9 hours ago, ToeBius said:

  You are being a smartass and making these security measures sound excessive.  This is just basic security that would work. 

They do sound excessive and they don't seem basic to me, but it's not the point here.

 

The point is that something is wrong with the society and instead of trying to fix the reason you're up for the increased protection. I don't really understand the reasoning here. You can toughen the security as much as you like and achieve reasonable safety inside, but what's gonna happen outside of those fortified walls apparently no longer concerns you. 

 

Maybe we have different mentalities but in my book the state shall care about its citizens wherever they are. Kids in school, people on the street, visitors in a cinema, guest at a concert, they all have a right not to be afraid. That's how I grew up, felt safe and was safe.  

 

 

 

Edited May 20, 20187 yr by Hastings

 

11 hours ago, Giordano said:

You do realize this would only exaggerate the problem in the event of an emergency, right?  Not to mention this is a huge violation of the fire code for a building like this.  This would never work, and you know what?  You help the shooter.  He's guarding the only way in, and now has literally every single person in the building as a hostage.  They may be able to break windows, but in situations like this, most people don't even consider that.  Also consider this, say there's an active shooter.  Everyone panics and begins running for the front door, the only door.  The shooter knew this was the only door, and is standing and waiting with his gun pointed.  What you're suggesting is a human meat grinder and would only help the perpetrator and harm everyone else.

How about reading everything that I said before twisting it?  I said that there is on way in and  out "UNLESS" there is an emergency and only then the other doors will open.  And even if the shooter did come to the school then he/she would have to go to the front door and be greeted by cop's, who have gun's and training to deal with this.  You are disregarding the fact that there is a armed guard at  the school, guarding the only way in and out unless there is an emergency.  This would not be a meat grinder, this would be the way you gain access to a facility that is owned by the government.

 

11 hours ago, Giordano said:

 

I don't know if school resource officers are required by law or if it's a 'at the school's request' thing, so I'm going to base this response off both scenarios.

 

1)  The officer is required at the school.  You do understand that the SRO does a lot more than just stay at their desk and wait to be called, right?  When I was in school, our SRO was actively walking around and keeping an eye on things when he had free time.  You would be severely limiting his job if you required him to stand at the front door all day long.

 

2) Officers are not required to be at the school.  This would mean one particular officer now has to spend his entire time just standing at the front of a school entrance.  Is that something you'd happily do?  Would you be happy that you went through the academy just to end up being an over priced security guard?

  1) Guarding the front door is what a door guard does.  You can have 2 officer's at the school if you think that it would help this way one officer can walk the school grounds and the other can be at the door, this way one officer isn't stuck being bored at the door as you say.  This would not limit the officer's job as it is his job.

 

 2) I would have no issue guarding a school as it would kind of be part of my job, if I do not like my job then I can transfer or even find a new career.  Usually when a officer is put at a school, they are not the rookie that just got out of the academy and are actually someone with time under the individuals belt.

12 hours ago, Giordano said:

You and I grew up in very different places then.  Our school doors were locked except for the main door, and people freely came in and out.  There was a front door attendant/check in person, but it was lax. 

There you go, that is inadequate security measures that would do nothing to protect you.  Put a officer at the doors with metal detectors and check everyone that comes in, instead of allowing anyone that wants to come in to do so freely.

 

12 hours ago, Giordano said:

I had to re-read this a few times to see if I read it right.  Your answer to standing up to bullying is by having armed police everywhere?  'Cause that's how it is for a courthouse.    Furthermore, the whole "just stand up to bullies" garbage doesn't work at all.  More times than not, standing up to them gets you in trouble and makes them madder.  I know this from personal experience. I was bullied a lot, told the teachers, tried to get things handled the right way and whadd'ya know?  Nothing was done except a slap on the wrist.  It is always chalked up as "kids being kids", and the adults don't seem to understand how bad it is, and that it goes far beyond kids being kids.

 

Anyone who ever says "just stand up to bullies", or anything that is deemed was minimizing the bullying, the bully, or the situation, either has never been bullied before, doesn't understand bullying, or was bullied but not to the same extent as others. I mean no offense by that, but speaking from my experience, minimizing the entire thing is just slapping the victim in the face and essentially saying "Grow the fuck up, it happens to everyone".  That is wrong!

  I did not say that "the answer to bullying  is to have armed police everywhere".  I did in fact say to "stand up to bullies".  When I say stand up to them, that usually means that if someone is picking on you then you should stand up for yourself (like I did) or if you see someone getting bullied then you should stand up for them (like I did).  I was bullied to untill my mom's boyfriend told me to punch them, and that is what I did.  I layed the prick out and he never messed with me or anyone again.  Same goes with standing up to bullies for other's, I stood up for someone else and the bullying stopped.  

 

  When I say to protect your schools as you would your courthouses, I mean (and I know you know what I mean but you want to argue and make my statement sound isaine) that if you are willing to put 10 officers/deputies at a courthouse, then why is it soo taboo to put a officer or 2 at a school?  We know that people shoot up schools and yet proper security measures are to wild and out for others?  I went to the White house and it was heavily guarded, I went to military bases and they were heavily guarded, I have been to courthouses and they are heavily guarded, police stations are heavily guarded, even the library's in the ghetto have guards.  But you and everyone else find it insane to guard our schools?  The place where young minds are? WTF?

 

  I have been bullied and I stood up to the pricks, I laid them out and it stopped.  I have seen other's that couldn't stand up to bullies getting bullied and I chose not to stand idle and instead went to there aid.  So don't say that I do not know anything about bullying, your method of telling a teacher did not work and yet my method of standing up to them actually worked?  I wonder how that worked?  Maybe I put them in there place? 

 

  I NEVER said anything about telling the victim to grow up.  I only said to stand up to the bully, and if you see someone that can't stand up to them, then you should stand up for them.  Stop standing idle and letting evil prevail.  What is truly wrong is when good people do nothing and I have a major issue with that.

12 hours ago, Giordano said:

Do you know this for certain?  Have you seen the future and know a mental health law would fail?  As it is, there are thousands of those mentally ill that are homeless and on the street.  Their family doesn't give a shit, the government doesn't give a shit.  No one does, it's why they are homeless and regarded as "filth" by most.  If we could get everyone on the same page, I believe we could actually help those that are mentally ill.  I believe we could prevent a tragedy and help someone who needs it.

 

Thanks for your quote, but this isn't a movie, a show, a book, anything fake.  This is real life, and that whole "evil to prevail" thing doesn't apply here.  At all.

  Yes it would fail just like every other law on the books.  It will be corrupted, abused, and twisted to help no one because of the people that you are asking to write it.  It was the government that gave the OK with the advice of the psychiatric professionals to let these people on the street with no hope and no help.  They broke it once and they will do it again.  Peoples family's do care but they do not know how to help them and when someone doesn't want help then you can't give them help.  There are people that try to help the homeless and the mentally homeless but you can't help everyone, you can't even help the VET's that come back home from Iraq, Afghanistan,  and Africa, how do you expect to help the homeless on the street.

 

  And yes the "evil to prevail" does apply, I know this for a fact that the only way for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing.  I have stood up against bad people, I have put my life on the line for the lives of others with no benefit for myself,  I have faced bad people in the face and stood my ground.  The only way that these people thrive is when you stand idle and do nothing but expect for some crappy politician to write a law and hope that the cops can get there in time wile there are able bodied people around doing nothing.  That is a victimhood society and I am not apart of them.  This isn't a book or a movie or a show as you would say, there are evil people in this world and a law has never fixed anything.

7 hours ago, Hastings said:

They do sound excessive and they don't seem basic to me, but it's not the point here.

 

The point is that something is wrong with the society and instead of trying to fix the reason you're up for the increased protection. I don't really understand the reasoning here. You can toughen the security as much as you like and achieve reasonable safety inside, but what's gonna happen outside of those fortified walls apparently no longer concerns you. 

 

Maybe we have different mentalities but in my book the state shall care about its citizens wherever they are. Kids in school, people on the street, visitors in a cinema, guest at a concert, they all have a right not to be afraid. That's how I grew up, felt safe and was safe. 

  These are not excessive, have you ever been to a courthouse or police station?  If not then you may think that those places are excessive in the way that they go about with security. 

 

I agree that there is something wrong with society and it starts with humans, but instead of waiting idly for someone to make a law, we can begin by putting security into schools just like every other government facility that you go to.  It took almost a year for them to pass the affordable care act and less than a month to pass the Patriot Act, what makes you think that they are going to pass a Mental health law that works?  Those two acts do not work and they never will either. 

 

 

  I would like to know though, what does basic security mean to you? 

 

1 hour ago, ToeBius said:

I have been bullied and I stood up to the pricks, I laid them out and it stopped.  I have seen other's that couldn't stand up to bullies getting bullied and I chose not to stand idle and instead went to there aid.  So don't say that I do not know anything about bullying, your method of telling a teacher did not work and yet my method of standing up to them actually worked?  I wonder how that worked?  Maybe I put them in there place?

 

Standing up isn't for everyone. Not everyone has the strength, both physical and psychological, to stand up against people who bully them on a daily basis. And that's without mentioning that getting violent against bullies can very quickly take a turn for the worse, either by them calling some of their friends to beat the shit out of you, or worse, like bringing weapons (chains, bottles, knives). Fighting violence with violence is never the answer. It worked for you, that's good, doesn't mean it's the right course of action.

46 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Standing up isn't for everyone. Not everyone has the strength, both physical and psychological, to stand up against people who bully them on a daily basis. And that's without mentioning that getting violent against bullies can very quickly take a turn for the worse, either by them calling some of their friends to beat the shit out of you, or worse, like bringing weapons (chains, bottles, knives). Fighting violence with violence is never the answer. It worked for you, that's good, doesn't mean it's the right course of action.

  I understand that there are people that cannot stand up for themselves, that is why I mentioned me standing up for those who could not stand up for themselves.  We need to teach people to stand up for others when they cannot stand up for themselves.  We already know that telling teachers and expecting them to do something doesn't work.  And if they want to go get their friends, then people need to stand up to them too.  On the subject of bringing chains, bottles, and knives then that is where the officers at the front door of the school with metal detectors come into play.  There are answers to these problems and they are extremely simple, but it appears that they are too simple for people to understand and they feel as if you need to create a complicated system to fix it and you don't.  

 

  And the only way to fight violence is to fight it with violence.  There is no other way to stop violence, you can't hug violence, you can't kiss violence, you can only fight it.

If someone is attacking you, you cannot expect for them to stop attacking you by asking them nicely, you must fight back.  Violence is a natural part of humanity, it is built into us and we cannot suppress it, hide it, or treat it, you must learn to combat it. 

 

  For some people you just have to use brute force to get them to play right, you can't ask someone politely or use firm word's, some people only listen when you react to them with the force that they are handing out.  You will never be able to control humans unless you have a hierarchy in power, while everyone else is a chained slave.        

 

  You can only tap someone on the shoulder so many times until you must resort to other methods to get them to act right.  When they use brute force to get there way you must respond in the same way. 

 

 Just be a of good Courage.

Edited May 20, 20187 yr by ToeBius

Weird coincidence that the country drowning in guns has a lot of awful mass shootings.

2 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Weird coincidence that the country drowning in guns has a lot of awful mass shootings.

  Weird coincidence that a country drowning in knives has a high knife attack rate.

 

  Evil people will continue to do evil things no matter what you take away from them.  

 

  What have I done wrong to have my guns taken or restricted from me?  Nothing.  I have used my guns only for good and will continue to do so.

 

 Secure the schools and these type's of actions will stop.

2 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  Weird coincidence that a country drowning in knives has a high knife attack rate.

 

  Evil people will continue to do evil things no matter what you take away from them.  

 

  What have I done wrong to have my guns taken or restricted from me?  Nothing.  I have used my guns only for good and will continue to do so.

 

 Secure the schools and these type's of actions will stop.

Much easier for a single deranged individual to massacre dozens of people with a gun than a knife, and you know that. I sure hope you know that.

Right. We should 'secure the school'. Remember Fort Hood?

10 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Much easier for a single deranged individual to massacre dozens of people with a gun than a knife, and you know that. I sure hope you know that.

Right. We should 'secure the school'. Remember Fort Hood?

  It may be easier to massacre dozens with a gun than a knife, but it still happens with a knife.  I do know that but to subjugate the entire population for the actions of a few is preposterous and wrong.  The actions of others do not reflect the actions of the many.  

 

  On the Fort Hood shooting,

       Before that shooting it was easy to bring your firearms onto a base without registering them.Soldiers who live on post must let their immediate commanders know if they have a personal firearm. All losses — or possible losses — must be reported within two hours. No concealed weapons are allowed, even with a state or county permit, and the shooter did not live on base.  Now after the shooting you must register your firearms when you enter the base.  But that is a major base, not a school.  A base is basically a city and not a building or a few buildings, and a building or a few buildings are easier to secure than a MAJOR U.S. military installation that covers 339 sq miles unlike a school that will never come close to that size.  

 

  You cannot compare a school to a U.S. Military installation.

25 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  It may be easier to massacre dozens with a gun than a knife, but it still happens with a knife.  I do know that but to subjugate the entire population for the actions of a few is preposterous and wrong.  The actions of others do not reflect the actions of the many.  

 

  On the Fort Hood shooting,

       Before that shooting it was easy to bring your firearms onto a base without registering them.Soldiers who live on post must let their immediate commanders know if they have a personal firearm. All losses — or possible losses — must be reported within two hours. No concealed weapons are allowed, even with a state or county permit, and the shooter did not live on base.  Now after the shooting you must register your firearms when you enter the base.  But that is a major base, not a school.  A base is basically a city and not a building or a few buildings, and a building or a few buildings are easier to secure than a MAJOR U.S. military installation that covers 339 sq miles unlike a school that will never come close to that size.  

  

  You cannot compare a school to a U.S. Military installation.

I've never advocated for taking away guns from people like you, if you are truly as mentally fit and law abiding as you claim to be.

 

Metal detectors don't stop bad guys with guns. And as parkland and many other shootings proved, even good guys with guns often times can't stop bad guys with guns. Just as a random example, Chris Kyle was a decorated, high skilled, and armed Navy SEAL, and was executed because he had his back turned for a moment. Armed guards at schools is not good enough if you're serious about protecting children in this country.

Edited May 20, 20187 yr by Riley24

7 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

I've never advocated for taking away guns from people like you, if you are truly as mentally fit and law abiding as you claim to be.

 

Metal detectors don't stop bad guys with guns. And as parkland and many other shootings proved, even good guys with guns often times can't stop bad guys with guns. Just as a random example, Chris Kyle was a decorated, high skilled, and armed Navy SEAL, and was executed because he had his back turned for a moment. Armed guards at schools is not good enough if you're serious about protecting children in this country.

  Parkland had major flaws in that school and is a poor example for anything.   As I stated prior, if anyone will listen, you allow 1 way in and 1 way out unless there is an emergency. At the only entrance and exit (which is 1 door) you have armed officer's and metal detectors at the door.  If ANYONE wants to try and attack anyone then they must fight their way into that school.  

 

  As I stated before.  Go to a courthouse and see what you must do to get in.  That is what should be done at these school's.  Stop letting anyone and their brother into the school's without being checked.

3 minutes ago, ToeBius said:

  Parkland had major flaws in that school and is a poor example for anything.   As I stated prior, if anyone will listen, you allow 1 way in and 1 way out unless there is an emergency. At the only entrance and exit (which is 1 door) you have armed officer's and metal detectors at the door.  If ANYONE wants to try and attack anyone then they must fight their way into that school.  

 

  As I stated before.  Go to a courthouse and see what you must do to get in.  That is what should be done at these school's.  Stop letting anyone and their brother into the school's without being checked.

Wow, you play too many video game my friend.

3 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Wow, you play too many video game my friend.

No I do not, I am serious, start to guard the school's.  Every school I went to was like this, they guarded the school's from people that wanted to do harm to us.  It is a far better starting point than waiting for some politicians to bicker and do nothing.  None of you have any answers exept to make a new law that will do nothing to stop people from doing horrid act's of violence.  

 

  If enacting these new law's would work then start stripping every government facility of security.

6 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Weird coincidence that the country drowning in guns has a lot of awful mass shootings.

I encourage you to view some older topics, your argument has been disproven several times already. 

4 hours ago, ToeBius said:

No I do not, I am serious, start to guard the school's.  Every school I went to was like this, they guarded the school's from people that wanted to do harm to us.  It is a far better starting point than waiting for some politicians to bicker and do nothing.  None of you have any answers exept to make a new law that will do nothing to stop people from doing horrid act's of violence.  

 

  If enacting these new law's would work then start stripping every government facility of security.

People believe that the government has a duty to protect them, when the same government has declared that law enforcement don’t have a constitutional obligation to keep citizens safe from criminals. lol

I mean, I understand your trail of thoughts, to make schools a safe haven for kids. That's a good thing to want them to be protected. But kids don't spend their lives in a school. They go out. Personally I've been bullied in high school, and the dudes bullying me were always outside the school, some of them weren't even students. Even if my school had been a real fortress like you're suggesting it should be, it wouldn't have protected me from them (not even gonna mention standing up to them as they were more than one, and dipping into some drug dealing shit, aka not afraid to break your bones if you pissed them off).

 

Protecting schools and turning them into prison-like facilities will increase the kids safety inside. But you're disregarding the whole outside world. So what then, do we place one guard at every street corner to make sure kids don't get bullied or assaulted there too? Do we turn every street of every city into some kind of 1984 remake (yeah yeah standing up to the bullies and helping the ones who can't, you said violence was part of humanity, I say selfishness is equally part of humanity and people will always value their own issues before others)? Or do we actually adress the issue of people with mental issues having access to firearms which, not only would protect kids in school, but also out of school, and everywhere else for everyone else?

10 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I encourage you to view some older topics, your argument has been disproven several times already. 

And yours hasn't? Your argument that more guns will lessen gun violence gets disproven every year.

 

I'm open to new ideas. But if more guns was the answer to gun violence, we'd be living in the safest country on earth, and not the 103rd safest. Honestly, what would it take for you to realize you are wrong? Ever stop and think, maybe every other first world country figured this out already?

Edited May 21, 20187 yr by Riley24

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

And yours hasn't? Your argument that more guns will lessen gun violence gets disproven every year.

 

I'm open to new ideas. But if more guns was the answer to gun violence, we'd be living in the safest country on earth, and not the 103rd safest. Honestly, what would it take for you to realize you are wrong? Ever stop and think, maybe every other first world country figured this out already?

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that more responsible gun owners will reduce the chances of violence. I don't recall anyone ever saying that throwing more guns into the mix will fix the problem, but alright homie. 

 

The problem is that I'm not wrong, I'm right. Most political debates today are based solely on opinion and perspective. This is not one of them. The facts and the rest of the US are against you, you are the minority view. At least you've got some misguided and uninformed high schoolers on your side though. Hitler did say those that control the youth control the future.

Edited May 21, 20187 yr by TheDivineHustle

20 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that more responsible gun owners will reduce the chances of violence. I don't recall anyone ever saying that throwing more guns into the mix will fix the problem, but alright homie. 

So do you support rigorous background checks, registration, and waiting periods? Or do you think getting more guns into the hands of the good guys will happen by the honor system?

 

21 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The problem is that I'm not wrong, I'm right. Most political debates today are based solely on opinion and perspective. This is not one of them. The facts and the rest of the US are against you, you are the minority view. At least you've got some misguided and uninformed high schoolers on your side though. Hitler did say those that control the youth control the future.

And you have uneducated hicks on your side. And you're wrong again: the majority of Americans do not own a gun, and support gun control by a substantial margin: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686

 

YOU are in the minority, no matter what fox new tells you. You live in a fantasy world my friend. And those 'misguided and uninformed high schoolers' certainly seem more eloquent and informed than most Trump voters.

 

Give me sources for your claims, or don't bother responding. I won't entertain your fantasies unless you provide proof for your arguments from this point on. And unless you're 14 years old, not responding on an internet forum doesn't mean you 'lost the argument'.

6 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

 

Give me sources for your claims, or don't bother responding. I won't entertain your fantasies unless you provide proof for your arguments from this point on. And unless you're 14 years old, not responding on an internet forum doesn't mean you 'lost the argument'.

 

Not responding to a debate generally means that you've inherently lost. It's not coincidental that you and the others decide to just stop responding at the same point in every gun debate we've ever had. When the numbers and the facts come out, you disappear. When other users come out and call your statements and arguments as fallacies with inconsistencies, we stop receiving responses from you guys. It happens every time man.

 

As for your desired sources, I encourage you to ruffle around inside of this because I've posted them all over:

 

Quote

So do you support rigorous background checks, registration, and waiting periods? 

 

Yes, and so do a vast majority of Americans.

Quote

And you have uneducated hicks on your side. And you're wrong again: the majority of Americans do not own a gun, and support gun control by a substantial margin: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-support-gun-control-hits-record-high-n849686

I don't ever recall saying that a majority of Americans own guns. What I have said in the past is that a majority of gun owners are well-educated on their weapons, a majority of gun owners are Republicans, and a majority of Republicans keep guns in their homes and don't support any sort of ban or harsh restriction on guns.

Quote

YOU are in the minority, no matter what fox new tells you. You live in a fantasy world my friend. And those 'misguided and uninformed high schoolers' certainly seem more eloquent and informed than most Trump voters.

This is the problem with the US. Since I disagree with your opinion, I'm suddenly some hardcore Fox News watching right-wing conservative. I didn't even vote for Trump, so I have no idea what you're talking about on that note.

 

And no, I'm not. Most Americans support "common sense" gun control, which you've listed above. Most Americans do not support anything further than that, according to Gallup's polling.

 

 

34 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Not responding to a debate generally means that you've inherently lost. It's not coincidental that you and the others decide to just stop responding at the same point in every gun debate we've ever had. When the numbers and the facts come out, you disappear. When other users come out and call your statements and arguments as fallacies with inconsistencies, we stop receiving responses from you guys. It happens every time man.

 

As for your desired sources, I encourage you to ruffle around inside of this because I've posted them all over:

 

I'm an adult, I only go to forums in the rare occurrence when I don't have better things to do. As soon as your responses bore me, I stop responding. I tend to stop responding when pro-gun people get emotional about their freedoms, choose to ignore facts from credible sources, or boringly state 'The second amendment. End of discussion.'

 

35 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Yes, and so do a vast majority of Americans.

So you support gun control, and we're largely in agreement. I support banning bump stocks and assault weapons (which have a legal definition, you can look it up). I know I probably loose you there, but frankly I don't really care. Ammosexuals (not saying YOU are one) are too in love with their sexy black rifles. Instagram is full of tacticool weekend operators. Those guys aren't the guys I'm worried about. Sure, they might blow their wife's head off during a drunken argument, but if we're talking about mass shootings, they don't fit the profile. I'm worried about the amateur enthusiast who bought an AR-15 to stick it to the liberals, and his mentally deranged high school kid who has access to it. I just don't believe pro-gun people when they claim they want an AR-15 for improved effectiveness in home defense, and I don't believe them when they say they're stock piling to defend against tyranny. I'm a knife guy, building a small collection. I use and carry them for work, but I get the appeal of collecting and modifying guns. But I want the safety of the public, and our police officers to be a higher priority than the specific freedoms of owning certain kinds of weapons, and the ways we allow them to be sold in the first place.

 

54 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I don't ever recall saying that a majority of Americans own guns. What I have said in the past is that a majority of gun owners are well-educated on their weapons, a majority of gun owners are Republicans, and a majority of Republicans keep guns in their homes and don't support any sort of ban or harsh restriction on guns.

This is the problem with the US. Since I disagree with your opinion, I'm suddenly some hardcore Fox News watching right-wing conservative. I didn't even vote for Trump, so I have no idea what you're talking about on that note.

I never said that you said the majority of Americans own guns. YOU claimed to be in the majority of Americans who were pro-gun, I informed you that you were incorrect in a number of ways. And if you spout the exact talking points expressed on the largest right wing media organization, I'm going to assume that you get your news there. And I never claimed that you voted for Trump. You were condescending and dickish about teenage survivors of a massacre, so I included a jab about the absolute morons who are on YOUR side.

 

58 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

And no, I'm not. Most Americans support "common sense" gun control, which you've listed above. Most Americans do not support anything further than that, according to Gallup's polling.

Majority of Americans support assault weapons ban, majority of Americans support bump stock ban. What is and isn't common sense is a matter of opinion. I think it is common sense to ban assault weapons and devices that allow for a loophole in laws regarding automatic weapons, and evidently, so do the majority of Americans.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/355376-poll-82-support-a-ban-on-bump-stocks

12 hours ago, Hystery said:

I mean, I understand your trail of thoughts, to make schools a safe haven for kids. That's a good thing to want them to be protected. But kids don't spend their lives in a school. They go out. Personally I've been bullied in high school, and the dudes bullying me were always outside the school, some of them weren't even students. Even if my school had been a real fortress like you're suggesting it should be, it wouldn't have protected me from them (not even gonna mention standing up to them as they were more than one, and dipping into some drug dealing shit, aka not afraid to break your bones if you pissed them off).

 

Protecting schools and turning them into prison-like facilities will increase the kids safety inside. But you're disregarding the whole outside world. So what then, do we place one guard at every street corner to make sure kids don't get bullied or assaulted there too? Do we turn every street of every city into some kind of 1984 remake (yeah yeah standing up to the bullies and helping the ones who can't, you said violence was part of humanity, I say selfishness is equally part of humanity and people will always value their own issues before others)? Or do we actually adress the issue of people with mental issues having access to firearms which, not only would protect kids in school, but also out of school, and everywhere else for everyone else?

  I know that kid's do not spend yheir lives in school, I never said that they do.  There is obviously an issue with people wanting to shoot up a school to make a name for them selves and to have there story told.

 

  I am just asking for people to start protecting kid's by actually protecting them and not by trying to figure out how to understand the human psyche first.  You can do alot by just locking down door's, putting in metal detectors, and adding armed, trained guards.  You cant control people everywhere and the idea that making a new law that addresses mental illness will somehow stop bullies and criminals from doing horrid act's.  

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

So you support gun control, and we're largely in agreement. I support banning bump stocks and assault weapons (which have a legal definition, you can look it up). I know I probably loose you there, but frankly I don't really care. Ammosexuals (not saying YOU are one) are too in love with their sexy black rifles. Instagram is full of tacticool weekend operators. Those guys aren't the guys I'm worried about. Sure, they might blow their wife's head off during a drunken argument, but if we're talking about mass shootings, they don't fit the profile. I'm worried about the amateur enthusiast who bought an AR-15 to stick it to the liberals, and his mentally deranged high school kid who has access to it. I just don't believe pro-gun people when they claim they want an AR-15 for improved effectiveness in home defense, and I don't believe them when they say they're stock piling to defend against tyranny. I'm a knife guy, building a small collection. I use and carry them for work, but I get the appeal of collecting and modifying guns. But I

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

But I want the safety of the public, and our police officers to be a higher priority than the specific freedoms of owning certain kinds of weapons, and the ways we allow them to be sold in the first place.

 

  I will first off say that I do not support any sort of gun control and I will also say that banning guns in any form does absolutely nothing to stop crime.  You can try to say gun crime all you want but it is only crime and crimes are commited with knives more than they are with guns so let's talk about common sense knife control?

  An assault weapon is anything that can be picked up, and used as a weapon.  You can turn anything into an assault weapon.

  In 2015, the 252 people were killed with rifles (that is all rifles not just the AR15), 269 with shotguns (we should ban them since they killed more? And 6,447 with handguns (wow the statistics are not adding up in your favor with these black assault rifles).  I have used an AR15 in civilian life to save the life of another, that in it's self is a reason to own one. 

 

  There is no law that would of stopped these shootings unless you call for all out confiscation.  In Sandy Hook the shooter killed his mother, took the guns and killed the kid's.  A background check would of not stopped that.

 

  In San Bernardino, the shooters purchased the ar15 from a friend illegally, no law stopped that.

 

  In Parkland, the shooter should of not had a gun with the laws that are on the book's and yet the Government you want to enact and enforce these law's failed to follow and prosecute these law's.

 

  In the recent Texas shooting, the gunman took his father's guns and commited these crimes.  What restriction, background check, or waiting period would have made a difference? 

 

  The one sole reason for the Second amendment is to allow the citizens to be able to stand up and fight against a tyrannical government just like they did in the American Revolution, Athens Tennessee, Bundy Ranch, and any other tyrannical act the goverment wishes to be forced upon us.  

3 hours ago, Riley24 said:

But I want the safety of the public, and our police officers to be a higher priority than the specific freedoms of owning certain kinds of weapons, and the ways we allow them to be sold in the first place.

  So I should be barred from owning an AR15 or AK47 type rifle because it may somehow make a law enforcement officer safer if I, the law abiding citizen, choose to subjugate myself to the power of the state?  These freedoms should not be played with like that, to enslave yourself because you somehow think that it will make other's safer is scary.

 

  Self preservation should be your highest priority and not you least priority.

 

  I am passionate about this subject because my family was rounded up and enslaved by the Russians in WW2 for having German descent even though they had been in Russia for 200 year's and swore loyalty to Russia.  Only 3 of my family members survived and that is why my name is known today.

 

  My fiancee's family's country was occupied by the Germans during WW2 and were later rounded up and exicuted by Ukrainian soldiers while her grandmother was able to excape and hide.  Her grandmother ended up growing up in an orphanage until she was able to make it to the U.S. and away from fascist's.

 

  Weapons, including guns and AR15's, are the point of the sword for your freedom and your voice.  The founding father's of the U.S. agreed to put these in place to make sure that it is the Government who answer to the people and not the people who answer to the government.  When you trust your government only the worst will happen. 

 

  Your safety and security starts with you and only you.

 

  And a majority of American's do NOT support gun control or "common sense" gun control because ther is no such thing.

 

  You can poll all you want but those poll's are lies.  You bashed TheDevineHustle claiming he was a stupid Fox news guy and you come back with a leftist news channel to support your wild claims. WTF?

Edited May 21, 20187 yr by ToeBius