Gun ownership poll

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

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.

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

When it is overturned, David, when.

[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

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Steve D

So, why was a door left open for the perp to go in?

A teacher purposely propped open that particular door and then wedged it with something to keep it open, that door is automatically locked from the outside at all times. I imagine that is very common at schools so the teachers can take a quick smoke or get on their phones for a little bit. ETA, I should have known better, now the "official line" is that a teacher slammed it closed but it but the perp was still able to enter through the door anyway.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I keep asking the same question. As I recall after Sandy Hook there was a big push to step up security in schools. What happened?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I keep asking the same question. As I recall after Sandy Hook there was a big push to step up security in schools. What happened?

There was no interest in any proposal besides even more restrictions on the 2nd.

[irv]

With our different culture and guns laws up here there is no way I can really relate to the guns issues that are being discussed in this thread but after I watched this one just recently, I wondered how accurate it is?


https://www.tiktok.com/@knowledgeequ...20276015877381

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

There was no interest in any proposal besides even more restrictions on the 2nd.

Move a few police officers from traffic details where you have two officers supervising one minor repair to guarding schools?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Move a few police officers from traffic details where you have two officers supervising one minor repair to guarding schools?

Oh I agree with you personally, but there has never been one of these incidents in which the gun banners were willing to consider any real legislation besides more regulation on a right generally utilized by their political enemies.

I don’t think it’s about trying to actually address the problem ina meaningful way for anti-2nd legislators, it’s about criminalizing their political opposition.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Move a few police officers from traffic details where you have two officers supervising one minor repair to guarding schools?

When I graduated, my high school was the largest (campus size, not population) in the state of Texas. It may still be, I don't know. We probably had 30 or more buildings, but I don't know exactly. I can tell you that included 4 cafeterias, 3 gymnasiums and 2 libraries. Each building probably had 4 entrances, so you're looking at 120+ entrances. It would be impossible to put a guard at every entrance or even 1 per building. Your idea would probably work at most schools, wouldn't have worked at mine.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don’t think it’s about trying to actually address the problem ina meaningful way for anti-2nd legislators, it’s about criminalizing their political opposition.

Here is a list of some laws passed in Connecticut after 20 children and 6 adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012:

https://patch.com/connecticut/across...-hook-shooting

For some of these, it seems quite a stretch to describe them as "for the purpose of criminalizing the political opposition".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Here is a list of some laws passed in Connecticut after 20 children and 6 adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012:

https://patch.com/connecticut/across...-hook-shooting

For some of these, it seems quite a stretch to describe them as "for the purpose of criminalizing the political opposition".

Adam Lanza used his mother's gun, no?

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Adam Lanza used his mother's gun, no?

Yes, he did.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Here is a list of some laws passed in Connecticut after 20 children and 6 adults were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012:

https://patch.com/connecticut/across...-hook-shooting

For some of these, it seems quite a stretch to describe them as "for the purpose of criminalizing the political opposition".

“Assault weapon” and “high capacity magazine” bans as this article leads off with are exactly what I’m talking about. These accomplish absolutely nothing, there is no evidence that they do. There is considerable evidence that they don’t. These are commonly owned normal firearms and parts and have been for over half a century. Banning standard capacity magazines does not save a single person. All it does is punish the other side.

Both sides like to trample on rights mostly used by the other side. Many of their voters will have a genuine sentiment, whether it’s the left thinking the State can somehow regulate guns to the point that a paradise comes into being or the right thinking that the murder of a fetus is a great moral wrong. Banning standard magazines, passing a bounty law to reward people who report their neighbors for abortions, politicians are well aware this does not actually address a real problem, it’s just to fire shots at their political opposition. I think it is a shame when they choose to do this instead of apply any reason to the problem.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Yes, he did.

So all the legislation in the world wouldn't have prevented it. Minimal security at the school might have, though.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So all the legislation in the world wouldn't have prevented it. Minimal security at the school might have, though.

That may or may not be true. I believe they also passed laws regarding storage of firearms in homes/vehicles, but I'd have to look that up.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

“Assault weapon” and “high capacity magazine” bans as this article leads off with are exactly what I’m talking about. These accomplish absolutely nothing, there is no evidence that they do. There is considerable evidence that they don’t. These are commonly owned normal firearms and parts and have been for over half a century. Banning standard capacity magazines does not save a single person. All it does is punish the other side.

Both sides like to trample on rights mostly used by the other side. Many of their voters will have a genuine sentiment, whether it’s the left thinking the State can somehow regulate guns to the point that a paradise comes into being or the right thinking that the murder of a fetus is a great moral wrong. Banning standard magazines, passing a bounty law to reward people who report their neighbors for abortions, politicians are well aware this does not actually address a real problem, it’s just to fire shots at their political opposition. I think it is a shame when they choose to do this instead of apply any reason to the problem.

Fair points and I understand where you're coming from. I recall reading that there was actually a drop in gun-related deaths in the years after these laws were passed, but there are obviously many factors to consider in evaluating that.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by irv

With our different culture and guns laws up here there is no way I can really relate to the guns issues that are being discussed in this thread but after I watched this one just recently, I wondered how accurate it is?


https://www.tiktok.com/@knowledgeequ...20276015877381

Pretty accurate, the exacts change year to year of course, but the vast majority of ‘gun deaths’ are suicides every year. After you take out those, you take out people shot and killed by the police (who of course are not regulated by gun restrictions), and rightful self defense shootings (most self defense uses of a firearm don’t result in a corpse or even a shooting, most of the time the gun doesn’t need to be discharged to neutralize the threat) you’re left with a very small number. And of that small number, almost all of them are handguns. The most commonly used cartridge in a murder is .22lr, the weakest commonly available round and the least reliable. On the macro level, it is incredibly rare for someone to be killed with a ‘scary rifle’ like an AR or an AK. Last I checked a few years ago, the FBI statistics reveal a person is more likely to be murdered with a hammer than with a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazine.

Personally, the framing of the debate reveals the political nature. If the purpose was humanitarian, we would look at murders, not ‘gun deaths’. The weapon used does not make a murder more or less tragic, but we act like it does because nobody politically cares about hammers or kitchen knives. That doesn’t score points for their side.

[Casey2296]

I'm pleasantly surprised that the members here can have a healthy respectful discussion about such a hot button topic, very refreshing and gives me hope.

[clydepepper]

I realize how blessed I am to be able to say that I've never owned a gun and, hopefully, never will.

I say I'm blessed because I know that not everyone can avoid firearms ownership for their entire life, but I have never wanted or needed one.

No real tips to pass along other than using common sense every day.

DEAD is FOREVER.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Being against abortion is "extreme"?

No, not in and of itself. But there are anti-abortion extremists. They have stalked, threatened, and attacked doctors who perform abortions.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[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

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

A teacher purposely propped open that particular door and then wedged it with something to keep it open, that door is automatically locked from the outside at all times. I imagine that is very common at schools so the teachers can take a quick smoke or get on their phones for a little bit.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I keep asking the same question. As I recall after Sandy Hook there was a big push to step up security in schools. What happened?

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh I agree with you personally, but there has never been one of these incidents in which the gun banners were willing to consider any real legislation besides more regulation on a right generally utilized by their political enemies.

I don’t think it’s about trying to actually address the problem ina meaningful way for anti-2nd legislators, it’s about criminalizing their political opposition.

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

When I graduated, my high school was the largest (campus size, not population) in the state of Texas. It may still be, I don't know. We probably had 30 or more buildings, but I don't know exactly. I can tell you that included 4 cafeterias, 3 gymnasiums and 2 libraries. Each building probably had 4 entrances, so you're looking at 120+ entrances. It would be impossible to put a guard at every entrance or even 1 per building. Your idea would probably work at most schools, wouldn't have worked at mine.

There is a negative relationship between education and police. People of color, who don't trust police, and who are allied with Democrat politicians, don't really want police in schools (I'm a moderate Democrat - a dying breed! I'm also a teacher). The official term is "school to prison pipeline." This looks at POC receiving much harder punishments for the same activities in school compared to white kids who are let off with a slap. This often comes down to white parents yell louder and appeal school discipline. POC who receive OSS numerous times eventually drop out, and this leads to higher crime rates.

You want a good read, check out the ongoing problem in Spokane WA. Spokane Public Schools vs Spokane PD & City Council. City Council asked FBI to get involved. SPS has a non written policy "do not contact the police." The front page headlines in Spokane could be many a district in this state. Teachers of both political parties don't feel safe, but this is a top down initiative starting in the state capitol. One veteran teacher said, "We let the inmates run the asylum."

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by todeen

No, not in and of itself. But there are anti-abortion extremists. They have stalked, threatened, and attacked doctors who perform abortions.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

Fair enough, as I said I don't condone that and don't think it helps the cause. But I think that once the S Ct opinion is official, you'll see some pretty unpalatable stuff from the so-called "rights" advocates as well.

[todeen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Fair enough, as I said I don't condone that and don't think it helps the cause. But I think that once the S Ct opinion is official, you'll see some pretty unpalatable stuff from the so-called "rights" advocates as well.

Yes. I told my wife that since 2016, the political air and distrust feels ripe for an assassination. Those people who feel that the SCOTUS was stolen from Democrats could feel very victimized by Mitch McConnells stunt in 2015 that allowed a 3 judge flip of SCOTUS.

Sent from my SM-G9900 using Tapatalk

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

When I graduated, my high school was the largest (campus size, not population) in the state of Texas. It may still be, I don't know. We probably had 30 or more buildings, but I don't know exactly. I can tell you that included 4 cafeterias, 3 gymnasiums and 2 libraries. Each building probably had 4 entrances, so you're looking at 120+ entrances. It would be impossible to put a guard at every entrance or even 1 per building. Your idea would probably work at most schools, wouldn't have worked at mine.

Easy.....put a fence around it. The high school I went to had around 25 or so buildings, about 1,600 students. They put up a tall solid fence around the school, with locking gates. You can do that at any school. Any time a gate is open, you have a security guard standing there.

Steve

[jingram058]

Well, a lot of talk after yet another round of events. But in the end, same old same old. Nothing will change. These things will continue to happen because those who could make changes happen do not want that.

[irv]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pretty accurate, the exacts change year to year of course, but the vast majority of ‘gun deaths’ are suicides every year. After you take out those, you take out people shot and killed by the police (who of course are not regulated by gun restrictions), and rightful self defense shootings (most self defense uses of a firearm don’t result in a corpse or even a shooting, most of the time the gun doesn’t need to be discharged to neutralize the threat) you’re left with a very small number. And of that small number, almost all of them are handguns. The most commonly used cartridge in a murder is .22lr, the weakest commonly available round and the least reliable. On the macro level, it is incredibly rare for someone to be killed with a ‘scary rifle’ like an AR or an AK. Last I checked a few years ago, the FBI statistics reveal a person is more likely to be murdered with a hammer than with a rifle with a pistol grip and detachable magazine.

Personally, the framing of the debate reveals the political nature. If the purpose was humanitarian, we would look at murders, not ‘gun deaths’. The weapon used does not make a murder more or less tragic, but we act like it does because nobody politically cares about hammers or kitchen knives. That doesn’t score points for their side.

I agree 100%. It's unfortunate that many don't see the virtue signaling, the politicization and the media spin that is put on these types of tragedies. Taking legal guns away from legal, rightful owners, like our PM is attempting to do, will not stop anything, but yet many still don't understand this, unfortunately.
https://www.tiktok.com/@garyramey1/v...kmXy8FTat&_r=1

https://youtu.be/vZSA7QjVT6A

Trudeau's new gun law doesn't target gun crime
https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...rget-gun-crime

[BobC]

I understand a lot of the positions and points people are making, but in the end, all a lot of you are proposing is really nothing more than putting a band-aid on an ever-increasing problem in our country. All that adding more controls and monitoring, background checks, security, and such, does is tantamount to treating the symptoms, and not actually working to even try to cure the underlying disease and its causes. The problem is, there is no really specific, direct cause that can be focused on to correct things.

Part of the problem may be in how we raise our children these days. Spanking or disciplining children back in the early baby boomer days was how children had been raised forever it would seem prior to, and up through, my generation. When I was a kid, if you got swatted at school, you prayed no one called and told your parents because if the school did, chances are you'd get an even worse whupping from your parents when you got home. Children were more often taught to respect and listen to adults and older people, not talk back, nor cause issues and obey the rules. Nowadays, kids are more often taught to stand up for themselves, question things and authority, and speak out and against others who are telling them what they should be doing. That kind of modern thinking, coupled with the information and images that our children are now bombarded with on a daily basis due to the internet, unfiltered images and information and lack of responsible censorship on TV, movies, and other media available to them, helps to put ideas and images into their heads. A lot of the TV shows and movies, especially those accessible on streaming and internet services, oftentimes show and glorify extremely violent and lethal images and ideas. The human brain is not fully developed and a person's persona and such not truly mature until someone reaches their mid to late 20's. All these changes and images and such affect and influence our thinking and actions growing up and developing into the people we become.

As such, mental health is probably another huge factor as well in at least some of these incidents. And let's face it, our country's handling of people with mental issues and disabilities isn't stellar. More often than not, we try to sweep such people under the rug, and end up leaving it to our law enforcement to take over in such situations. I've heard that possibly 30%-40% of those people in our prisons today actually suffer from some form or type of mental illness or mental deficiency. Our society would probably be better served as a whole by not just locking them up and throwing them into our penal system. But that is what our society does, out of sight, out of mind, right? Even drug use can be hugely affected by mental issues. Many, many, many young people in their teens and early 20's get involved in, and continue drug use, as a form of self-medication for underlying mental issues. Locking them up in our "war on drugs", is that really how we should best be handling and helping such people?

Another factor is population. Regardless of what we say and do, there is always going to be some portion of our society that is going to have mental issues and deficiencies, and some small portion that is going to be psychopathic, whether we like it or not. And the larger our population grows, the more of such people, including psychopaths, there are. And there is really nothing we can do about that.

Also, many may point to the extinction of the nuclear family as a further contributing cause to the issues we face. Instead of Moms (or Dads) being at home to raise their children, give them guidance and instruction, and steer them to be respectful and helpful of others, more often than not in today's world, children are raised in single parent families, or in those where both parents need to work to make ends meet, leaving their children to be raised by others who are not so concerned with how they are brought up, and their values and thinking being more influenced by the TV and internet they are often left with to entertain them. Just think, were it not for kids being left to entertain themselves so much with the internet and such, "Baby Shark" is likely not the most played online song of all time.

And of course, the internet and social media has created the influences and ideas that previously weren't available to our population. You wouldn't have people running off to join ISIS, or other such organizations, or hearing and absorbing such extreme ideologies, if they weren't readily available to our population.

None of these, and the myriad of other potential contributing factors to people's mental health and thinking and other issues that can lead to these situations we are experiencing with regard to guns, is the sole, major contributing factor. But they are contributing to these situations and issues and more of the true causes as to why these episodes are happening more and more. Along with the 24/7 media we now have, putting such things out there and contributing to other people then seeing and copying and emulating those in these other situations. Unfortunately, there is no easy solution or answer to what is happening in our society, and foregoing our constitutional rights and protections aren't necessarily going to solve and stop any of these situations and episodes either. I wish I knew of a quick fix to our society's problems in regard to guns, but there is no one single solution that will ever make everyone is our society happy. Bottom line is, increased gun control and security alone will not stop such episodes from still occurring, and there's no guarantee that instituting any such measures would ever have completely stopped any that have occurred. Again, those are ways to treat the symptoms, not the cause.

And since someone else also brought up the issue of abortion and the upcoming SCOTUS ruling, I thought I'd mention there is a somewhat hypocritical correlation between those states that have a death penalty, and those that are proposing more stringent and restrictive abortion rights. It is interesting, and something I don't quite understand, how people who are pro-life, could also be pro-death penalty. I imagine many of those who do follow this thinking, rationalize such by declaring the major difference is that one side of the issues deals with innocents, and the other side with guilty parties. It just seems to me that if you are a pro-life proponent, you would be pro-life in ALL regards and instances, and not just pick and choose when and where to follow your instincts. Just saying.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by 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

Our district can't pass levies to keep bus routes, buy textbooks, or pay staff. Where is the money going to come from to put TSA-like protections in every building?

[Peter_Spaeth]

So Bob, is a pro-life individual being a hypocrite if he or she signs up for military or police service knowing that could involve the taking of a human life?

Personally I see no inconsistency between being pro-life and supporting the appropriate (and hopefully very limited) use of the death penalty.

[G1911]

A person who is against abortion has determined that a fetus is a life, that that life is human, and that it is thus wrong to murder this innocent life.

A person who is for the death penalty thinks that some particularly vile crimes should include death as a possible punishment, after trial and conviction for said crime.

I don't see any contradiction between these viewpoints. The argument that it is a contradiction ignores the factor of guilt entirely.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

A person who is against abortion has determined that a fetus is a life, that that life is human, and that it is thus wrong to murder this innocent life.

A person who is for the death penalty thinks that some particularly vile crimes should include death as a possible punishment, after trial and conviction for said crime.

I don't see any contradiction between these viewpoints. The argument that it is a contradiction ignores the factor of guilt entirely.

That life is sacred and should be preserved does not mean there are not instances when taking it is justifiable. Agree, it's a false inconsistency.

[KMayUSA6060]

The mother of the POS shooter saying her child "had their reasons" is the most despicable thing I've seen regarding this during. The police response is the most atrocious. Threads like this are the most disrespectful.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

The mother of the POS shooter saying her child "had their reasons" is the most despicable thing I've seen regarding this during. The police response is the most atrocious. Threads like this are the most disrespectful.

A thread that has been pretty polite and mannered debating firearms ownership is the most disrespectful thing you have ever encountered?

[egri]

Originally Posted by G1911

A thread that has been pretty polite and mannered debating firearms ownership is the most disrespectful thing you have ever encountered?

I was going to say, for a quasi-political thread, this one has been pretty mild. It's even going better than the Nolan Ryan thread in the sports talk section.

[Casey2296]

"The mother of the POS shooter saying her child "had their reasons" is the most despicable thing I've seen regarding this"

I think you may have found the reason the kid was so screwed up, and the reason that more gun legislation would not solve this problem alone. Unless of course we can legislate getting rid of POS parents that raise POS kids that shoot other people, I'd be a yes vote on that.

[BobC]

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;2229946]So Bob, is a pro-life individual being a hypocrite if he or she signs up for military or police service knowing that could involve the taking of a human life?

Personally I see no inconsistency between being pro-life and supporting the appropriate (and hopefully very limited) use of the death penalty.[/QUOT

Go ask a true Amish person, or maybe you could have asked Muhammad Ali when he was still with us, if they are/were hypocrites. Or how about having asked someone like Desmond Doss what his thoughts would have been as well, when he was still with us, as far as someone being a hypocrite for being a pro-life, anti-war person.

It would seem to me that if someone is saying they are pro-something, there shouldn't be any exceptions, or do you disagree Peter? For example, if I tell you I'm a dyed-in-the-wool vegetarian/vegan, but on my birthdays and maybe a special holiday or two every year I cheat and have a burger, then I'm really not a true vegetarian/vegan after all, am I? And please don't give me some crap answer that I'm allowed to veer every once and a while and still maintain I'm a vegetarian/vegan. I either am or I am not. Trying to make minor exceptions to make myself happy or feel good about myself is simply lying to myself then, period!

And one would think the same could be said for something like being pro-life. Saying to oneself that they are pro-life, but then rationalizing and making exceptions for the death penalty in certain instances, or allowing for abortions if the Mother's life is at stake, and so on, are simply drawing different lines in the sand as to where a certain individual is comfortable with how they may feel. That is just rationalizing their position, but at the same time trying to make it look and sound like they are something they really may not be. In this case, truly pro-life. In other words they are lying to others, and especially themselves. The sad truth is that probably a vast majority of the people in this world say and live this this kind of crap day in and day out, just to make themselves feel good and tell themselves what a truly good person they are, and rationalize their feelings to better fit in with whatever group they want to position themselves with. And I'm not just talking about pro-life or pro-abortion, or pro-gun or anti-gun, questions and issues.

In the end, many people are mostly lying to themselves about a myriad of things, but then complicating life even further by politicizing such thoughts and feelings and trying to project (force) them onto others. They are basically telling others they have to think like they do, or they are wrong and possibly should be arrested and punished as such for not believing exactly as they believe in many cases.

I don't know about you, but lying to oneself to rationalize one's feelings and thoughts seems like the ultimate form of hypocrisy to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Some serious black or white, or maybe it's all or nothing, thinking there. Most issues in life are not all or nothing, they are nuanced and complicated. And btw what gives you the moral authority to decide who is "truly" pro-life and who is just lying to himself and others?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BobC

It would seem to me that if someone is saying they are pro-something, there shouldn't be any exceptions, or do you disagree Peter? .

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.

A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing.

A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time.

This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.

A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing.

A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time.

This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds.

Note the logical flaw in his reasoning -- only people who make no exceptions whatsoever can be "true" believers. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy, or a variant, I think. But then he adds to the proposition that anyone who is not a "true" believer is a hypocrite. Geez.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nobody thinks in such absolutes without any regard for context whatsoever.

A person who is pro-life does not believe that there is no such thing as justifiable self-defense and that they are obligated to let their family be killed instead, or that the innocent and the guilty are the exact same thing.

A person who is pro-choice does not believe anyone can make any choice at any time.

This should not need to be said. I’m sure the two sides could debate on reasonable grounds.

What pro-choice does mean is that a human being should be able to make their own decisions regarding their body. I'm sure we all noticed over the past several years that the staunchest opponents of vaccine mandates skewed toward those with a "pro-life" position. Such individuals, in this case, valued their ability to make for themselves a decision regarding their own body. They valued this ability so highly that it was more important to them than potentially saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact.

Replace "vaccine mandates" with "eliminating access to abortion" and "saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact" with "the life of an embryo/fetus" and you've just described a pro-choice position.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

What pro-choice does mean is that a human being should be able to make their own decisions regarding their body. I'm sure we all noticed over the past several years that the staunchest opponents of vaccine mandates skewed toward those with a "pro-life" position. Such individuals, in this case, valued their ability to make for themselves a decision regarding their own body. They valued this ability so highly that it was more important to them than potentially saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact.

Replace "vaccine mandates" with "eliminating access to abortion" and "saving the lives of people with whom they came in contact" with "the life of an embryo/fetus" and you've just described a pro-choice position.

And at the same time, many of the same people who are pro-abortion and justify it with supposed "rights" jargon are staunch advocates of vaccine mandates.