Originally posted by SoothfastVery soon Sheriff Joe Biden is going to round
Yeah, armed police everywhere. Don't forget:
Movie theaters
Sikh temples
Gatherings at parking lots
Malls
Burger joints
Office buildings
etc. etc.
Of course, two armed sheriffs were present at Columbine at the time of that massacre, and neither succeeded in taking out the assailants.
A "good guy" was present with a gun at the melee in Arizo ...[text shortened]... cimate the NRA as a political power. Break it, and leave it a shadow of its former self.
you all up and collect all your guns. So it won't matter.
Armed Guards in a burger joint???
In all this excitement I forget whether I gave you beef or chicken
in that burger. So you gotta ask yourself just one question.
Do I feel lucky?
Originally posted by normbenignWas that the same redcoats that captured washington and burned the whitehouse down after defeating the us army at Bladenburg whilst the us president ran off and left his wife "dolly"to gather what she could from the whitehouse before the redcoats arrived ?
It began when we kicked the redcoats out.
Originally posted by no1marauderRe 3:
3 I'm not sure exactly what you mean; could you be more specific?
Current law generally already mandates a background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun at a store, but not when someone wants to buy a gun at a gun show. (I might add that there is also a lack of oversight for online gun sales.)
Re 4:
Current background checks do not necessarily flag someone with a history of mental illness. Only a minority of states have background checks that look at anything other than a person's criminal record.
Originally posted by johnnylongwoodyMy point is that it is absurd to try to prevent mass shootings by putting armed security personnel wherever crowds of people convene. It's not practical. What's more practical is limiting access to guns, and especially military-grade weapons.
Very soon Sheriff Joe Biden is going to round
you all up and collect all your guns. So it won't matter.
Armed Guards in a burger joint???
In all this excitement I forget whether I gave you beef or chicken
in that burger. So you gotta ask yourself just one question.
Do I feel lucky?
Originally posted by SoothfastOK. I'm fine with #3.
Re 3:
Current law generally already mandates a background check on anyone wanting to buy a gun at a store, but not when someone wants to buy a gun at a gun show. (I might add that there is also a lack of oversight for online gun sales.)
Re 4:
Current background checks do not necessarily flag someone with a history of mental illness. Only a minor ...[text shortened]... y of states have background checks that look at anything other than a person's criminal record.
Disqualifying someone from possessing a weapon on the basis of "mental illness" is too vague for me. I also fail to see how it could possibly be implemented.
Originally posted by SoothfastIt's hardly "absurd". We do put armed security at many places where crowds convene for the express purpose of protecting people from harm. I fail to grasp the "absurdity" of placing guards in schools now that we have had repeated instances of mass shootings at them.
My point is that it is absurd to try to prevent mass shootings by putting armed security personnel wherever crowds of people convene. It's not practical. What's more practical is limiting access to guns, and especially military-grade weapons.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's easy: to get a gun license people just have to visit some licensed psychologist first for examination.
OK. I'm fine with #3.
Disqualifying someone from possessing a weapon on the basis of "mental illness" is too vague for me. I also fail to see how it could possibly be implemented.
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I think you've already observed, stationing an armed guard at every school in the nation would be very expensive. Even every kindergarten and daycare center? A wanna-be mass shooter will undertake one of two strategies:
It's hardly "absurd". We do put armed security at many places where crowds convene for the express purpose of protecting people from harm. I fail to grasp the "absurdity" of placing guards in schools now that we have had repeated instances of mass shootings at them.
1) Find the one place where lots of kids convene that doesn't have an armed guard (a Chuck E. Cheese, say, or a playground), and commence firing. Or...
2) Make sure the first bullet is in the back of the head of the guard.
Originally posted by no1marauderBecause it only stops it happening at the school. Armed security are only likely to stop problems at places where they are actually stationed. I don't agree that someone who is intent on killing children will only do it at a school because that's where it's happened in the past. They will simply move on to wherever the target is softest next.
It's hardly "absurd". We do put armed security at many places where crowds convene for the express purpose of protecting people from harm. I fail to grasp the "absurdity" of placing guards in schools now that we have had repeated instances of mass shootings at them.
These types of arguments are beyond stupid. When I go to a sports event or concert, armed security guards are the norm and I appreciate them being there. The idea that "oh, crazed people will just go somewhere else to kill people, so we shouldn't bother to protect people here" has got to be the most ridiculous "logic" I have ever heard. I guess we can get rid of those checkpoints and metal detectors at airports, too, since if someone wants to kill people it's senseless to stop them from getting on an airplane with a gun, they'll just go somewhere else.
Step back, read what you have written and actually think about how absurd you sound.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo implement your solution and see what happens. I'm not against the idea I just don't think that it will solve the problem in the way that you do. And yes the security at airports has stopped atrocities on aircraft but it has not stopped atrocities at hotels and embassies or anywhere else. Your argument that because I don't think security at schools is a solution to the problem therefore I must want security removed everywhere else is as you like to put it absurd... but it's your idea not mine.
These types of arguments are beyond stupid. When I go to a sports event or concert, armed security guards are the norm and I appreciate them being there. The idea that "oh, crazed people will just go somewhere else to kill people, so we shouldn't bother to protect people here" has got to be the most ridiculous "logic" I have ever heard. I guess we can ge ...[text shortened]... Step back, read what you have written and actually think about how absurd you sound.
Originally posted by no1marauderSince this kind of regulation is already in place in many places around the world I wouldn't call it "impossible", though it may be "undesirable" depending on how desirable you find it to have people walking around with guns.
Since you put it that way, it goes into the "impossible and undesirable" category.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt's politically impossible in the US (of course, I didn't mean it was LITERALLY impossible).
Since this kind of regulation is already in place in many places around the world I wouldn't call it "impossible", though it may be "undesirable" depending on how desirable you find it to have people walking around with guns.
I find the idea that a visit to a psychologist is necessary before someone can obtain a weapon they feel is necessary for self-defense to be undesirable. And a bit foolish since psychologists are not trained to make such a determination.