Gun ownership poll

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Yes, some people are. 10,000% tax on ammunition, suing gun manufacturers as being responsible for murderers using their products to commit crime... these are not reasonable things and are clearly designed to drive gun manufacturers and retailers out of business.

There ARE people trying to ban guns and they are coming at it from several different angles, including, someday, tearing down the 2nd Amendment.

And who will be the big winners? Gang members and other assorted murderers, who will have an entire society of defenseless sheep to slaughter with little concern for their own safety. And, like cocaine, heroin, and other illegal things, they will have another product (guns) they can sell at huge markups, since they'll have a monopoly on that business.

I understand that fear but I don’t think it’s warranted. Most sensible people on the left do not want to leave you defenseless a d let that be the outcome. They’re truly just trying to work on a better solution to these mass shooting, and admittedly not focusing as much as they should on single killings. At any rate, work with them, don’t assume they are villains.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I understand that fear but I don’t think it’s warranted. Most sensible people on the left do not want to leave you defenseless a d let that be the outcome. They’re truly just trying to work on a better solution to these mass shooting, and admittedly not focusing as much as they should on single killings. At any rate, work with them, don’t assume they are villains.

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

I oppose the current system that lets a kid buy a gun legally and then use it a day or two later to blow up a bunch of school kids and teachers. You seem to be ok with this and not realize the good guy with a gun theory is bs. It’s weird.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I oppose the current system that lets a kid buy a gun legally and then use it a day or two later to blow up a bunch of school kids and teachers. You seem to be ok with this and not realize the good guy with a gun theory is bs. It’s weird.

Nice non-response. You have advocated leaving kids in schools defenseless.

How do you know who is going to go on a killing spree before it happens? If we locked up people who wrote about butchering other people, killing family members with guns, knives, or chainsaws, Stephen King would've been incarcerated these past 50 years.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Nice non-response. You have advocated leaving kids in schools defenseless.

How do you know who is going to go on a killing spree before it happens? If we locked up people who wrote about butchering other people, killing family members with guns, knives, or chainsaws, Stephen King would've been incarcerated these past 50 years.

So guns for everyone no matter what? That’s sad and a joke.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

So guns for everyone no matter what? That’s sad and a joke.

For a moment, a few posts ago, I thought you were being reasoned.

Then you come up with this silly strawman. Of course that isn't what I said or meant and now I have become bored with trying to converse with you.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

For a moment, a few posts ago, I thought you were being reasoned.

Then you come up with this silly strawman. Of course that isn't what I said or meant and now I have become bored with trying to converse with you.

So how do we stop the situation where a kid can buy a legal rifle and shoot you a school a few days later? Genuinely interested. A good guy with a gun isn’t doing it.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When you oppose law abiding, trained, concerned personnel to be armed in schools as a precaution, you are, in fact, leaving those kids defenseless. Your own posts show my fear is warranted.

Identifying school shooters before they go off is nearly impossible. That is utopia, not reality. Reality is, when a murderer goes off, he needs to be stopped with lethal force as quickly as possible.

I'll probably regret this, but if it is nearly impossible to identify school shooters, what exactly makes you think you would be successful identifying law abiding, trained, concerned personnel?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I'll probably regret this, but if it is nearly impossible to identify school shooters, what exactly makes you think you would be successful identifying law abiding, trained, concerned personnel?

It is pretty easy to identify a security guard or a police officer with a cursory background check, as most employers do. Are we going to claim we cannot identify people without a criminal record and a valid security guard permit? This is a simple thing. I don't really think a security guard will do much, but it is very easy to identify qualified individuals for the job.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is pretty easy to identify a security guard or a police officer with a cursory background check, as most employers do. Are we going to claim we cannot identify people without a criminal record and a valid security guard permit? This is a simple thing. I don't really think a security guard will do much, but it is very easy to identify qualified individuals for the job.

"Law abiding, trained, concerned personnel" encompasses more than law enforcement. I have seen proposals to use armed citizen volunteers. How do you expect to determine if your average 60 something retired accountant is qualified or not since it is pretty much impossible to determine who is not qualified?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

"Law abiding, trained, concerned personnel" encompasses more than law enforcement. I have seen proposals to use armed citizen volunteers. How do you expect to determine if your average 60 something retired accountant is qualified or not since it is pretty much impossible to determine who is not qualified?

How is it impossible? How do you think police and security are hired for everything else? I don’t see how this would be impossible or incredibly difficult. If they can run a background check anytime I buy a gun or get a new job, they can do it for this too. It’s not “impossible” to figure out if a person has any criminal history, or is not trained in security work. This is done every single day, many times. Whether the person is a volunteer, a member of the police force, or a paid employee, I fail to see how this is difficult. If it is difficult, I fail to see how thousands and thousands of other venues across the United States manage to secure trained, law abiding security. This makes no sense.

[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

How is it impossible? How do you think police and security are hired for everything else? I don’t see how this would be impossible or incredibly difficult. If they can run a background check anytime I buy a gun or get a new job, they can do it for this too. It’s not “impossible” to figure out if a person has any criminal history, or is not trained in security work. This is done every single day, many times. Whether the person is a volunteer, a member of the police force, or a paid employee, I fail to see how this is difficult. If it is difficult, I fail to see how thousands and thousands of other venues across the United States manage to secure trained, law abiding security. This makes no sense.

It only fails to make sense when you accept individual arguments on a stand-alone basis and don't need for them to hang together as a coherent whole.

There are two propositions here:

1. It is nearly impossible to identify individuals that represent risks.
2. It is trivially easy to identify individuals that don't represent risks.

Surely you can see the contradiction here.