Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Yeah I don't have kids, but if I did, pretty sure I would not be cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc ESPECIALLY IN REAL LIFE. Hate to speak for Hugh, but I imagine he thinks the same way....
65 shots within 15 seconds by “trained” law enforcement personnel. They all missed and you want to arm teachers?
Why do you lean on one example out of the hundreds of thousands where that does not happen? That was an anomaly...simply put. I’m sure there are plenty of examples where they placed their shot perfectly if you are willing to look them up...
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Yeah I don't have kids, but if I did, pretty sure I would not be cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc ESPECIALLY IN REAL LIFE. Hate to speak for Hugh, but I imagine he thinks the same way....
Arming teachers is an incredible dumb idea.
Society itself is desensitizing children to those things... You would probably have to live in a box not to be exposed to gun violence/porn/gore in this day and age, whether it be on the internet or some random commercial during the Super Bowl. Well if you say it’s dumb, then it must be. Thanks for the incredibly intelligent responses that have equated to “you’re just dumb” instead of any real substance. I think trying to ban guns is dumb, so yeah. And since “that’s dumb” is all you have, I’ll one-up you by saying “na na na na boo boo”.
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Yeah I don't have kids, but if I did, pretty sure I would not be cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc ESPECIALLY IN REAL LIFE. Hate to speak for Hugh, but I imagine he thinks the same way....
Arming teachers is an incredible dumb idea.
I do think the same way. kids that age should not be exposed to stuff like that. mine aren't. no chance in hell they are even without me around. they simply don't have access to that kind of stuff. now, when they are teens, it will be more difficult for me to monitor.
and jugs makes a great point. most kids can differentiate between make believe and real life. shooting a gun in a video game is quite different from seeing one walking down the hall between gym and home ec.
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.
Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here. Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison. There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...
65 shots within 15 seconds by “trained” law enforcement personnel. They all missed and you want to arm teachers?
Why do you lean on one example out of the hundreds of thousands where that does not happen? That was an anomaly...simply put. I’m sure there are plenty of examples where they placed their shot perfectly if you are willing to look them up...
Because I don’t have to lean on one example. Its not an anomoly, its routine.
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
They're not carrying more guns. They're carrying what they're issued. Andi haven't really seen too many arguments against armed security in schools. Most here are against arming untrained teachers.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Yeah I don't have kids, but if I did, pretty sure I would not be cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc ESPECIALLY IN REAL LIFE. Hate to speak for Hugh, but I imagine he thinks the same way....
Arming teachers is an incredible dumb idea.
I do think the same way. kids that age should not be exposed to stuff like that. mine aren't. no chance in hell they are even without me around. they simply don't have access to that kind of stuff. now, when they are teens, it will be more difficult for me to monitor.
and jugs makes a great point. most kids can differentiate between make believe and real life. shooting a gun in a video game is quite different from seeing one walking down the hall between gym and home ec.
Science would tell you that kids brains actually do struggle with differentiating reality from fiction. It is the reason children have “make believe” friends. Even adults can struggle to differentiate on a subconscious level. It’s tied to the reason one might feel real Andersen or fear while watching a movie...Interesting stuff if you are bored and need a research topic.
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Yeah I don't have kids, but if I did, pretty sure I would not be cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc ESPECIALLY IN REAL LIFE. Hate to speak for Hugh, but I imagine he thinks the same way....
Arming teachers is an incredible dumb idea.
I do think the same way. kids that age should not be exposed to stuff like that. mine aren't. no chance in hell they are even without me around. they simply don't have access to that kind of stuff. now, when they are teens, it will be more difficult for me to monitor.
and jugs makes a great point. most kids can differentiate between make believe and real life. shooting a gun in a video game is quite different from seeing one walking down the hall between gym and home ec.
Science would tell you that kids brains actually do struggle with differentiating reality from fiction. It is the reason children have “make believe” friends. Even adults can struggle to differentiate on a subconscious level. It’s tied to the reason one might feel real Andersen or fear while watching a movie...Interesting stuff if you are bored and need a research topic.
Ok, but I feel like you're flip flopping from wildly different age groups when it suits your argument. your original point was that kids are already desensitized so what does it matter. my kids are 8 and 11. we don't have cable. they watch age-appropriate things on netflix, and are not subject to ads for violent movies or video games (and the only video games we have is Nintendo Wii-zero vioence). but now you are talking about reality vs fiction and imaginary friends. most school age kids are old enough to have grown out of their imaginary friend stage. and even if they haven't.....if you show them that this is what reality is, having guns in schools, especially their teachers, what's stopping them from thinking at age 15 that THEY should bring a gun to school? normalizing it is the issue here.
the problem is we keep reacting to reality, instead of trying to change it. we need to be a proactive society instead of reactive.
when one of your kids hits the other with a baseball bat, do you give your other child a baseball bat, or do you take the first one away?
Why are "weapons of war" protecting rich celebrities?
Lol
I guess they should carry rubber bands?
Is this supposed to be an indicator of an impending government takeover?
The general public has weapons of war... why the f**k wouldn't cops? People from the general public like to bring their weapons of war and indiscriminately kill people at large events... why would you not want an armed response team in preparation for them?
Here's the thing: it's only going to get worse. Your country has done nothing to address the growing epidemic... and it looks as if it will never do anything.
Good luck!
This is pretty much my exact reasoning for “armed response teams” within schools. Glad we see eye to eye on this
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Yeah I don't have kids, but if I did, pretty sure I would not be cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc ESPECIALLY IN REAL LIFE. Hate to speak for Hugh, but I imagine he thinks the same way....
Arming teachers is an incredible dumb idea.
I do think the same way. kids that age should not be exposed to stuff like that. mine aren't. no chance in hell they are even without me around. they simply don't have access to that kind of stuff. now, when they are teens, it will be more difficult for me to monitor.
and jugs makes a great point. most kids can differentiate between make believe and real life. shooting a gun in a video game is quite different from seeing one walking down the hall between gym and home ec.
Science would tell you that kids brains actually do struggle with differentiating reality from fiction. It is the reason children have “make believe” friends. Even adults can struggle to differentiate on a subconscious level. It’s tied to the reason one might feel real Andersen or fear while watching a movie...Interesting stuff if you are bored and need a research topic.
Ok, but I feel like you're flip flopping from wildly different age groups when it suits your argument. your original point was that kids are already desensitized so what does it matter. my kids are 8 and 11. we don't have cable. they watch age-appropriate things on netflix, and are not subject to ads for violent movies or video games (and the only video games we have is Nintendo Wii-zero vioence). but now you are talking about reality vs fiction and imaginary friends. most school age kids are old enough to have grown out of their imaginary friend stage. and even if they haven't.....if you show them that this is what reality is, having guns in schools, especially their teachers, what's stopping them from thinking at age 15 that THEY should bring a gun to school? normalizing it is the issue here.
the problem is we keep reacting to reality, instead of trying to change it. we need to be a proactive society instead of reactive.
when one of your kids hits the other with a baseball bat, do you give your other child a baseball bat, or do you take the first one away?
If someone is attacking my child with a baseball bat, I would hope he had at least a baseball bat to defend himself with... But I would teach my kid not to initiate a baseball bat fight.
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
No, not semi automatic hand guns. I'm against semi rifles and the corresponding high capacity clips. I think we can all agree the carnage at Pulse, LV and Broward would have been far less with a more pedestrian weapon. I am taking for granted that you understood I meant rifles considering the previous discussions around military grade weapons.
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Yeah I don't have kids, but if I did, pretty sure I would not be cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc ESPECIALLY IN REAL LIFE. Hate to speak for Hugh, but I imagine he thinks the same way....
Arming teachers is an incredible dumb idea.
I do think the same way. kids that age should not be exposed to stuff like that. mine aren't. no chance in hell they are even without me around. they simply don't have access to that kind of stuff. now, when they are teens, it will be more difficult for me to monitor.
and jugs makes a great point. most kids can differentiate between make believe and real life. shooting a gun in a video game is quite different from seeing one walking down the hall between gym and home ec.
Science would tell you that kids brains actually do struggle with differentiating reality from fiction. It is the reason children have “make believe” friends. Even adults can struggle to differentiate on a subconscious level. It’s tied to the reason one might feel real Andersen or fear while watching a movie...Interesting stuff if you are bored and need a research topic.
Ok, but I feel like you're flip flopping from wildly different age groups when it suits your argument. your original point was that kids are already desensitized so what does it matter. my kids are 8 and 11. we don't have cable. they watch age-appropriate things on netflix, and are not subject to ads for violent movies or video games (and the only video games we have is Nintendo Wii-zero vioence). but now you are talking about reality vs fiction and imaginary friends. most school age kids are old enough to have grown out of their imaginary friend stage. and even if they haven't.....if you show them that this is what reality is, having guns in schools, especially their teachers, what's stopping them from thinking at age 15 that THEY should bring a gun to school? normalizing it is the issue here.
the problem is we keep reacting to reality, instead of trying to change it. we need to be a proactive society instead of reactive.
when one of your kids hits the other with a baseball bat, do you give your other child a baseball bat, or do you take the first one away?
If someone is attacking my child with a baseball bat, I would hope he had at least a baseball bat to defend himself with... But I would teach my kid not to initiate a baseball bat fight.
you didn't answer the question.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.
Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here. Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison. There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...
In other words, "since this reasonable and very simple argument disputes everything I say, I'm just gonna go ahead and say those countries are different. Apples and oranges."
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Yeah I don't have kids, but if I did, pretty sure I would not be cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc ESPECIALLY IN REAL LIFE. Hate to speak for Hugh, but I imagine he thinks the same way....
Arming teachers is an incredible dumb idea.
I do think the same way. kids that age should not be exposed to stuff like that. mine aren't. no chance in hell they are even without me around. they simply don't have access to that kind of stuff. now, when they are teens, it will be more difficult for me to monitor.
and jugs makes a great point. most kids can differentiate between make believe and real life. shooting a gun in a video game is quite different from seeing one walking down the hall between gym and home ec.
Science would tell you that kids brains actually do struggle with differentiating reality from fiction. It is the reason children have “make believe” friends. Even adults can struggle to differentiate on a subconscious level. It’s tied to the reason one might feel real Andersen or fear while watching a movie...Interesting stuff if you are bored and need a research topic.
Ok, but I feel like you're flip flopping from wildly different age groups when it suits your argument. your original point was that kids are already desensitized so what does it matter. my kids are 8 and 11. we don't have cable. they watch age-appropriate things on netflix, and are not subject to ads for violent movies or video games (and the only video games we have is Nintendo Wii-zero vioence). but now you are talking about reality vs fiction and imaginary friends. most school age kids are old enough to have grown out of their imaginary friend stage. and even if they haven't.....if you show them that this is what reality is, having guns in schools, especially their teachers, what's stopping them from thinking at age 15 that THEY should bring a gun to school? normalizing it is the issue here.
the problem is we keep reacting to reality, instead of trying to change it. we need to be a proactive society instead of reactive.
when one of your kids hits the other with a baseball bat, do you give your other child a baseball bat, or do you take the first one away?
If someone is attacking my child with a baseball bat, I would hope he had at least a baseball bat to defend himself with... But I would teach my kid not to initiate a baseball bat fight.
you didn't answer the question.
If my kid hit another kid with a baseball bat out of anger, I would take the baseball bat away for a set a certain amount of time and then give it back once he is able to show that he is responsible with a baseball bat. But before that, I would teach him how to be responsible with a bat (look around before swinging) and that there are positive ways of resolving solutions other than hitting someone with a bat. I would also teach him that it is okay to hit someone with a baseball bat (or whatever else) if they try to kidnap or rape him.
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
No, not semi automatic hand guns. I'm against semi rifles and the corresponding high capacity clips. I think we can all agree the carnage at Pulse, LV and Broward would have been far less with a more pedestrian weapon. I am taking for granted that you understood I meant rifles considering the previous discussions around military grade weapons.
No, I assumed that's what you meant. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not so certain the carnage would have been much different in those cases besides Vegas. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 with two handguns. The Vegas shooter had explosives and had he not had access to rifles, I think one could argue he could have done the same damage through other means.
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.
Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here. Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison. There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...
In other words, "since this reasonable and very simple argument disputes everything I say, I'm just gonna go ahead and say those countries are different. Apples and oranges."
Hammer, meet nail.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.
Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here. Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison. There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...
In other words, "since this reasonable and very simple argument disputes everything I say, I'm just gonna go ahead and say those countries are different. Apples and oranges."
If that’s what you want to take from it. I could have just said “that’s dumb” so that you would understand better.
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.
Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here. Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison. There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...
that's dumb
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
No, not semi automatic hand guns. I'm against semi rifles and the corresponding high capacity clips. I think we can all agree the carnage at Pulse, LV and Broward would have been far less with a more pedestrian weapon. I am taking for granted that you understood I meant rifles considering the previous discussions around military grade weapons.
No, I assumed that's what you meant. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not so certain the carnage would have been much different in those cases besides Vegas. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 with two handguns. The Vegas shooter had explosives and had he not had access to rifles, I think one could argue he could have done the same damage through other means.
Yes, and the tech shooter used hallow point which I also believe should be outlawed. That's a whole different argument though.
But just because you can't stop everything with a single law(s) doesn't mean you should not take any action. In other words, because I can't guarantee the elimination of school shootings by outlawing AR's, doesn't mean the community would not be better safer without them. As I pointed out several times, in a different way, the risk to the community far outweighs any benefit that I can see.
Action on guns and immigration screeches to a halt in Congress - The Hill https://apple.news/AfRw3znfSQWyvVa3P1ax2_w Damn these politicians work so damn hard at doing zero ...
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
how is it more radical?
Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up. It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs
Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.
Figured it was time to join the party. This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there. Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.
You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place? Or do they? There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”. Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either). Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold?
more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.
of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?
last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS.
Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida). The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion). Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon?? Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff. Over 170 schools around here already doing this. I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.
Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....
The fuck...
Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.
Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here. Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison. There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...
In other words, "since this reasonable and very simple argument disputes everything I say, I'm just gonna go ahead and say those countries are different. Apples and oranges."
Hammer, meet nail.
It just makes no sense. I guess learning what works in the rest of the world is pointless.
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
No, not semi automatic hand guns. I'm against semi rifles and the corresponding high capacity clips. I think we can all agree the carnage at Pulse, LV and Broward would have been far less with a more pedestrian weapon. I am taking for granted that you understood I meant rifles considering the previous discussions around military grade weapons.
No, I assumed that's what you meant. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not so certain the carnage would have been much different in those cases besides Vegas. The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 with two handguns. The Vegas shooter had explosives and had he not had access to rifles, I think one could argue he could have done the same damage through other means.
Yes, and the tech shooter used hallow point which I also believe should be outlawed. That's a whole different argument though.
But just because you can't stop everything with a single law(s) doesn't mean you should not take any action. In other words, because I can't guarantee the elimination of school shootings by outlawing AR's, doesn't mean the community would not be better safer without them. As I pointed out several times, in a different way, the risk to the community far outweighs any benefit that I can see.
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
how is it more radical?
Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.
I will admit my ignorance on firearms. never shot one. probably never will.
how is banning all semi-autos banning ALMOST ALL guns?
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
how is it more radical?
Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.
Hugh - he was reading my response as meaning semi handguns too, not just rifles. The intent of my post was about rifles. I'm not in favor of banning semi hand guns. That would leave simply revolvers and bolt action rifles, basically. I think that's too far personally.
The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence. I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.
I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.
Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction.
how is it more radical?
Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.
So can you answer why these massacres don’t happen in other countries heck even our northern neighbors don’t have to deal with these kinds of issues, so tell us why only in this so called most advanced nation in the world these occurred ..
Comments
Arming teachers is an incredible dumb idea.
Well if you say it’s dumb, then it must be. Thanks for the incredibly intelligent responses that have equated to “you’re just dumb” instead of any real substance. I think trying to ban guns is dumb, so yeah. And since “that’s dumb” is all you have, I’ll one-up you by saying “na na na na boo boo”.
Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America? Are we the only country with violence on tv also?
Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.
and jugs makes a great point. most kids can differentiate between make believe and real life. shooting a gun in a video game is quite different from seeing one walking down the hall between gym and home ec.
www.headstonesband.com
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html
https://bearingarms.com/mike-m/2016/06/02/individual-safety-whos-responsible/
https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/deadly-force-statistical-analysis.pdf
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
we will find a way, we will find our place
the problem is we keep reacting to reality, instead of trying to change it. we need to be a proactive society instead of reactive.
when one of your kids hits the other with a baseball bat, do you give your other child a baseball bat, or do you take the first one away?
www.headstonesband.com
But I would teach my kid not to initiate a baseball bat fight.
www.headstonesband.com
we will find a way, we will find our place
But just because you can't stop everything with a single law(s) doesn't mean you should not take any action. In other words, because I can't guarantee the elimination of school shootings by outlawing AR's, doesn't mean the community would not be better safer without them. As I pointed out several times, in a different way, the risk to the community far outweighs any benefit that I can see.
Damn these politicians work so damn hard at doing zero ...
how is banning all semi-autos banning ALMOST ALL guns?
www.headstonesband.com
yet, when it comes to immigration, that's PRECISELY what they are doing; punishing everyone, law abiding/tax paying/society contributing or not.
www.headstonesband.com