DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Multiple fatalities reported after shooting at high school in Texas; shooter arrested

Unfortunately the only way to keep schools guarded without a significant increase in federal spending would be to place active duty personnel in schools, as 5eyre alresdy getting paid a salary anyway.

Obviously, that isn’t gonna fly.

Fire code prevents you from funnelling people to one door as a means of egress during a fire.. there have to be multiple exits from all points in the building. That's why large buildings have so many doors, they are placed for a reason...

That said, they can easily be locked and made one-way, egress only, doors.

Could you shoot your way through one? Yea, I suppose you could... file that under the "no situation is going to be perfect" tab...

Even if you did file kids all out through the same door, I'm assuming that is where the armed guard(s) would be? So it might make it a little more difficult to just stand outside and shoot folks as they come out.

It's not petty to point out that saying "criminals don't follow laws" is a logical fallacy. If your feelings are hurt because I'm pointing out a logic fault, you should probably post somewhere else. I can't help if facts hurt your feelings.

To furtherance of the point, you are arguing a paradox.

• Law-abiding citizens obey the law
• Criminals are lawbreakers, and thus do not obey the law
• Laws impose restrictions on the behavior of only those that follow them
• Laws, therefore, only hurt law-abiding citizens

The problem with your assertion is that every single law we have can be refuted by your paradox. You surely aren't arguing for anarchy, are you? If so, clear the air and let us know.

Yea, that would violate Posse Comitatus.

I'm assuming you mean 9 inmates: 1 guard?

Yeah you're not being petty. Not at all, dude get a grip you are every bit of the problem with discussing anything. I won't engage in your ass hattery so immediately to "oh your feelings hurt?" Snarky, psuedo intellectual arguing in circles, straw manning your way off topic. Productive. Good job.

He has made some perfectly valid points.. I don't understand the "criminals break laws so more laws won't help" argument.. I never have and I never will..

Coming across our southern border without the right paperwork is illegal.. so why do we need a wall or enhanced immigration policies? those breaking the law will keep breaking the law.. nothing more we can do.

Beating women is illegal..

Driving drunk is illegal..

Voting unregistered or more than once is illegal..

Hijacking an airplane is illegal..

Shooting school children is illegal..

no need for more laws.

Laws are made to punish those who break them, not to prevent them from happening. Its so we may exact retribution to those who wrong others.

We have a law against all the things you listed already. Why do they still happen? We make the laws, then we NEED TO ENFORCE the laws we have.

j/c

I saw a meme that made me stop and think for a minute the other day.

It had God and St. Peter in heaven. Small clouds were floating by. Some saying thoughts and some saying prayers. He told St. Peter, "Hey, people are sending thoughts and prayers".

Then with children standing by the pearly gates, St. Peter said, "Yes, and they're sending their kids too".

That's only partially correct..

If hijacking a plane is already illegal and has been since airplanes were invented.. why has it been only in the last 15 years that I've had to empty my pockets, take off my shoes, and not carry fingernail clippers on a plane?

If driving drunk has always been illegal... why has it only been recently that bars are held accountable for serving somebody who is visibly intoxicated?

If voting unregistered or more than once has always been illegal.. why is there a push to require ID at voting stations?

Sometimes as human beings we realize that just making an act illegal isn't enough.... we have to create laws and rules and policies that limit the opportunity to commit that act in the first place... It's a concept as old as time and it's a concept that most people agree can be implemented effectively... in every area except guns.. for some reason, those are different.

PC culture is getting out of control. Language is no longer their main enemy, as they have won that battle. Now tone must be policed just as language was.

I had that question as well.

It has to be 9 inmates to 1 guard. Doesn't it?

I am perfectly willing to concede points, I definitely wasn't arguing that we shouldn't make more law, just that they will not be followed by criminals. I wouldn't continue to debate with people who are condescending in real life and I won't debate with those same people on a message board. This continued notion that talking down to people somehow makes your argument superior is toxic. It is absolutely toxic to our country and toxic to this board.

Normal, well adjusted people can reach a point where we just "agree to disagree" without being dickheads.

Richard Craniums would be more board appropriates. lol

I see part of the problem is social media, kids shouldn't have Smart phones they just need to be able to phone home. There are predators on the internet who prey on these types of kids. That's where parenting comes into play to monitor the kids use and who they are online with, may seem like an invasion of privacy but it's better their kids are not in trouble or worse.

Saying I'm being petty for pointing out a logic flaw in your argument and that I can take that [censored] and shove it is an emotional outburst. I'm really not trying to be snarky. What I'm trying to point out is that if you're going to take someone taking issue with a statement as being petty, than there is obviously no wiggle room with you. My disagreement with your premise is seemingly enough to levy accusations of pettiness my way.

Also, calling my arguments as straw manning without pointing to examples is not conversing in good faith.

Will, come on. This is all absurd. Law's most assuredly are put in place as means of deterrent, and we do enforce the laws we have already. This kid will be charged for the crimes he committed in a court of law since he didn't commit suicide or suicide by cop. The issue isn't that we aren't enforcing what laws we have. The issue is the laws we have by and large address these tragedies after the fact in a reactionary way.

He was using logical proofs to dispute your theory. He wasn't talking down to you in the slightest. However, I am personally enjoying your tantrum right now, as you step on to your cross and talk down to those you deem toxic, in the most passive aggressive way possible. I learned long ago, that every time you lose a point, you unleash a martyr complex or try to argue semantics. That's why I didn't even bother to mention how nonsensical your claim was that laws do not deter criminal activity completely counters the prevailing legal and police philosophy of the last century. Our legal foundations for preventing violent criminals is the three strike rule and mandatory minimums.

Now if you want to talk about school shooters, who normally kill themselves during the shooting, and how they don't follow laws, that's a great place to start. So we should go after the people who supply them guns. We do it for children and alcohol. If the parents were to give him a handle of liquor the night before this and he crashes his car into another vehicle, killing 3 people, his parents would also be legally liable for the deaths. But with a shooting with their weapons, they walk free? How is that right? How can you provide a 17 year old, who wears a trench coat, with both Nazi and Communist imagery, in Florida, with multiple guns? There are so many red flags there, that even Casey Anthony's parental instincts could tell her that wasn't a good idea.

So the problem isn't that the kid easily got a gun and murdered several classmates, it's phones with data plans? Solution aversion strikes again.

OK let me explain even tho according to you I'm a right wing nut conservative racist that's a Trump loyalist as I see it even tho YOU keep up the race card ....NOT ME.

Pelosi feels has the teacher unions are in their hip pocket[in which they do IMO] that is indoctrinating the kids and their families and the children that it is all the NRA , TRUMP, and conservatives that are directly the cause of these horrific school shootings and she has done nothing and doesnt have to cause the teaching robots has secure that vote its all about politics to that liar IMO

Now that the do nothing libs have that mindset, it is time to secure the Hispanic vote by defending the honor of the brutal MS 13 gang to show solidarity with them by actually defending illegals over legal Americans an that and her sickens me politics over an honest debate on how to protect the children cause playing to her base is more important IMO now go ahead and attack me cause frankly ....I don't care

Fair enough... instead of just reaching the point where we all just agree to disagree, we need to start reaching the point where we can compromise... agreeing to disagree is mature, polite and all but it leaves you in the same place you started and nothing ever changes...

Gun revenue is about $17 billion source

How much would we have to tax that to make up the $300+ Billion to secure the schools? I like where your heads at mac, but if I was to support that increase on the purchase of my $700 AR-15 two years ago, I would have paid something like $11,600 in taxes. It would make guns illegal in all but name.

Trying to figure out why all of your ideas involve taxing law abiding gun owners to protect kids from criminals...

Probably for the same reason why we tax lottery players and potheads. Someone's gotta pay and it might as well be a "sinner". Personally, I don't agree with it, but I do understand it's appeal. Take the worst actions in society and try to turn it into a positive for society.

We have thousands of gun laws on the books. Yet criminals who get pulled over with weapons (which they are banned) get those charges dropped and plea down, etc.

You get pulled over and are felon with a gun - 20 years, no questions.

You use a gun in an armed robbery - 25 years, no parole, no deals.

You kill murder someone w/ a gun - death.

etc, and etc.

I am all for compromise. Unfortunately the nature of it is to "win" at any cost. Conflate, deflect, discredit, strawman do anything but compromise. I think you see it on this board as well as I do, it's not just the politicians.

I'm in the middle, I own many guns. I would absolutely compromise if I knew what that was. What is being proposed? Longer waiting periods? Sure, not a problem for me it might be for a domestic violence victim but ok. Banning AR-15's, I'll just buy an M4, no problem there. They want to argue the morality.

The issue I am taking right now is that look, I'm college educated, I've done well in my life, but people, in particularly lefties default is to baffle you with BS to the point where you don't even want to discuss it with them anymore. How does middle America feel being spoken down to every time they encounter a leftist? A guy who didn't graduate high school working 2 jobs to survive being talked down to because of their beliefs. There is absolutely no wonder they would just rather dig in and say "you're not taking my guns". They won't even be exposed to new ideas because most people feel so good about making fun of them more than they do reaching them with a point. It's what I meant by toxicity.

Now all we have to do is raise billions of dollars to build and man a lot more prisons.

I'm not against stiffer penalties as long as you can figure out how we're going to pay the bill for those ideas.

money should not be an excuse to try to keep people alive. How much do you put ones life is worth then? I know you guys list 40 as a "troll", yet his question still has not been answered. How much does a kids life worth? Apparently its worth paying guards overtime.

Sources for both of these?

I think he just made it up. Just a hunch.

I must have not made my point clear. No matter what we do, in order to make changes, it will incur costs. No matter what solution we take, we will have to figure out how to fund it.

There was and is certainly no intent on my part to assert it's not worth the cost. I'm just not sure that throwing away the key in terms of prison is the best way to address it. So far that approach has netted America as the highest percentage of prisoners in the world and the highest recidivism rate in the world. That approach has been a dismal failure to this point.

Fact check:

Seems accurate from sources, many not named Fox.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCE.....0.4k_pk3PYdgY

I wanted will to do his own homework!!

Now all we need is the thousands of gun laws and we're good. As for plea deals it's hard to say. There's good reasons why you'd want a person to plea out so I'll just say, watch Goodfellas. You'll know why we have plea deals and you'll get a good movie out of it too! Strengthening our gun laws I'm all for, even if that includes adjusting justice norms to instruct prosecutors to not plea out/drop gun charges.

https://americanconcealed.com/articles/law-enforcement/when-plea-agreements-and-guns-dont-mix/

As violence rises, prosecuters bargain away gun charges

Here's one since are on football page :

Pretty sure he will be running for TD soon.

still waiting on that 99% link, sir.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2023


It is estimated that there are between 22,000 and 30,000 gun laws on the books in America. Those laws include restrictions on possession, carry, distribution, storage, transfer, manufacture, sale, ownership, importation, use and more. Some types of guns are heavily taxed while others are banned entirely for large segments of the American population—including, in some cases, guns that were carried by George Washington himself (current carrying laws in New York would require Washington’s arrest).




•The longest single gun law on the books is 8,307 words with a 3,710-word list as an appendix. A long article in a newspaper runs 2,000 words.

Wonder if gage and chs will even look at this link.

my point is, we talk bout "we have the highest population" or prisoners. And? We have a lot of criminals. I never understand that argument. that's like saying - we need to let people go for committing crimes, because its making us look bad. No. You commit the crime you do the time. (I do hate that saying). But commit a gun crime, there is no excuse on earth they shouldn't be locked up for YEARS upon YEARS.

gage will, hes reasonable. CHS if it doesn't prove his point or fit his agenda he will deflect and make a snide remark - and then fail to provide any information.

Fair enough. Good stuff. Although when you said, "We" I thought you meant the Federal government and not them and all 50 states included. I knew the plea and case dropping was true. The economics of our judicial system is entirely screwed. Quite frankly not many places have the funds to take every case to court, nor do we have enough cells for all our prisoners. That's just the system failing and doesn't take into account good lawyers and other psuedolegal means on how to avoid conviction.

I think you must admit, having more people imprisoned than nations with much larger populations than us means there's something much deeper going on here.