No, you certainly didn't say that. You have just avoided addressing it like the plague and have tried to minimize the damage these rifles can do by focusing on the caliber at every turn. You aren't fooling anyone.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Once again something that sounds great in theory. Something that would seem like an idea everyone should support. But exactly what does that mean?
I'll use this mass shooting in Texas for a possible scenario. I'm sure at least some of the parents of these victims own guns. Can you imagine how hard it would be to move forward with your life in a normal manner had this have happened to one of your children? So let's say that some of these parents will need mental help to move forward with their life. That due to this mass shooting and the death of one of their own children that need mental help. They get diagnosed with depression and or major anxiety. They undergo treatment for a year or even maybe two. This is now a part of their mental health record. They were both diagnosed and treated.
Does that mean they can never purchase a firearm again?
To my understanding, no, it does not mean they can't own a gun/s. I BELIEVE the law states something along the lines of "anyone that was INVOLUNTARILY referred to a mental health institute....." If you realize you need/want help, and seek treatment, I do not believe it prevents you from owning a gun.
I agree that it doesn't as of now. What I was referring to is people suggesting we should strengthen mental health background checks. What is it that they mean by that? What changes are they suggesting should be made?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I agree that it doesn't as of now. What I was referring to is people suggesting we should strengthen mental health background checks. What is it that they mean by that? What changes are they suggesting should be made?
I have no idea. Ask the people promoting it. I was simply answering your previous question, to the best of my ability and recollection.
IMO, the starting point for that line of thinking is that in just about all of these shootings we hear about, there always seems to be something they do or say that you can point to and say "that was the red flag that was missed". IIRC, the Uvalde shooter pretty much spelled it out to whoever was listening at the time.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
No, you certainly didn't say that. You have just avoided addressing it like the plague and have tried to minimize the damage these rifles can do by focusing on the caliber at every turn. You aren't fooling anyone.
No I didn't discuss it because I had written enough already, I was discussing other things and there are books written on ballistics.
Take your snark "debate" style to facebook where it belongs, adults are discussing things here.
The people of this world, would have you focus on mass shootings, and focus on death, (those who hate God love death) and they'd pipe it into your home by broadcast, hour after hour day after day.
But God says, whatever is pure, whatever is Holy, whatever is of good report, on these things focus.
Anyone who understands the Words of God, who understands what was told to Noah after the ark landed on dry land, how God would require the life of man, at the hands of every mans brother he would require it. Anyone who worships God and not man or others, Anyone who has not turned their back on their first love, they get it. The people of this world, they do not get it, the scribes and the Pharisees, and the atheiests who have done such, as to deny God, who loves them so, they do not get it. Halelujah. Gods' kingdom is not of this world.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
Hey FrankZ, don't take these posts in the wrong way, I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate and spitballing solutions while trying to process how what everyone is calling for in one form or other might play out if we could get along long enough and do the right thing to protect these kids. Personally, I believe in gun ownership for hunting and self-defense. I'm just not big on public open carry or concealed carry and think we should all agree on reasonable abilities for guns, that would limit how much death and destruction could be brought to a crime in seconds or minutes. Surely we don't need military-grade power like an M2 50 Cal, and in my opinion, that's the direction that AR and other high-powered rapid-fire weapons bring. But a lot of gun enthusiasts enjoy those on the range and very much want to own one just in case the ish hit's the fan. I get that, but there has to be some way to limit access to these weapons in a responsible manner that we can all agree to and live with. And I'm not talking outright bans.
One way would be a system similar to licensing animals. For a common dog that can bite somebody, you can be sued over what they do, and most have that covered in their insurance, but they still have to buy a dog license and meet the minimum requirements of rabies shots. Not a big deal if you are a responsible gun owner, but if you get caught without, you could lose your dog, face legal issues, or both. However, you can't buy a dog license for a pure Wolfe. Wild animals require a special license and have different rules and requirements, a couple of which I'm sure are liability insurance and a safe confinement/handling environment.
Any gun can kill, just like any dog can bite. But if we set a bar, below which are common guns like single shots, small cal revolvers, pump loading shotguns, Winchester style lever rifles, etc. are the dogs, and weapons that are rapid-fire, high capacity, use more destructive rounds or generally make you feel like Rambo on the range are the wolves. Make owning those guns tougher, but legal, and anyone caught committing a crime with them gets a gun terrorism-style charge. Also, make public carry of them subject to licensing, training, insurance, and permit OR just ban them from open public carry and make owners keep them in locked cases for home storage or transport to and from places designated for their use, like Ranges. If somebody wants to hunt with them, let each state determine how that happens, but don't just any idiot possess them without all the checks and balances.
Gun laws like this would cost gun owners a bit more but might go a long way to stopping these shootings. Another thing too, would be to make the purchaser legally co-responsible for the gun use, regardless of who is firing. And make anything short of malicious, violent theft of the gun used a co-criminal charge. If you leave it unlocked and your kid gets it and shoots up a school and then kills themselves, you go to prison for allowing that gun to be used like this. This part might not save lives, but it would damn sure mean storage, security, ownership transfers would be taken very seriously. This is one way we could try to tighten up gun laws without taking guns away.
This is the kind of conversation we should expect from our "leaders". Leaders that should be expected to work together to find solutions to complex problems.
Instead we get the polar opposite with narrow-minded rhetoric coming from their mouths... and their media mouthpieces. Sad.
Oh, stop it! Thanks, but I'm not your leader.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
The people of this world, would have you focus on mass shootings, and focus on death, (those who hate God love death) and they'd pipe it into your home by broadcast, hour after hour day after day.
But God says, whatever is pure, whatever is Holy, whatever is of good report, on these things focus.
Anyone who understands the Words of God, who understands what was told to Noah after the ark landed on dry land, how God would require the life of man, at the hands of every mans brother he would require it. Anyone who worships God and not man or others, Anyone who has not turned their back on their first love, they get it. The people of this world, they do not get it, the scribes and the Pharisees, and the atheiests who have done such, as to deny God, who loves them so, they do not get it. Halelujah. Gods' kingdom is not of this world.
That's all well and good - but what of the word of Allah? or Buddha? what of El Shaddai ? What of Brahman or Wahaguru or Jah ??? Don't they get a say too?
The more things change the more they stay the same.
simply giving a 24 hour waiting period before purchase during the background check would've prevented it, which is part of the measures being brought up.
like honestly i can make a pro-gun argument better than you pro-gun guys can. that singular point right there answered your question, and that's not even close to being the only answer as to why this could've been prevented.
the 2nd amendment does not give us a right to accessories nor ammunition. which means congress has full authority to restrict the crap out of that, and they need to get on it ASAP. restrict how many different kinds of ammunition can be created and purchased depending on style/class of weapon. restrict the kinds of accessories that can be put on specific styles of weapons.
if congress decided to try and restrict the kinds of body armor available on the market, i won't lose any sleep over that, either.
i get that republican voters are desperate for the end times to come so they can finally live out their Mad Max fantasies in a failed state and limited resources, but the rest of us actually look forward to what the future can bring to our society.
unlike republican voters, i can no longer justify my right to own guns if the price for that right is innocent lives, especially children.
if you think your right to a tool is more important than the lives of these children and innocent adults, then don't ever claim to be pro-life. because you just told people like me that if my kid dies in a school shooting, you don't ACTUALLY give a damn. because your answer to do something that will prevent other kids from losing their lives is to do absolutely nothing.
cause right now it seems like you republican voters just pretend to be christians. like seriously, i wonder how that plays out if God is real....
"hey god"
"yo, so your country was pretty crazy, right?"
"yea, but i've been a good christian at least"
"oh, word?"
"yes, father"
"so what did you personally do to try and keep these children in your country from dying?"
"uh..well..nothing"
"did you use your tool to save children?"
"no"
"did you use your tool to prevent a shooting?"
"no"
".....so what do you have it for?"
"well to fight the government, my lord! plus i need to protect myself and my family"
"and did you do any of that?"
"well....no"
"so, you had a tool to prevent my children from being sensely slaughtered, but not only did you NOT use it to protect them, you didn't use your tool to do any good overall, and you argued in defense of the ability to get said tools, allowing even more of my children to lose their lives"
"....."
"yea what makes you think you're getting past these gates, bro? you're not actually a christian, you just like to market yourself as one. well, maybe try your luck with satan"
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
In some states you have to register well before the date you vote… just because voting is more dangerous than owning a gun.
Don’t ask for logic in our laws.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
simply giving a 24 hour waiting period before purchase during the background check would've prevented it, which is part of the measures being brought up.
like honestly i can make a pro-gun argument better than you pro-gun guys can. that singular point right there answered your question, and that's not even close to being the only answer as to why this could've been prevented.
the 2nd amendment does not give us a right to accessories nor ammunition. which means congress has full authority to restrict the crap out of that, and they need to get on it ASAP. restrict how many different kinds of ammunition can be created and purchased depending on style/class of weapon. restrict the kinds of accessories that can be put on specific styles of weapons.
if congress decided to try and restrict the kinds of body armor available on the market, i won't lose any sleep over that, either.
i get that republican voters are desperate for the end times to come so they can finally live out their Mad Max fantasies in a failed state and limited resources, but the rest of us actually look forward to what the future can bring to our society.
unlike republican voters, i can no longer justify my right to own guns if the price for that right is innocent lives, especially children.
if you think your right to a tool is more important than the lives of these children and innocent adults, then don't ever claim to be pro-life. because you just told people like me that if my kid dies in a school shooting, you don't ACTUALLY give a damn. because your answer to do something that will prevent other kids from losing their lives is to do absolutely nothing.
cause right now it seems like you republican voters just pretend to be christians. like seriously, i wonder how that plays out if God is real....
"hey god"
"yo, so your country was pretty crazy, right?"
"yea, but i've been a good christian at least"
"oh, word?"
"yes, father"
"so what did you personally do to try and keep these children in your country from dying?"
"uh..well..nothing"
"did you use your tool to save children?"
"no"
"did you use your tool to prevent a shooting?"
"no"
".....so what do you have it for?"
"well to fight the government, my lord! plus i need to protect myself and my family"
"and did you do any of that?"
"well....no"
"so, you had a tool to prevent my children from being sensely slaughtered, but not only did you NOT use it to protect them, you didn't use your tool to do any good overall, and you argued in defense of the ability to get said tools, allowing even more of my children to lose their lives"
"....."
"yea what makes you think you're getting past these gates, bro? you're not actually a christian, you just like to market yourself as one. well, maybe try your luck with satan"
Stop.....it's for the children.
A few thoughts.
On the Tulsa deal...I don't mind a wait period, but I don't think that would have prevented this. It might have delayed it a day or two. That guy did that because he felt the Dr. botched up his back surgery. I don't think it had to happen that day.
As for my thoughts on measures to take:
I agree with a waiting period for any weapon to at least allow a person in a rage of passion to cool down a bit. I don't think that works all that much, but it might help, so caution is always good. If a person needs that gun now, it is probably for the wrong reasons.
I agree with background checks.
I agree with red flag laws. Florida has some of the best in the country.
I agree with raising the age to 21 on purchasing all weapons with the exception of shotguns and various hunting rifles. The AR isn't much more powerful than many hunting rifles, but hey, if it makes people feel better, go for it.
I can agree with limiting magazine size, but the size will be a sticking point. It might not need to be 30 rounds, but it doesn't need to be 5 either.
I agree that gun show laws need to be stiffened.
Things I don't agree with:
The outright banning of weapons beyond what is already in place. If anything I might be open to banning semi auto rifles and limit those to pump, lever, or bolt action.
Holding gun manufactures responsible for illegal use of their product. That is absurd. You might as well hold the manufactures of hypodermic needles responsible for OD complications. The President brought up big tobacco. That was entirely different. Tobacco had decades of deceit and cover up on information that their product was deadly. Even then I disagreed with the awards against them because in the end, any moron knew that smoking was bad for your health. But, they knew it was addictive and deadly and went on with the lies, maybe even making their product more addictive. That just isn't the case with Colt or Smith & Wesson, or whoever. They are responsible if their weapon fails and blows back on somebody with a critical failure. They aren't responsible for where some idiot points the thing.
I don't agree with the President's failure to talk about school security, but I concede that may not have been the time or place, but it does need to be a big part of the discussion.
I think we all know how this is going to go down. The Dems will push forward a bill with everything in it and leave no room for the Senate to pass the bill. I hope not. That will be a purely political bill to give them something to point their fingers at headed in to the next elections. Something they really need
If people are really serious about gun reform, they need to be serious about it and push a bill that can be passed and not try to push through components that are dead before they start.
Let's demand a bill that can be passed and do some good rather than a bill designed to be a political football.
I will be happy to discuss further if people are willing to have a discussion.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
On the Tulsa deal...I don't mind a wait period, but I don't think that would have prevented this. It might have delayed it a day or two. That guy did that because he felt the Dr. botched up his back surgery. I don't think it had to happen that day.
People are not near as "consistent" in their desire to take extreme action as everybody believes. Cooling off periods are exactly that - time for people to cool down and think more rationally. How many times have you been in a fight with somebody (partner/friend), wanted to do something drastic - and then the next day cooled down and thought that it was the dumbest fight you've ever had.
This is true even for extremely drastic choices (like killing somebody). There is a famous study of the Ellington Street Bridge in Washington D.C., after a politician's daughter jumped off the bridge, they put up anti-suicide nets there. This was widely mocked, because the Taft Bridge is like 200 yards away, and they did not put up netting there. "Everybody will just walk over to the bridge that doesn't have netting and jump." However, after the netting went up, the nobody else jumped from the Ellington Street Bridge, and there was no increase in suicides from the Taft Street Bridge.
People making drastic decisions are not usually consistent even on a minute to minute basis, much less day to day or over a week. Are we 100% sure that a waiting period wouldn't have stopped this shooting -- No. But It's an important way to decrease the rate at which people make bad drastic decisions:
No, you certainly didn't say that. You have just avoided addressing it like the plague and have tried to minimize the damage these rifles can do by focusing on the caliber at every turn. You aren't fooling anyone.
No I didn't discuss it because I had written enough already, I was discussing other things and there are books written on ballistics.
No, you avoided discussing it because it was the opposite side of the debate you focused on and didn't further your agenda. People can read.
Quote
Take your snark "debate" style to facebook where it belongs, adults are discussing things here.
It sure doesn't sound like it.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
No, you avoided discussing it because it was the opposite side of the debate you focused on and didn't further your agenda. People can read.
This is you, again, telling me what I am thinking. You are wrong. Period and full stop.
You had three choices: 1) Move along and say nothing. 2) counter a discussion with what you think are valid points and actually make a point. 3) drop yet another snark bomb to show everyone how clever you are.
You chose to be snarky, likely because you can't actually make a valid point that can stand up to critical thinking. Your arguments tend to be emotion driven and backed by confirmation biased sources.
If you think there is a point that is missed, try discussing it instead jumping up and down yelling "gotcha!" and laughing.
Originally Posted by PitDAWG
Quote
Take your snark "debate" style to facebook where it belongs, adults are discussing things here.
It sure doesn't sound like it.
You are correct, only some of us are adults and discussing actual debate points. You are here to fight, and you keep proving that point.
See, this is why I say people willing to take common sense measures are on both sides. I'm far more moderate and in favor of 2nd amendment rights than many people that would be labeled as liberals. But you and I agree almost 100% on common sense measures to help lessen these senseless killings. No, it won't stop all of them. But body counts matter and if we can stop some of them, we should.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
On the Tulsa deal...I don't mind a wait period, but I don't think that would have prevented this. It might have delayed it a day or two. That guy did that because he felt the Dr. botched up his back surgery. I don't think it had to happen that day.
People are not near as "consistent" in their desire to take extreme action as everybody believes. Cooling off periods are exactly that - time for people to cool down and think more rationally. How many times have you been in a fight with somebody (partner/friend), wanted to do something drastic - and then the next day cooled down and thought that it was the dumbest fight you've ever had.
This is true even for extremely drastic choices (like killing somebody). There is a famous study of the Ellington Street Bridge in Washington D.C., after a politician's daughter jumped off the bridge, they put up anti-suicide nets there. This was widely mocked, because the Taft Bridge is like 200 yards away, and they did not put up netting there. "Everybody will just walk over to the bridge that doesn't have netting and jump." However, after the netting went up, the nobody else jumped from the Ellington Street Bridge, and there was no increase in suicides from the Taft Street Bridge.
People making drastic decisions are not usually consistent even on a minute to minute basis, much less day to day or over a week. Are we 100% sure that a waiting period wouldn't have stopped this shooting -- No. But It's an important way to decrease the rate at which people make bad drastic decisions:
The shooter in Tulsa already owned a gun. If he had to wait for a new one I wonder if already having a gun would nullify your "cooling off" period.
And for the record, I have never been in an argument where I thought killing someone would be a desirable outcome. If you cannot handle your emotions it might be a good idea to self-prohibit gun ownership.
Self prohibiting has worked as well as thoughts and prayers have at this point. I guess continuing on the path of what's not working seems like the best solution for some.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
I think we should go a step further and just ask people to self-prohibit themselves from committing mass shootings.
Like, if a shooter charges into a school - the teachers can just be trained to say "Hey, could you please not do this?"
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
Sorry but factual data from around the world does not support these broad brush strokes and massive claims/statements. It doesn't even have to apply to guns... seeing you talk about "self prohibiting" makes me think of the war on drugs and "just say no" ... makes me think of teen pregnancies and the idea of "abstinence" instead of education and contraception.
The US is a very special and unique situation. But ignoring all data - refusing to discuss it - making incorrect statements ... none of that helps in meaningful dialogue.
People are part of the problem - so are guns. Both should be looked at and discussed.
Last edited by mgh888; 06/03/2201:21 PM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
I think we should go a step further and just ask people to self-prohibit themselves from committing mass shootings.
Like, if a shooter charges into a school - the teachers can just be trained to say "Hey, could you please not do this?"
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
That in no way changes the fact that people aren't and won't do that. I'm not for banning any weapons. But claiming that people will be responsible in any way addresses the issue is false.
You are promoting something that has not and will not work. No different than the thoughts and prayers crowd. The same old same old hasn't helped anything. We're trying to address a problem not continuing it.
Many of these mass shootings are being committed by people between the age of 18-20. Many are being committed in schools where the security is poor or lax.
Those are simple, easily seen and recognized as problems.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Why would anyone promote this idea? School boards around this country claim teachers shouldn't teach some of the things they teach. They claim teachers must be controlled on what they are allowed to say. That they can not be trusted on which books they allow their children to read. But now suddenly they say they should be carrying guns? Teachers do not get paid to carry guns. If you plan to have them do that you better include one huge pay increase.
The smart thing to do is have retired police officers and retired military take on that responsibility. People that have actual experience in these real life situations.
Quote
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
I know you keep echoing this like the Ricola man, but how many on this board actually advocate banning any weapons?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
That in no way changes the fact that people aren't and won't do that. I'm not for banning any weapons. But claiming that people will be responsible in any way addresses the issue is false.
You are promoting something that has not and will not work. No different than the thoughts and prayers crowd. The same old same old hasn't helped anything. We're trying to address a problem not continuing it.
Many of these mass shootings are being committed by people between the age of 18-20. Many are being committed in schools where the security is poor or lax.
Those are simple, easily seen and recognized as problems.
Most mass shootings occur in a "gun free" zone where a shooter knows they will not meet resistance, or will only see minimal resistance. Quit making it a sure thing for them.
Also there are people who want to leave an indelible mark on society and hurt as many as they can "Some men just want to watch the world burn". I would suspect they specifically attack schools, especially elementary schools, as they will see no resistance and the hurt factor is amplified.
Do you believe responsible adults should be allowed to buy machine guns?
I don't think it is more dangerous, but I do think that we should try to limit voter fraud.
Every verified case of voter fraud I've seen has been a republican. Maybe we shouldn't let them vote.
But they sure talk about all the fraud on the left with zero proof. I'd love to see actual proof of mass voting fraud in any election. That's Trumpian for we need to restrict voting for certain people.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 06/03/2202:29 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
That's a great turn of a phrase to use, but as we saw in Texas, that school had a resource officer in place. They had safety guidelines in place to keep the school locked down during the day. The problem is those protocols were not being followed. "Gun Fee zones" are not for people designed to protect the buildings. Gun free zones often include courthouses that have both metal detectors and armed officers inside.
As I said, it's a great catch phrase used by the right but it doesn't mean what they claim it to mean. Shootings just as of late have also included grocery stores and a Walmart.
Yes, I actually believe fully automatic weapons should be illegal. But that's not a hill I would stand on to try and pass sensible gun legislation. That's just my opinion.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
That's a great turn of a phrase to use, but as we saw in Texas, that school had a resource officer in place. They had safety guidelines in place to keep the school locked down during the day. The problem is those protocols were not being followed. "Gun Fee zones" are not for people designed to protect the buildings. Gun free zones often include courthouses that have both metal detectors and armed officers inside.
As I said, it's a great catch phrase used by the right but it doesn't mean what they claim it to mean. Shootings just as of late have also included grocery stores and a Walmart.
Yes, I actually believe fully automatic weapons should be illegal. But that's not a hill I would stand on to try and pass sensible gun legislation. That's just my opinion.
I do, actually, understand what a gun free zone is, but thank you for being typical.
The school had one RSO, who was not on campus. In critical systems when you have one you have none.
BTW, thinking machine guns should be illegal is the same as saying you are for banning certain guns.
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
LOL.
400 million guns and the answer is "MORE GUNS" .... MURICA !!!!
I've seen a lot of posts from you claiming others aren't engaging in a conversation. I gotta say you are doing a pretty good job of that here.
I've mentioned this before - think of every teacher you've ever known - how many would you want armed and have your kid/family depend on them?
Who said more guns, you wouldn't need to actually create more guns to arm teachers. Not that I am against more guns, but your "MORE GUNS.... MURICA" is misleading.
If there is a bad guy with a gun and police aren't there, and won't be for some time, would you rather someone try to stop the bad guy or would you rather everyone throw their hands up in the air and because there's nothing they can do in the moment? I mean, c'mon man, stopping the bad guy seems to be reasonable. And if the bad guy thinks he will meet resistance, he may not try to start with. Active shooters like no resistance.
At which point am I not engaging in conversation? The point where I don't agree with you? Now yer sounding like someone else.
We can certainly re-distribute the guns already in circulation. But reality is that's not really that likely.
Arming the 3-3.5 million teachers as a "solution" is escalation. It's arming people currently unarmed.
And my comment was very much in response to and intended in the same vein as "Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay" ....
OH - and to "At which point am I not engaging in conversation? The point where I don't agree with you? "
Nope - I never said anything about agreeing with me. I was going back to you going to that troupe about the only message is Gun Bad. that's not conversation. That's you spewing rhetoric and responding to something no-one on this board has engaged you on a conversation about.
Last edited by mgh888; 06/03/2204:30 PM.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
If you don't think you can own a gun and not shoot people cause you disagree with them you should be responsible and self prohibit.
Banning objects to make people feel better hasn't worked. Every single time there are more laws added we hear "common sense" and "save lives" and sooner or later we hear how we need more and more and more. It doesn't work.
People are the problem, the solutions need to reflect that.
I think we should go a step further and just ask people to self-prohibit themselves from committing mass shootings.
Like, if a shooter charges into a school - the teachers can just be trained to say "Hey, could you please not do this?"
Or the teachers can be armed and trained to drop the intruder
Oh right. I forgot the only message that truly works is "gun bad mmmmmkay"
Why would we need teachers to be armed if we already asked bad people to "self-prohibit" themselves from buying guns?
![[Linked Image from upload.wikimedia.org]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage_HD.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)