Welcome to Animal Farm 1984

[Bob78164]

Flock,

How do you feel about Senator Warnock's proposal to have the government work to prevent school shootings by monitoring the use of social media? Is preventing school shootings a good enough reason for the government to take on this role? --Bob

You really want my opinion? I don't think so. You will just automatically strongly disagree with me and tell me how wrong I am and go on some sanctimonious rant. I have no answers for you until you start answering the innumerable questions I have asked you which you have dodged in one way or another. If you truly want a debate, you will have to show me you are actually open to one, which you have never once done in the past.

I’m pretty sure I know your opinion. It’s proposed by a Democrat, so you oppose it. If the identical proposal were made by a Republican, you’d support it. —Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock,

How do you feel about Senator Warnock's proposal to have the government work to prevent school shootings by monitoring the use of social media? Is preventing school shootings a good enough reason for the government to take on this role? --Bob

You really want my opinion? I don't think so. You will just automatically strongly disagree with me and tell me how wrong I am and go on some sanctimonious rant. I have no answers for you until you start answering the innumerable questions I have asked you which you have dodged in one way or another. If you truly want a debate, you will have to show me you are actually open to one, which you have never once done in the past.

I’m pretty sure I know your opinion. It’s proposed by a Democrat, so you oppose it. If the identical proposal were made by a Republican, you’d support it. —Bob

See, I was right.

The only thing I will say is he should be a Junior High School Principal.

[Bob78164]

You really want my opinion? I don't think so. You will just automatically strongly disagree with me and tell me how wrong I am and go on some sanctimonious rant. I have no answers for you until you start answering the innumerable questions I have asked you which you have dodged in one way or another. If you truly want a debate, you will have to show me you are actually open to one, which you have never once done in the past.

I’m pretty sure I know your opinion. It’s proposed by a Democrat, so you oppose it. If the identical proposal were made by a Republican, you’d support it. —Bob

See, I was right.

The only thing I will say is he should be a Junior High School Principal.

So you're saying that you support Senator Warnock's proposal even though he's a Democrat? And why do you think he should be a junior high school principal? It seems to me he's already got a job he's quite good at. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I’m pretty sure I know your opinion. It’s proposed by a Democrat, so you oppose it. If the identical proposal were made by a Republican, you’d support it. —Bob

See, I was right.

The only thing I will say is he should be a Junior High School Principal.

So you're saying that you support Senator Warnock's proposal even though he's a Democrat? And why do you think he should be a junior high school principal? It seems to me he's already got a job he's quite good at. --Bob

LOL, you have no clue what I'm talking about, do ya? Just go right on doing what you're doing. You're on a roll.
The stalker will know. He has already given me one of his trademark responses about this, before I personally canceled him.
He has no idea what it meant, so he'll give you an explanation that you might understand. I will let him fill you in.
That is based on the assumption that you might read what he posts. Can't be too sure you read what anybody else says.

[wbtravis007]

You really want my opinion? I don't think so. You will just automatically strongly disagree with me and tell me how wrong I am and go on some sanctimonious rant. I have no answers for you until you start answering the innumerable questions I have asked you which you have dodged in one way or another. If you truly want a debate, you will have to show me you are actually open to one, which you have never once done in the past.

I’m pretty sure I know your opinion. It’s proposed by a Democrat, so you oppose it. If the identical proposal were made by a Republican, you’d support it. —Bob

See, I was right.

The only thing I will say is he should be a Junior High School Principal.

Wow.

[wbtravis007]

See, I was right.

The only thing I will say is he should be a Junior High School Principal.

So you're saying that you support Senator Warnock's proposal even though he's a Democrat? And why do you think he should be a junior high school principal? It seems to me he's already got a job he's quite good at. --Bob

LOL, you have no clue what I'm talking about, do ya? Just go right on doing what you're doing. You're on a roll.
The stalker will know. He has already given me one of his trademark responses about this, before I personally canceled him.
He has no idea what it meant, so he'll give you an explanation that you might understand. I will let him fill you in.
That is based on the assumption that you might read what he posts. Can't be too sure you read what anybody else says.

Well ,,, here I go again.

Just: wow.

[flockofseagulls104]

So you're saying that you support Senator Warnock's proposal even though he's a Democrat? And why do you think he should be a junior high school principal? It seems to me he's already got a job he's quite good at. --Bob

LOL, you have no clue what I'm talking about, do ya? Just go right on doing what you're doing. You're on a roll.
The stalker will know. He has already given me one of his trademark responses about this, before I personally canceled him.
He has no idea what it meant, so he'll give you an explanation that you might understand. I will let him fill you in.
That is based on the assumption that you might read what he posts. Can't be too sure you read what anybody else says.

Well ,,, here I go again.

Just: wow.

OK, I'll bite, since the stalker is for once speechless, except for apparently screwing up the other thread.

2 kids get into a fight in the lunchroom in Jr High. Bad thing.
Jr High School Principal's solution: All kids have to eat lunch in silence for the rest of the year. All but 2 of those being punished did absolutely nothing.

An evil person kills 21 people in Texas
Senator Warnock's proposed solution: Create another government entity to monitor the social media of all children (or maybe everybody. I don't know. I have no interest in even looking into it because it is such a bad idea.).
How's that going to work, anyway? Who's going to monitor all that? What are they going to look for? What are they going to do when they find what they are looking for?
What is that going to grow into? What will the limits be? What controls will be established once this entity is created, and who will control it?
How about the fact that 99.9% of those who will apparently be monitored are guilty and will be guilty of absolutely nothing?

The other solution that the dems ALWAYS push: Gun Control.

THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen. Another leftist utopia dream. If they have any regard for the Constitution, which they all pledged to protect and defend, it would require an amendment, which will never happen. Even if they somehow get an amendment or try to achieve their utopia through their usual underhanded methods, how many years will it take, even assuming everything goes according to their naive and delusional plans, and how will they know they have them all? Even if they limit it to their arbitrary category of 'assault weapons', how will they know they got them all? How many years will that take? How many criminals are going to be eager to comply? How many horrific incidents like this do they think it will stop?

This is not even taking into account the Jr. High Principal element. 99.9% of people legally who own guns do not and will not commit mass shootings with them. But let's go after them because of the actions of the few evil and mentally ill people among us that commit these heinous acts.

Of course, their swamp commander in chief, Chuck Schumer, unilaterally killed a republican bill that, among other things I may or may not agree with, included the idea of hardening the soft targets that most schools are. Making it harder to enter a school, just like we do for federal offices, courthouses, airports, etc, cannot possibly be considered by Mr. Schumer and the party he leads. He is after gun control. Apparently nothing else. And exercising as much federal government power over as many people in this country as is possible. Very few of them who are guilty of anything. And he and the puppet president have no qualms using the tragedy as a political circus to inflame those of us that don't think especially well.

This answer your question, bob? You got your self-righteous, sanctimonious response ready?

[Bob78164]

LOL, you have no clue what I'm talking about, do ya? Just go right on doing what you're doing. You're on a roll.
The stalker will know. He has already given me one of his trademark responses about this, before I personally canceled him.
He has no idea what it meant, so he'll give you an explanation that you might understand. I will let him fill you in.
That is based on the assumption that you might read what he posts. Can't be too sure you read what anybody else says.

Well ,,, here I go again.

Just: wow.

OK, I'll bite, since the stalker is for once speechless, except for apparently screwing up the other thread.

2 kids get into a fight in the lunchroom in Jr High. Bad thing.
Jr High School Principal's solution: All kids have to eat lunch in silence for the rest of the year. All but 2 of those being punished did absolutely nothing.

An evil person kills 21 people in Texas
Senator Warnock's proposed solution: Create another government entity to monitor the social media of all children (or maybe everybody. I don't know. I have no interest in even looking into it because it is such a bad idea.).
How's that going to work, anyway? Who's going to monitor all that? What are they going to look for? What are they going to do when they find what they are looking for?
What is that going to grow into? What will the limits be? What controls will be established once this entity is created, and who will control it?
How about the fact that 99.9% of those who will apparently be monitored are guilty and will be guilty of absolutely nothing?

Did I say that was Senator Warnock's proposed solution? Flock, I owe you an apology. Let no one ever say I'm unwilling to admit that I was wrong.

This wasn't Senator Warnock's proposal. It was Herschel Walker's. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Well ,,, here I go again.

Just: wow.

OK, I'll bite, since the stalker is for once speechless, except for apparently screwing up the other thread.

2 kids get into a fight in the lunchroom in Jr High. Bad thing.
Jr High School Principal's solution: All kids have to eat lunch in silence for the rest of the year. All but 2 of those being punished did absolutely nothing.

An evil person kills 21 people in Texas
Senator Warnock's proposed solution: Create another government entity to monitor the social media of all children (or maybe everybody. I don't know. I have no interest in even looking into it because it is such a bad idea.).
How's that going to work, anyway? Who's going to monitor all that? What are they going to look for? What are they going to do when they find what they are looking for?
What is that going to grow into? What will the limits be? What controls will be established once this entity is created, and who will control it?
How about the fact that 99.9% of those who will apparently be monitored are guilty and will be guilty of absolutely nothing?

Did I say that was Senator Warnock's proposed solution? Flock, I owe you an apology. Let no one ever say I'm unwilling to admit that I was wrong.

This wasn't Senator Warnock's proposal. It was Herschel Walker's. --Bob

Stupid idea wherever it came from.

[flockofseagulls104]

BTW, bob.
This was a primary election. I was in the same situation I was in the presidential election in 2016.
In 2016, I lived in Washington State. It was a fait accompli that Hillary was going to take the state. My vote for trump would not mean a thing. But I would not vote for him. I thought he was an asshole, just like you do. He was my last pick among the 17 or so candidates for the repub nomination. So I didn't vote for him. I wrote someone in.

Same situation here. It was pretty much assured that Herschel was going to win. No chance at even a runoff. So I felt free to vote for McColumn. I have seen Herschel on the campaign trail (Along with 4999 other people). I don't think he thinks well on his feet, which is probably why he won't debate, and I am a bit concerned with the domestic abuse issue. I think Warnock would wipe him up in any debate. But he has a big name here in GA, which is probably why they persuaded him to run. Hopefully that will be enough to send Warnock home.

But it will be different in Nov. Rest assured I support Herschel now. I guess we'll be trading one sure vote for whatever the dem agenda is for one for whatever the repub agenda is. Nothing more from either guy. Sad for our country that these are the two 'best' we could come up with for the job.

[SportsFan68]

LOL, you have no clue what I'm talking about, do ya? Just go right on doing what you're doing. You're on a roll.
The stalker will know. He has already given me one of his trademark responses about this, before I personally canceled him.
He has no idea what it meant, so he'll give you an explanation that you might understand. I will let him fill you in.
That is based on the assumption that you might read what he posts. Can't be too sure you read what anybody else says.

Well ,,, here I go again.

Just: wow.

OK, I'll bite, since the stalker is for once speechless, except for apparently screwing up the other thread.

2 kids get into a fight in the lunchroom in Jr High. Bad thing.
Jr High School Principal's solution: All kids have to eat lunch in silence for the rest of the year. All but 2 of those being punished did absolutely nothing.

An evil person kills 21 people in Texas
Senator Warnock's proposed solution: Create another government entity to monitor the social media of all children (or maybe everybody. I don't know. I have no interest in even looking into it because it is such a bad idea.).
How's that going to work, anyway? Who's going to monitor all that? What are they going to look for? What are they going to do when they find what they are looking for?
What is that going to grow into? What will the limits be? What controls will be established once this entity is created, and who will control it?
How about the fact that 99.9% of those who will apparently be monitored are guilty and will be guilty of absolutely nothing?

The other solution that the dems ALWAYS push: Gun Control.

THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen. Another leftist utopia dream. If they have any regard for the Constitution, which they all pledged to protect and defend, it would require an amendment, which will never happen. Even if they somehow get an amendment or try to achieve their utopia through their usual underhanded methods, how many years will it take, even assuming everything goes according to their naive and delusional plans, and how will they know they have them all? Even if they limit it to their arbitrary category of 'assault weapons', how will they know they got them all? How many years will that take? How many criminals are going to be eager to comply? How many horrific incidents like this do they think it will stop?

This is not even taking into account the Jr. High Principal element. 99.9% of people legally who own guns do not and will not commit mass shootings with them. But let's go after them because of the actions of the few evil and mentally ill people among us that commit these heinous acts.

Of course, their swamp commander in chief, Chuck Schumer, unilaterally killed a republican bill that, among other things I may or may not agree with, included the idea of hardening the soft targets that most schools are. Making it harder to enter a school, just like we do for federal offices, courthouses, airports, etc, cannot possibly be considered by Mr. Schumer and the party he leads. He is after gun control. Apparently nothing else. And exercising as much federal government power over as many people in this country as is possible. Very few of them who are guilty of anything. And he and the puppet president have no qualms using the tragedy as a political circus to inflame those of us that don't think especially well.

This answer your question, bob? You got your self-righteous, sanctimonious response ready?

Knock it off, Flock. Dems do not always push "Gun Control." We want realistic, common sense solutions to children being killed in schools. Background checks and red flag laws are a modest start, but many states will not pass them. I agree with this: "THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen." I disagree categorically with your followup statement: "Another leftist utopia dream." That assertion is patently ridiculous, as is the notion that Schumer "is after gun control. Apparently nothing else."

[flockofseagulls104]

Well ,,, here I go again.

Just: wow.

OK, I'll bite, since the stalker is for once speechless, except for apparently screwing up the other thread.

2 kids get into a fight in the lunchroom in Jr High. Bad thing.
Jr High School Principal's solution: All kids have to eat lunch in silence for the rest of the year. All but 2 of those being punished did absolutely nothing.

An evil person kills 21 people in Texas
Senator Warnock's proposed solution: Create another government entity to monitor the social media of all children (or maybe everybody. I don't know. I have no interest in even looking into it because it is such a bad idea.).
How's that going to work, anyway? Who's going to monitor all that? What are they going to look for? What are they going to do when they find what they are looking for?
What is that going to grow into? What will the limits be? What controls will be established once this entity is created, and who will control it?
How about the fact that 99.9% of those who will apparently be monitored are guilty and will be guilty of absolutely nothing?

The other solution that the dems ALWAYS push: Gun Control.

THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen. Another leftist utopia dream. If they have any regard for the Constitution, which they all pledged to protect and defend, it would require an amendment, which will never happen. Even if they somehow get an amendment or try to achieve their utopia through their usual underhanded methods, how many years will it take, even assuming everything goes according to their naive and delusional plans, and how will they know they have them all? Even if they limit it to their arbitrary category of 'assault weapons', how will they know they got them all? How many years will that take? How many criminals are going to be eager to comply? How many horrific incidents like this do they think it will stop?

This is not even taking into account the Jr. High Principal element. 99.9% of people legally who own guns do not and will not commit mass shootings with them. But let's go after them because of the actions of the few evil and mentally ill people among us that commit these heinous acts.

Of course, their swamp commander in chief, Chuck Schumer, unilaterally killed a republican bill that, among other things I may or may not agree with, included the idea of hardening the soft targets that most schools are. Making it harder to enter a school, just like we do for federal offices, courthouses, airports, etc, cannot possibly be considered by Mr. Schumer and the party he leads. He is after gun control. Apparently nothing else. And exercising as much federal government power over as many people in this country as is possible. Very few of them who are guilty of anything. And he and the puppet president have no qualms using the tragedy as a political circus to inflame those of us that don't think especially well.

This answer your question, bob? You got your self-righteous, sanctimonious response ready?

Knock it off, Flock. Dems do not always push "Gun Control." We want realistic, common sense solutions to children being killed in schools. Background checks and red flag laws are a modest start, but many states will not pass them. I agree with this: "THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen." I disagree categorically with your followup statement: "Another leftist utopia dream." That assertion is patently ridiculous, as is the notion that Schumer "is after gun control. Apparently nothing else."

Come off it, sprots. Every time there is another shooting like this, all you hear from the dems is 'GUN CONTROL'. Biden went to Buffalo a couple of weeks ago, and I watched his speech. If he stopped after the first 10 minutes, it would have been a worthy presidential speech. But then he used the rest of it as a political grandstand for gun control. Utterly disgusting. I have no doubt he'll do the same in Texas.

Schumer wouldn't even let a vote take place on a bill that would consider hardening schools as a target, because he said it might lead to more guns in a school.
Dems place the blame on the gun, not on the person that uses the gun. So NOTHING gets done to protect the schools or the children.

We can argue back and forth about background checks, but no background check is going to protect a school. They can spend billions on the cause of the day, everyday. Give the schools the money to retrofit themselves to be more secure from somebody just walking in and shooting the place up. Why don't they do that?

[silverscreenselect]

Senator Warnock's proposed solution: Create another government entity to monitor the social media of all children (or maybe everybody. I don't know. I have no interest in even looking into it because it is such a bad idea.).

Actually, that was Herschel Walker's proposed solution: "What about looking at getting a department that can look at young men that’s looking at women that’s looking at their social media?"

THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen. Another leftist utopia dream. If they have any regard for the Constitution, which they all pledged to protect and defend, it would require an amendment, which will never happen.

Actually, all it would take is a different group of people on the Supreme Court to explain that the phrase about a well-ordered militia isn't mere surplusage. But that's beside the point. No one is seriously proposing taking all guns away. Conservatives always like to claim that any gun control measures are useless because they can't prevent every illegal use. By that token, DUI laws are useless because they don't prevent all DUIs. How about this one? If we banned the sale of assault rifles to teenagers, there is a very good chance that 21 more people in Uvalde TX would be alive today.

But then he used the rest of it as a political grandstand for gun control. Utterly disgusting.

The reason that politicians use occasions like Uvalde and Buffalo to "grandstand" is because that's the only time the public at large and Republican politicians in particular listen. Otherwise, give it a few months and the uproar dies down. Republicans know this and the NRA knows this so they mouth platitudes and express sympathy and wait it out.

[SportsFan68]

OK, I'll bite, since the stalker is for once speechless, except for apparently screwing up the other thread.

2 kids get into a fight in the lunchroom in Jr High. Bad thing.
Jr High School Principal's solution: All kids have to eat lunch in silence for the rest of the year. All but 2 of those being punished did absolutely nothing.

An evil person kills 21 people in Texas
Senator Warnock's proposed solution: Create another government entity to monitor the social media of all children (or maybe everybody. I don't know. I have no interest in even looking into it because it is such a bad idea.).
How's that going to work, anyway? Who's going to monitor all that? What are they going to look for? What are they going to do when they find what they are looking for?
What is that going to grow into? What will the limits be? What controls will be established once this entity is created, and who will control it?
How about the fact that 99.9% of those who will apparently be monitored are guilty and will be guilty of absolutely nothing?

The other solution that the dems ALWAYS push: Gun Control.

THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen. Another leftist utopia dream. If they have any regard for the Constitution, which they all pledged to protect and defend, it would require an amendment, which will never happen. Even if they somehow get an amendment or try to achieve their utopia through their usual underhanded methods, how many years will it take, even assuming everything goes according to their naive and delusional plans, and how will they know they have them all? Even if they limit it to their arbitrary category of 'assault weapons', how will they know they got them all? How many years will that take? How many criminals are going to be eager to comply? How many horrific incidents like this do they think it will stop?

This is not even taking into account the Jr. High Principal element. 99.9% of people legally who own guns do not and will not commit mass shootings with them. But let's go after them because of the actions of the few evil and mentally ill people among us that commit these heinous acts.

Of course, their swamp commander in chief, Chuck Schumer, unilaterally killed a republican bill that, among other things I may or may not agree with, included the idea of hardening the soft targets that most schools are. Making it harder to enter a school, just like we do for federal offices, courthouses, airports, etc, cannot possibly be considered by Mr. Schumer and the party he leads. He is after gun control. Apparently nothing else. And exercising as much federal government power over as many people in this country as is possible. Very few of them who are guilty of anything. And he and the puppet president have no qualms using the tragedy as a political circus to inflame those of us that don't think especially well.

This answer your question, bob? You got your self-righteous, sanctimonious response ready?

Knock it off, Flock. Dems do not always push "Gun Control." We want realistic, common sense solutions to children being killed in schools. Background checks and red flag laws are a modest start, but many states will not pass them. I agree with this: "THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen." I disagree categorically with your followup statement: "Another leftist utopia dream." That assertion is patently ridiculous, as is the notion that Schumer "is after gun control. Apparently nothing else."

Come off it, sprots. Every time there is another shooting like this, all you hear from the dems is 'GUN CONTROL'. Biden went to Buffalo a couple of weeks ago, and I watched his speech. If he stopped after the first 10 minutes, it would have been a worthy presidential speech. But then he used the rest of it as a political grandstand for gun control. Utterly disgusting. I have no doubt he'll do the same in Texas.

Schumer wouldn't even let a vote take place on a bill that would consider hardening schools as a target, because he said it might lead to more guns in a school.
Dems place the blame on the gun, not on the person that uses the gun. So NOTHING gets done to protect the schools or the children.

We can argue back and forth about background checks, but no background check is going to protect a school. They can spend billions on the cause of the day, everyday. Give the schools the money to retrofit themselves to be more secure from somebody just walking in and shooting the place up. Why don't they do that?

Not so, Flock. Background checks focus on the person, not the firearm. As do red flag laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders).

They do that. Schools around here are fitted to be secure from random shooters. I can't pick up Matias or MatiasSis from school without their password. I can't even get in without presenting an ID at the office and being issued a pass. Other doors are locked. I believe that's up to local school boards.

[SportsFan68]

I thought it was cool to find something referring, at least obliquely, to MsKing:

DO NOT MAKE THIS POLITICAL. JUST TAKE THE DREADED GUNS AWAY.

SAVE LIVES. SAVE HUMANITY. WE IMPLORE YOU TO LET OUR CHILDREN GROW, “LIVE” AND THRIVE IN PEACE. A NORMAL LIFE.

ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PARENTS WHO UTTERLY FEAR THE FUTURE OF THIS COUNTRY,

REPRESENTING - THE WOODLANDS MOMS

This came from an organization called change.org. It's the last few lines of a petition they're asking the recipients to click/sign.

[flockofseagulls104]

Knock it off, Flock. Dems do not always push "Gun Control." We want realistic, common sense solutions to children being killed in schools. Background checks and red flag laws are a modest start, but many states will not pass them. I agree with this: "THERE IS NO WAY that all guns will be taken away from American citizens. It will never happen." I disagree categorically with your followup statement: "Another leftist utopia dream." That assertion is patently ridiculous, as is the notion that Schumer "is after gun control. Apparently nothing else."

Come off it, sprots. Every time there is another shooting like this, all you hear from the dems is 'GUN CONTROL'. Biden went to Buffalo a couple of weeks ago, and I watched his speech. If he stopped after the first 10 minutes, it would have been a worthy presidential speech. But then he used the rest of it as a political grandstand for gun control. Utterly disgusting. I have no doubt he'll do the same in Texas.

Schumer wouldn't even let a vote take place on a bill that would consider hardening schools as a target, because he said it might lead to more guns in a school.
Dems place the blame on the gun, not on the person that uses the gun. So NOTHING gets done to protect the schools or the children.

We can argue back and forth about background checks, but no background check is going to protect a school. They can spend billions on the cause of the day, everyday. Give the schools the money to retrofit themselves to be more secure from somebody just walking in and shooting the place up. Why don't they do that?

Not so, Flock. Background checks focus on the person, not the firearm. As do red flag laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders).

They do that. Schools around here are fitted to be secure from random shooters. I can't pick up Matias or MatiasSis from school without their password. I can't even get in without presenting an ID at the office and being issued a pass. Other doors are locked. I believe that's up to local school boards.

All the studies that I have found indicate that background checks would not have prevented very many, if any, mass shootings. That is the topic we are debating here.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-polic ... tings.html

https://news.yahoo.com/many-shootings-s ... 20516.html

https://time.com/5648987/mass-shootings ... nd-checks/

Be it understood, I am not arguing AGAINST background checks, but here are some arguments:
- Background checks will prevent people with criminal histories from purchasing a gun. However, someone with a criminal history, if they want to get a gun, will probably find a way to get one. They are criminals after all.
- A history of mental illness will maybe prevent someone from purchasing a gun legally. I will make the same argument as I did for criminals. And who is determining whether a person has a mental illness problem? What will be the determinators, because mental health is not a completely mathematical science. It is very subjective.
- Will there be any appeal process, or will the determination of whatever the government body decides in individual cases be final?
- Many people, including myself, are very reluctant to give more arbitrary powers to the state or federal government, because of their history of expanding and abusing the power given them without any checks or oversight once they are established.
- Is this constitutional on a federal basis or even on a state basis?

Again, what I think will do the most in the short term to prevent future school shootings is to stop them from being soft targets. All other government buildings have a lot more security than your average school building. Why do we feel the need to protect the ADULTS in those buildings more than the CHILDREN in schools? Giving guidance to school districts and providing the funding to achieve the necessary level of security will be expensive. But somehow we find funding for other weird, unnecessary and sometimes ludicrous purposes. Can we not find funding to protect our children when they go to school? This approach will take a lot less time than background checks or any of the other pet solutions that the democrats always propose, and it will provide immediate protection for the children, once implemented. Why won't the democrats even consider this, while they devote so much rage at organizations like the NRA instead?

It is a sad, sad commentary on our times that we even need to consider any of this. This was NOT a concern when I and most of you went to school. We need to, as the left is want to say, HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION as to why this is the case now. What has changed in our culture over the past decades to make this something that happens so often? And what can be done to fix it? Many ideas and theories have been posited on this over the years, but too many people who have the power to maybe do something about it refuse to even listen.

[silverscreenselect]

Again, what I think will do the most in the short term to prevent future school shootings is to stop them from being soft targets. All other government buildings have a lot more security than your average school building. Why do we feel the need to protect the ADULTS in those buildings more than the CHILDREN in schools? Giving guidance to school districts and providing the funding to achieve the necessary level of security will be expensive. But somehow we find funding for other weird, unnecessary and sometimes ludicrous purposes.

One of the things we haven't been doing very well lately is providing funding to public schools for the necessities of education and teachers' salaries. So when we can't provide adequate books, computers, and educational aids to schools, our school districts are suddenly going to spring for state-of-the-art metal detectors, surveillance equipment, security doors, and trained security officers at every school. Just sticking some guy with a gun at a doorway isn't a solution. I should know; I worked as a security guard years ago. I don't think I'd have been very effective if someone with an assault rifle charged the places I worked. The Buffalo grocery store had a security guard who was a retired cop. He did his best and still a dozen people were killed.

But of course Republicans aren't interested in actually spending the money to upgrade security at all the schools. They're just interested in finding an excuse not to do anything about gun control measures. And Flock trots out the old maxim about how this one law or that one law wouldn't stop all mass shootings. Proper gun laws make it more difficult and more expensive for people who shouldn't have guns to get them. And a lot of them won't be able to get guns or will get themselves arrested if they try to do so illegally. These guys aren't rocket scientists.

You know what would have stopped the shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde. An effective law that prohibits minors from purchasing assault rifles. The kid in Uvalde was probably counting the days until his 18th birthday so he could walk into the gun store and arm himself to the teeth.

[Bob Juch]

Come off it, sprots. Every time there is another shooting like this, all you hear from the dems is 'GUN CONTROL'. Biden went to Buffalo a couple of weeks ago, and I watched his speech. If he stopped after the first 10 minutes, it would have been a worthy presidential speech. But then he used the rest of it as a political grandstand for gun control. Utterly disgusting. I have no doubt he'll do the same in Texas.

Schumer wouldn't even let a vote take place on a bill that would consider hardening schools as a target, because he said it might lead to more guns in a school.
Dems place the blame on the gun, not on the person that uses the gun. So NOTHING gets done to protect the schools or the children.

We can argue back and forth about background checks, but no background check is going to protect a school. They can spend billions on the cause of the day, everyday. Give the schools the money to retrofit themselves to be more secure from somebody just walking in and shooting the place up. Why don't they do that?

Not so, Flock. Background checks focus on the person, not the firearm. As do red flag laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders).

They do that. Schools around here are fitted to be secure from random shooters. I can't pick up Matias or MatiasSis from school without their password. I can't even get in without presenting an ID at the office and being issued a pass. Other doors are locked. I believe that's up to local school boards.

All the studies that I have found indicate that background checks would not have prevented very many, if any, mass shootings. That is the topic we are debating here.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-polic ... tings.html

https://news.yahoo.com/many-shootings-s ... 20516.html

https://time.com/5648987/mass-shootings ... nd-checks/

Be it understood, I am not arguing AGAINST background checks, but here are some arguments:
- Background checks will prevent people with criminal histories from purchasing a gun. However, someone with a criminal history, if they want to get a gun, will probably find a way to get one. They are criminals after all.
- A history of mental illness will maybe prevent someone from purchasing a gun legally. I will make the same argument as I did for criminals. And who is determining whether a person has a mental illness problem? What will be the determinators, because mental health is not a completely mathematical science. It is very subjective.
- Will there be any appeal process, or will the determination of whatever the government body decides in individual cases be final?
- Many people, including myself, are very reluctant to give more arbitrary powers to the state or federal government, because of their history of expanding and abusing the power given them without any checks or oversight once they are established.
- Is this constitutional on a federal basis or even on a state basis?

Again, what I think will do the most in the short term to prevent future school shootings is to stop them from being soft targets. All other government buildings have a lot more security than your average school building. Why do we feel the need to protect the ADULTS in those buildings more than the CHILDREN in schools? Giving guidance to school districts and providing the funding to achieve the necessary level of security will be expensive. But somehow we find funding for other weird, unnecessary and sometimes ludicrous purposes. Can we not find funding to protect our children when they go to school? This approach will take a lot less time than background checks or any of the other pet solutions that the democrats always propose, and it will provide immediate protection for the children, once implemented. Why won't the democrats even consider this, while they devote so much rage at organizations like the NRA instead?

It is a sad, sad commentary on our times that we even need to consider any of this. This was NOT a concern when I and most of you went to school. We need to, as the left is want to say, HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION as to why this is the case now. What has changed in our culture over the past decades to make this something that happens so often? And what can be done to fix it? Many ideas and theories have been posited on this over the years, but too many people who have the power to maybe do something about it refuse to even listen.

I background checks prevent only one more mass shooting, they're worth it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Not so, Flock. Background checks focus on the person, not the firearm. As do red flag laws (Extreme Risk Protection Orders).

They do that. Schools around here are fitted to be secure from random shooters. I can't pick up Matias or MatiasSis from school without their password. I can't even get in without presenting an ID at the office and being issued a pass. Other doors are locked. I believe that's up to local school boards.

All the studies that I have found indicate that background checks would not have prevented very many, if any, mass shootings. That is the topic we are debating here.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-polic ... tings.html

https://news.yahoo.com/many-shootings-s ... 20516.html

https://time.com/5648987/mass-shootings ... nd-checks/

Be it understood, I am not arguing AGAINST background checks, but here are some arguments:
- Background checks will prevent people with criminal histories from purchasing a gun. However, someone with a criminal history, if they want to get a gun, will probably find a way to get one. They are criminals after all.
- A history of mental illness will maybe prevent someone from purchasing a gun legally. I will make the same argument as I did for criminals. And who is determining whether a person has a mental illness problem? What will be the determinators, because mental health is not a completely mathematical science. It is very subjective.
- Will there be any appeal process, or will the determination of whatever the government body decides in individual cases be final?
- Many people, including myself, are very reluctant to give more arbitrary powers to the state or federal government, because of their history of expanding and abusing the power given them without any checks or oversight once they are established.
- Is this constitutional on a federal basis or even on a state basis?

Again, what I think will do the most in the short term to prevent future school shootings is to stop them from being soft targets. All other government buildings have a lot more security than your average school building. Why do we feel the need to protect the ADULTS in those buildings more than the CHILDREN in schools? Giving guidance to school districts and providing the funding to achieve the necessary level of security will be expensive. But somehow we find funding for other weird, unnecessary and sometimes ludicrous purposes. Can we not find funding to protect our children when they go to school? This approach will take a lot less time than background checks or any of the other pet solutions that the democrats always propose, and it will provide immediate protection for the children, once implemented. Why won't the democrats even consider this, while they devote so much rage at organizations like the NRA instead?

It is a sad, sad commentary on our times that we even need to consider any of this. This was NOT a concern when I and most of you went to school. We need to, as the left is want to say, HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION as to why this is the case now. What has changed in our culture over the past decades to make this something that happens so often? And what can be done to fix it? Many ideas and theories have been posited on this over the years, but too many people who have the power to maybe do something about it refuse to even listen.

I background checks prevent only one more mass shooting, they're worth it.

That's what all committed leftists use as their mantra. They do not care to look at unintended consequences.
How about this one? If requiring all teachers to carry weapons and be trained in their safe use prevents one more mass shooting, then it will be worth it. How can you NOT agree with that?

[flockofseagulls104]

Here, BJ, is something that will undoubtedly prevent more school shootings than any background checks.

https://youtu.be/j-Kb4XuHoKw

It is my understanding that every school in the state of Florida is in the Guardian program. Trained, armed protectors on the school campus that will prevent any armed active shooter from shooting any children in that school.
Amazingly, they say that the Broward County School district where the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting occurred, to which this program was the response, was the last one to adopt it, and they had to be forced to.

If this program prevents one child from being killed in an active shooter situation, won't this be worth it?

Watch starting at 26:58 if you want an answer to the question of 'more common-sense gun laws'.

[Bob Juch]

All the studies that I have found indicate that background checks would not have prevented very many, if any, mass shootings. That is the topic we are debating here.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-polic ... tings.html

https://news.yahoo.com/many-shootings-s ... 20516.html

https://time.com/5648987/mass-shootings ... nd-checks/

Be it understood, I am not arguing AGAINST background checks, but here are some arguments:
- Background checks will prevent people with criminal histories from purchasing a gun. However, someone with a criminal history, if they want to get a gun, will probably find a way to get one. They are criminals after all.
- A history of mental illness will maybe prevent someone from purchasing a gun legally. I will make the same argument as I did for criminals. And who is determining whether a person has a mental illness problem? What will be the determinators, because mental health is not a completely mathematical science. It is very subjective.
- Will there be any appeal process, or will the determination of whatever the government body decides in individual cases be final?
- Many people, including myself, are very reluctant to give more arbitrary powers to the state or federal government, because of their history of expanding and abusing the power given them without any checks or oversight once they are established.
- Is this constitutional on a federal basis or even on a state basis?

Again, what I think will do the most in the short term to prevent future school shootings is to stop them from being soft targets. All other government buildings have a lot more security than your average school building. Why do we feel the need to protect the ADULTS in those buildings more than the CHILDREN in schools? Giving guidance to school districts and providing the funding to achieve the necessary level of security will be expensive. But somehow we find funding for other weird, unnecessary and sometimes ludicrous purposes. Can we not find funding to protect our children when they go to school? This approach will take a lot less time than background checks or any of the other pet solutions that the democrats always propose, and it will provide immediate protection for the children, once implemented. Why won't the democrats even consider this, while they devote so much rage at organizations like the NRA instead?

It is a sad, sad commentary on our times that we even need to consider any of this. This was NOT a concern when I and most of you went to school. We need to, as the left is want to say, HAVE A SERIOUS CONVERSATION as to why this is the case now. What has changed in our culture over the past decades to make this something that happens so often? And what can be done to fix it? Many ideas and theories have been posited on this over the years, but too many people who have the power to maybe do something about it refuse to even listen.

I background checks prevent only one more mass shooting, they're worth it.

That's what all committed leftists use as their mantra. They do not care to look at unintended consequences.
How about this one? If requiring all teachers to carry weapons and be trained in their safe use prevents one more mass shooting, then it will be worth it. How can you NOT agree with that?

I do agree with that.

[kroxquo]

That's what all committed leftists use as their mantra. They do not care to look at unintended consequences.
How about this one? If requiring all teachers to carry weapons and be trained in their safe use prevents one more mass shooting, then it will be worth it. How can you NOT agree with that?

If that ever becomes a reality, this is one teacher (among many others) who will walk out of the school and never come back. Putting more guns in a situation where a large number of school children are present is just inviting disaster.

[flockofseagulls104]

That's what all committed leftists use as their mantra. They do not care to look at unintended consequences.
How about this one? If requiring all teachers to carry weapons and be trained in their safe use prevents one more mass shooting, then it will be worth it. How can you NOT agree with that?

If that ever becomes a reality, this is one teacher (among many others) who will walk out of the school and never come back. Putting more guns in a situation where a large number of school children are present is just inviting disaster.

But krox, If it prevents one mass shooting, it will be worth it, right? The hell with anything else.
That's the point, if you can wrap your brain around it.... I don't expect that BJ can, but I still hold out hope that you can.

[silverscreenselect]

But krox, If it prevents one mass shooting, it will be worth it, right? The hell with anything else.
That's the point, if you can wrap your brain around it.... I don't expect that BJ can, but I still hold out hope that you can.

Here's the point, which you seem to have trouble grasping. I'm not talking about the loss of dedicated teachers like krox.

Putting armed guards in every school does more harm than good. It gets more people killed. The links I posted, which I know you didn't read because you don't like to clutter your mind with facts, have shown that based on 20 years worth of findings in mass shooter situations. And your wonderful Guardian program has run into a problem in Florida when your buddy, Ron deSantis cut the funding for it.

And shooters with assault rifles can kill a lot of people in a hurry before even well-trained, quick reacting police or security guards can stop them. In 2019. a shooter outside a Dayton night club was brought down by police within 30 seconds after he opened fire. During that time, he killed nine people and wounded 14 more. An additional 23 people were injured in the chaos that resulted from people trying to flee the scene.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/us/dayto ... index.html

So, if you can wrap your brain around this, it's not worth it if you prevent one school shooting but cause more deaths and injuries at the other school shootings you don't prevent.

[Bob Juch]

That's what all committed leftists use as their mantra. They do not care to look at unintended consequences.
How about this one? If requiring all teachers to carry weapons and be trained in their safe use prevents one more mass shooting, then it will be worth it. How can you NOT agree with that?

If that ever becomes a reality, this is one teacher (among many others) who will walk out of the school and never come back. Putting more guns in a situation where a large number of school children are present is just inviting disaster.

But krox, If it prevents one mass shooting, it will be worth it, right? The hell with anything else.
That's the point, if you can wrap your brain around it.... I don't expect that BJ can, but I still hold out hope that you can.

You apparently missed my post where I said I agree with arming teachers.