like this, but not to actually read what is being discussed. As a result, you are contributing very little to the discussion. Just an observation.

"I want to engage on the issue seriously, but I won't read the thread or the posts by the people I am claiming I want to engage intellectually with. Logic is a drone. I don't have time to read."

What a clown show lol.

Believe me, I've tried. Rather than go on personal diatribes, I usually cite links to arguments. Here is one that goes through a lot of the arguments that pro-gun rights folks have: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-t...b0666ad0c3cb34

I don't expect you to read it, but by your standard, I guess you have to.