Gun ownership poll

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

They don’t want guns near their kids. You do.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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

Can we ask them how they feel about more gun restrictions, background checks, and red flag laws, too?

[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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

Yeah, you’re right, just trolling. Don’t think these issues are important. Have fun with your guns. I started out earlier in this thread thinking people should find a way to improve the situation. You and your cohort’s straw men arguments make me understand why there’s no ability to find common ground. Have a good one.

[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.

[G1911]

I am for a cop in schools. My state university, of a normal size, had an entire police department to bust students for a dime bag or drinking at 19. They can easily afford to put a cop in each elementary school. I get that making money off speeding tickets or arresting college kids for victimless crime is easier for police departments, but I cannot fathom why protecting kids should not be the priority. It would be a good PR move for them as well, an image of protecting kids will probably play better than hustling people for victimless petty crap.

I am against metal detectors in public schools, on 4th amendment grounds that searching every single person who enters a building (which they are effectively compelled to do by the state) is not reasonable cause for search. I am against it at airports for the same reason - reasonable cause is necessary to search. I am fine with it if a private business makes their own rules, but government needs to follow the Constitution. I am aware this view will probably be agreed with by nobody.