Gun ownership poll

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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.

Why would I suggest that? When police roll in they have strength in numbers. Or at least they should - in Texas they dropped the ball it seems. It’s the effectiveness of an armed person at the school that I think you overestimate.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Why would I suggest that? When police roll in they have strength in numbers. Or at least they should - in Texas they dropped the ball it seems. It’s the effectiveness of an armed person at the school that I think you overestimate.

So, are you saying you oppose having armed guards in schools (because you want fewer guns in schools) UNLESS there are 15 or 20 of them so they have strength in numbers?

[Deertick]

[QUOTE=irv;2237369]Is this sarcasm or are you being serious?

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.

/QUOTE]

Yes

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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.

Thankfully it ended up working at the Capitol. God bless those armed officers.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Thankfully it ended up working at the Capitol. God bless those armed officers.

So…. You’re saying it works but you don’t want to consider it because it’s not banning or de facto banning guns?

Are you actually a pro-2A plant to make the banners look bad?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

So…. You’re saying it works but you don’t want to consider it because it’s not banning or de facto banning guns?

Are you actually a pro-2A plant to make the banners look bad?

Big difference between having guns defend a government building and planting them at a school where my kids go. Don’t want kids to have to live their lives around armed guards and metal detectors. Think for a second. Thanks in advance!

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Big difference between having guns defend a government building and planting them at a school where my kids go. Don’t want kids to have to live their lives around armed guards and metal detectors. Think for a second. Thanks in advance!

Ask the parents of the murdered kids how THEY feel about it.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Big difference between having guns defend a government building and planting them at a school where my kids go. Don’t want kids to have to live their lives around armed guards and metal detectors. Think for a second. Thanks in advance!

I’m sorry, I’ve had it wrong this whole time. You’ve got to just be trolling. Random topic switches, making the worst and most inconsistent argument at every turn, talking exactly how right wingers parody their opposition. This has to be a joke. Well done.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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.

As you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth in order to argue with your straw man, I'll end this exchange. I should have realized that attempting to communicate with you was going to be a fruitless task when you (without sarcasm, apparently) decried my opinion that too many decisions are being made by groups of old rich men as "sexist" and then went on shortly thereafter to imply that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford were full of shit. You just can't make this stuff up.

It seems to me that you are proof that in our Divided States of America, reasonable conversation of controversial issues may not be worth attempting. Good luck and good evening to you.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth in order to argue with your straw man, I'll end this exchange. I should have realized that attempting to communicate with you was going to be a fruitless task when you (without sarcasm, apparently) decried my opinion that too many decisions are being made by groups of old rich men as "sexist" and then went on shortly thereafter to imply that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford were full of shit. You just can't make this stuff up.

It seems to me that you are proof that in our Divided States of America, reasonable conversation of controversial issues may not be worth attempting. Good luck and good evening to you.

Can’t make it up. Ford sure did though. There’s never been a case with less evidence than hers.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

As you insist on continuing to put words in my mouth in order to argue with your straw man, I'll end this exchange. I should have realized that attempting to communicate with you was going to be a fruitless task when you (without sarcasm, apparently) decried my opinion that too many decisions are being made by groups of old rich men as "sexist" and then went on shortly thereafter to imply that Anita Hill and Christine Blasey Ford were full of shit. You just can't make this stuff up.

It seems to me that you are proof that in our Divided States of America, reasonable conversation of controversial issues may not be worth attempting. Good luck and good evening to you.

It was Christine Blasey Ford's OWN WITNESSES that said she was mistaken. I believed them.

I don't know if Anita Hill was telling the truth or not.

What I take issue with is the notion that you need a woman to provide "the female" point of view, or you need an Asian person to provide "the Asian" point of view. Because, if you mostly have "old rich men" you will only have the "old rich man" point of view. It is simplistic.

I'm all for diversity because it is fair, and the most qualified people should always be the best choices regardless of any attribute like gender, race, hat size, weight, etc.

Your opposition to protecting kids in schools with metal (gun) detectors and armed guards tells me all I need to know about your "concern" for the kids. You only want armed law enforcement on scene after the kids have begun to get killed.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Your opposition to protecting kids in schools with metal (gun) detectors and armed guards tells me all I need to know about your "concern" for the kids. You only want armed law enforcement on scene after the kids have begun to get killed.

More straw man garbage. I don't think you even read my reply to you if you really believe that. Peace and be well.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

More straw man garbage. I don't think you even read my reply to you if you really believe that. Peace and be well.

Okay, I re-read your previous post. You were against the idea of metal detectors and armed guards in schools, but did concede some bit of merit in the idea. I infer you're maybe 70% opposed, maybe 30% willing to give it a try.

To me, given the fact we've had a lot of success in airports, and the fact politicians want their armed protection for themselves, that we should all agree kids in schools deserve the same protection, period.

Reality is, there are homicidal nut cases in this country. Yes it's annoying, but we need to protect ourselves and our kids, even when inconvenient.