Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Lots of evidence against him. Innocent until proven guilty tends to be selectively used to defend people who you like or with whom you side. Carrying it as a mantra to replace your own reasonable thoughts about whether a person did something or not is pretty silly. The law has technicalities - facts do not.

There’s lots of evidence against Kavanaugh and Thomas? Where? They were able to produce essentially none but a politically convenient claim.

Nobody has made a contradiction or double standard. You’re just accusing him of it because of an assumption you’ve made up?

None of which has anything to do with the subject of the thread.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

There’s lots of evidence against Kavanaugh and Thomas? Where? They were able to produce essentially none but a politically convenient claim.

Nobody has made a contradiction or double standard. You’re just accusing him of it because of an assumption you’ve made up?

None of which has anything to do with the subject of the thread.

To circulate back to the subject of the thread, I think there are very few restrictions that will pass Sup Ct review for the foreseeable future so the debate seems more theoretical than anything else. I think that’s bad, you likely think that’s good. That’s about where we are.

[Mark17]

Regarding schools, there are common sense proposals out there, like locking all side doors and only having one main entrance open, and that with one or two armed guards and metal detectors (same type of setup as airports have when people board airplanes.)

Do a little research to see who's been proposing such solutions, and who has been opposing them.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Regarding schools, there are common sense proposals out there, like locking all side doors and only having one main entrance open, and that with one or two armed guards and metal detectors (same type of setup as airports have when people board airplanes.)

Do a little research to see who's been proposing such solutions, and who has been opposing them.

If common sense is not common, perhaps another term is more appropriate.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

If common sense is not common, perhaps another term is more appropriate.

When I use the term "common sense" I am referring to clear thinking, logical people. You are correct, those people are not as common as I wish.

Do you think that proposal - single entry/exit to schools (excluding fire emergency exits of course) and metal detectors and armed guards - would be a good idea? Do you think it's a good policy at airports?

Again I urge you and anyone else to take a couple minutes to see who has been proposing, and who has been opposing, such measures.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When I use the term "common sense" I am referring to clear thinking, logical people. You are correct, those people are not as common as I wish.

Do you think that proposal - single entry/exit to schools (excluding fire emergency exits of course) and metal detectors and armed guards - would be a good idea? Do you think it's a good policy at airports?

Again I urge you and anyone else to take a couple minutes to see who has been proposing, and who has been opposing, such measures.

That is not a world I want my kids to live in. We can do better. I also vehemently distrust the willingness of someone with a gun to take a bullet for kids that are not his or her own. Would rather do our best to have less guns and bullets near kids in the first place.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

That is not a world I want my kids to live in. We can do better. I also vehemently distrust the willingness of someone with a gun to take a bullet for kids that are not his or her own. Would rather do our best to have less guns and bullets near kids in the first place.

Are you suggesting when a mass shooting begins, police should not be called in to stop it? I mean, they would be bringing guns into the school and besides, you wouldn't trust them to be of help anyway.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When I use the term "common sense" I am referring to clear thinking, logical people. You are correct, those people are not as common as I wish.

Do you think that proposal - single entry/exit to schools (excluding fire emergency exits of course) and metal detectors and armed guards - would be a good idea? Do you think it's a good policy at airports?

Again I urge you and anyone else to take a couple minutes to see who has been proposing, and who has been opposing, such measures.

None of those ideas are without merit. They do pose some challenges, however. Please take the following for what it is; clearly we are on opposite sides on some issues, but, as I pointed out to Greg earlier, I am a second amendment supporter.

The single-entry approach is currently in widespread use as I understand it, and IIRC the Uvalde school even had this. One issue with metal detectors (in schools and airports) is that it slows down the process of getting in, to the point where, much like flying, students would end up having to get there much earlier than unusual and stand in a long line. I know I hate that aspect of flying, and I don't love the idea of making that a part of every child's school day. Putting more guns in schools may end up working in some ways or some situations, but generally I think fewer guns in schools tends to be better. I suppose we'd all get used to it eventually (as we have with more armed guards/dogs at airports, transit hubs, etc.) but I miss the pre-9/11 days in that aspect.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Vax "mandates" were not forcing someone to do something against their will. It was the definition of "choice". Get a vaccine to protect society at large, or find another job, just not on the government teat.

Is this sarcasm or are you being serious?

Hope-cine should be the name, not vaccine, especially when they changed the definition of it.
https://twitter.com/plmilligan1968/s...not-science%2F

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

None of those ideas are without merit. They do pose some challenges, however. Please take the following for what it is; clearly we are on opposite sides on some issues, but, as I pointed out to Greg earlier, I am a second amendment supporter.

The single-entry approach is currently in widespread use as I understand it, and IIRC the Uvalde school even had this. One issue with metal detectors (in schools and airports) is that it slows down the process of getting in, to the point where, much like flying, students would end up having to get there much earlier than unusual and stand in a long line. I know I hate that aspect of flying, and I don't love the idea of making that a part of every child's school day. Putting more guns in schools may end up working in some ways or some situations, but generally I think fewer guns in schools tends to be better. I suppose we'd all get used to it eventually (as we have with more armed guards/dogs at airports, transit hubs, etc.) but I miss the pre-9/11 days in that aspect.

It works at airports, and some government buildings to protect our esteemed politicians. But you don't want kids to have the same protection.

You say you want "fewer guns in schools" as though there's little difference who has those guns. I want fewer guns in the hands of mass murderers, but since it is usually rather difficult to predict who and when that will happen, I like the idea of guns in the hands of law enforcement. This is something I wish we could agree was "common sense" but you are proof it isn't common.

The shooter at Uvalde got in through a side door.