Gun ownership poll

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As a personal view, no. In the US, though, as a country founded on and prizing the value of personal freedoms, outlawing it (and incentivizing citizens to spy on and report to the authorities their neighbors who are involved in it) is extreme. (Not to mention cruel, as those most harmed by such policies are the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford to travel for the procedure, or to financially support a child they forced by the state to have.)

It would not be productive to debate it, but I disagree strongly that the vast majority of pro-life people are "extremists." I would acknowledge there are some whose tactics I don't particularly favor.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It would not be productive to debate it, but I disagree strongly that the vast majority of pro-life people are "extremists." I would acknowledge there are some whose tactics I don't particularly favor.

Peter, that's not what I meant to imply. I view as extreme some of those "tactics"; one could easily come up with something "extreme" on the other side, too... Imagine if a "blue" state instituted universally available over-the-counter contraception for women beginning at age 12. This would, in my view, rightfully be viewed by many as "extreme".

In a way, this ties back to the issue of our country as a whole. Things are just so polarized, that "extreme" doesn't even have an agreed-upon definition anymore...

[Peter_Spaeth]

We are certainly polarized these days, but I think abortion always has been and will be a polarizing issue due to its nature, whether or not society as a whole is more or less polarized.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

We are certainly polarized these days, but I think abortion always has been and will be a polarizing issue due to its nature, whether or not society as a whole is more or less polarized.

I mostly agree, although it's interesting to compare the US on this issue to countries like El Salvador and Finland, where there is less polarization on the issue (and very different policies). Of course, religion is the elephant in the room, but I don't want to go there!

[jingram058]

Look here, I had a Top Secret clearance in the Navy. I cannot talk about it to any degree, but I know what the Intel community as a whole collects and analyzes. I know how they do it. It really isn't hard to collect and analyze millions upon millions of pieces of info from millions of people, and analyze it. All I am saying is pass that info to law enforcement before, not after. You can stop the vast majority of these events in their tracks. It's that simple. First you have to want to. The lobby and the money make it such that this will go on and on.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Look here, I had a Top Secret clearance in the Navy. I cannot talk about it to any degree, but I know what the Intel community as a whole collects and analyzes. I know how they do it. It really isn't hard to collect and analyze millions upon millions of pieces of info from millions of people, and analyze it. All I am saying is pass that info to law enforcement before, not after. You can stop the vast majority of these events in their tracks. It's that simple. First you have to want to. The lobby and the money make it such that this will go on and on.

It’s my Net54 refrain, but an appeal to authority is not a logical argument. It is not personal, but ‘look here I know’ is not a rational argument. I’m glad it’s so easy though and we can stop tragedies by conducting this constant surveillance and deep checks on half of America (even though they already are subject to background checks). Have the Dems put it into a bill with the specifics of what is to be covered (still vague) now that BATFE is missing in the existing check.

There’s no evidence that background checks work or actually stop shooters, and significant evidence that they don’t. Do we really believe that a person who wants to shoot up a school will just give up if denied by the local gun store, and follow the law?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Look here, I had a Top Secret clearance in the Navy. I cannot talk about it to any degree, but I know what the Intel community as a whole collects and analyzes. I know how they do it. It really isn't hard to collect and analyze millions upon millions of pieces of info from millions of people, and analyze it. All I am saying is pass that info to law enforcement before, not after. You can stop the vast majority of these events in their tracks. It's that simple. First you have to want to. The lobby and the money make it such that this will go on and on.

What "lobby" is stopping the "intel community" from sharing information about forthcoming crimes with law enforcement?

[Steve D]

My take on it is this:

Why do we not have security at our schools?

We have hardened our airports; TSA checkpoints.

We have armed security at federal buildings/courthouses; You have to go through a metal detector to get in.

Why do we continue to have schools with absolutely no security? From what I've read and heard, the Uvalde school district has eight schools, yet they have only four security personnel; and no one was at the elementary school the day of the shooting!

From all the information we have so far, the punk crashed his vehicle next to the school. He then shot at two people at a funeral home, which is across the street from where he crashed his vehicle, and the school. Personnel in the school heard the gunshots! So, why was a door left open for the perp to go in?

I'm not saying there should be metal detectors at schools; maybe there should be.....maybe not. There does, however, at an absolute minimum, need to be a single point-of-entry for schools, for regular people to go through! There needs to be armed security personnel at these entry points!

In most of these school shootings, the common thread is a complete lack of security, allowing bad actors to get in. This is what needs to stop!

Why do we not protect our children as well as we protect courtrooms and airplanes?

To answer the OP's question, I am a gun owner. I own a few pistols (both semi-auto and revolver), but no rifles.

Steve

[todeen]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As a personal view, no. In the US, though, as a country founded on and prizing the value of personal freedoms, outlawing it (and incentivizing citizens to spy on and report to the authorities their neighbors who are involved in it) is extreme. (Not to mention cruel, as those most harmed by such policies are the poor, who are less likely to be able to afford to travel for the procedure, or to financially support a child they forced by the state to have.)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It would not be productive to debate it, but I disagree strongly that the vast majority of pro-life people are "extremists." I would acknowledge there are some whose tactics I don't particularly favor.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Yes, haven't you been keeping up with social media? Those anti-abortionists are showing up at the homes of supreme court justices protesting and threatening them, making other terroristic threats if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, threatening churches, threatening that there will be "blood in the streets" and...oh, wait...that would be the ones in favor of abortion. My bad. Carry on.

I can see I opened a can of worms. What I meant with my post was to highlight extremes on both right and left. I don't condone violence. While I am actively religious, some efforts by some of my Christian brethren I deem damaging to Christianity. I disagreed with such close affiliation with Pres Trump. Those who were not religious and Democrat were very put off by this close connection. My sect of faith actively proselytes, and the four years of Trumps presidency I view as very negative years for any and all Christian sects. Now the possible overturning of Roe v Wade could further damage the Christian brand in the US as non-religious folk (an ever growing crowd in the USA) feel like religion is being shoved down their throat.

The sad events coming out with the sex abuse cover up with with Evangelical church I feel is seen as further hypocrisy to the same crowd. It makes me worried about tit-for-tat politics in the future that could negatively affect me.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk