Bobby_Batronic

I believe your simplistic emotional one liner was something to the effect of ….”just admit that you want more guns.” No. I’d like decidedly less guns. Particularly in the hands of the kind of people who decide to attempt mass murder in schools and elsewhere. I believe I’ve also made it clear that I don’t see any meaningful lawmaking taking place toward that goal. So I believe hardening the targets is the best solution going forward. And that would involve in part an armed presence as well as other means to deter an attacker. I’m not overly fond of that being the actual educational staff, but there’s quibble room on that. Que up the battlefield hyperbole. It’s about time for that round of nonsense again. No. I don’t want wars playing out at elementary schools. I want them to be very unattractive targets for what are generally disturbed cowards. So, no, I am not a liar. You just have real difficulty stringing together pretty straight line conclusions. I agree that it’s insanity that we have to even contemplate it, but the insanity isn’t stopping. You’ve already admitted that multiple times in this thread, and yet you seem to cling to some hope that it will. The answer becomes obvious. I’d love to hear the solution to deterring mass shootings when one beloved that no laws will be passed.

Yes. I wondered aloud if the staff being marked would have made a difference. Yes, I believe that hardening targets is the only course forward because neither side can come to an agreement. Hardening targets would mean guns would be a part of the solution. I said that too. In whose hands is another matter and a lot of hardening target has nothing to do with weapons at all. I know all you can see is weapons. I expect nothing less. I’m not worried about being attacked for that at all. You’re very poor at projecting, but do it a lot all the same Yes, kids are being slaughtered at schools because our leaders as extensions of us cannot have a discourse on the matter. You’ve spent ample time proving that in the last few pages. it’s not a hard line of reasoning to follow. We’re spending a lot of time trying it your way with hoping politicos will come to an accord while we don’t protect the schools. I’ve accepted that the former will not happen and that leaves few options to do something about it. What I actually think is worth doing doesn’t matter, because it’s not going to get passed anyway so I don’t waste my time tilting at windmills. Your bumper sticker jab is just more emotional diarrhea that you’ve mistaken for a knock out punch.

That’s not what I believe at all, but it doesn’t surprise me that you attempted to create a position for me of such eye water shallowness and absurdity. You can quit replying at any time.

Another showed me post. My choices are vote for someone I nearly completely disagree with and who would most assuredly overreach and abuse any leeway given on this issue and another candidate I generally agree with but has minimal solutions here. Don’t be a hypocrite in addition to being a tribalitst. You’re not waiting on that one R to vote for who’s strong on gun control. It’s not a gotcha when I provide requested reasoning, and then the other person proceeds to do what I suggested to a fare thee well while denying it.

“The world would be a much better place if everyone would just agree with me and vote for my political candidates” said the tribalist as he derided any opposition, misrepresented their viewpoints and denied that we have issues with discourse.

My choices aren’t between two politicians I largely agree with but have differing opinions on gun violence. I tend to mostly disagree with most of what one candidate offers and vice versa. Don’t pretend you are a single issue voter.

You continue to illustrate my point. You seem to think you’re landing haymakers when all you are doing is retreating deeper into just what I suggested. No. We don’t have civil discourse. On the micro level we can’t disagree anymore in an adult manner. Friends and family members are cut off. People seek to professionally ruin others. People think the sniping that they are now accustomed to on their particular brand of social media is an acceptable interaction in real life. On the macro, our elected officials are equally incapable of actual debate and dialogue on the subject of gun violence. It’s just a series of talking points, one ups, fact checks and gotchas. So nothing gets done. Or will get done anytime soon. You keep dreaming that dream though. It’s the world we live in and directs me to the most logical way to protect our children since actual reforms aren’t going to happen. And no, that’s not strictly a more guns option though it’s would be a part of the process. I’d love to go back to never worrying about it. To open campuses, no need for resource officers and the occasional good old boy’s pickup in the lot with a shotgun on the rack that no one cares about because it’s not even considered an option. That is not the world we live it. It’s not anywhere close to the world we’re headed towards.

You wanna keep making my point for me then go right ahead.

For the reason you passively called me insane and broken in the post. We can’t talk to each other. Tribalism rules the day. Someone disagrees with you, and therefore they must be derided and piled on until one group of monkeys asserts dominance over the other on the internet or public forum. It’s a dunk contest where everyone loses. The root causes of that are many, but that’s the rough outline of why nothing will be done on this and numerous other subjects. Know how I know you didn’t read several of my posts?

Do you think that’s revelatory?

You showed me. Virtue signaling on a sports message board will probably save 0 lives in the next year. But you feel good about it sir.

This kind of poo flinging monkey brigade comment is silly and lacks context. Was the comment made when we only had 5 OL on the entire roster? Or when we were one deep at some other position with Johnny Highschool walk on behind them? I seriously doubt I ever suggested that the entire program never tackle in practice. You provide the quote and I’ll eat crow, but I suspect general assholery because its something you tend to revel in.

Yes, because the gun lobby and proponents fight it at every step. They do so because they know that gun control advocates will not stop until they finally get them all. A disarmed society is what they seek as is the case around the rest of the world. It’s not a slippery slope. It’s the end game. It is. But perhaps less stupid than thinking meaningful gun reform will be enacted in our lifetimes. You know it. You just admitted it. So hope in this hand if it makes you feel better. I’d prefer to do what I can with what we can rather than hoping the country summons the national will to do something.

The dead don’t care what killed them, the intent of it’s use or if the act of their death was intentional or an accident. They’re dead. I don’t attribute animus to inanimate objects. Texas requires licensing and registration of cars and still they are killing children at far greater numbers than mass shooters. Do we have a gun problem? Particularly crazy people or criminals getting them too easily? Hell yes we do. If you want to require training and recurrent training for responsible gun owners then that sounds good to me, and most the people who I know who own weapons would be onboard with that. Most are or were weapons instructors at some point in their life.

I’m neither broken or insane. The country is broken. The gun control proponents will not stop until none are left in private hands and the 2A proponents largely aren’t willing to give up anything either. So nothing is going to happen. We’re well beyond the point where one act of violence in a school, church, store or wherever is going to spur national outrage and change. If anything it further deepens the divide. So if nothing is going to happen, and again, I suggest you challenge the sun each morning if you really think it is, I can see only trying to better protect those we care about with what means we have at our disposal.

You stay classy San Diego.

The point that you missed by quite a larger margin was that people would do anything to increase their life expectancy in a life or death circumstance. At no point did I mention day to day activities. Reading comprehension is an art form. Practice it more. But to answer your foolish attempt at parroting a gotcha, no, I do not have or intend to build a nuclear bomb shelter. It is not a life or death situation. It’s a death or death situation where the survivors would face a far more hellish demise than those who experienced a few millisecond of blinding light as Stephen Falken so adeptly noted. My point, vis a vis the 5% was again about life and death situations, and not the daily mundane. But if you’d like to tackle the daily mundane then you would be the biggest retard on this thread if you didn’t admit that you make decisions on a daily basis based on perceived levels of safety that are completely at odds with reality or consistency. Such is life. I never posited not stepping in a car for safety. I said I sometimes think about how I’d react in an accident situation. I believe that was in my first post. Stepping on an airplane is something I do with greater regularity than 99.99% of the populace. I mentioned it in passing several times that aviation training is replete with practicing for things that are statistically unlikely to ever happen in most aviator’s experience let alone the average passenger. Those would be life or death situations btw, and not your basic jaunt to Austin on the 6 AM SWA bird. The poster I was responding to suggested that keeping a weapon in the house increases the likelihood that a child will die of some unfortunate mishap with the gun. He was right, but its no more dangerous that buying a child a car or letting them use yours as far more kids are dying behind the wheel than because of domestic gun accidents. Again, you didn’t read what I posted at all before you got emotional and lost the plot. Setting aside your continued failure to understand what I wrote yet again, I have no need for you to lecture me on why people are passionate about the deaths of children. The topic was concealed carry. I made several posts replying to a snide comment about 5% efficacy of gun owners in shootings. You jumped the shark and somehow applied that to school shootings because emotions.

Yep. You go work as hard as you can to inactbgun control, I’ll go push to harden soft targets like schools, and we can meet back up when none of it happens. And still they kill themselves in others that dwarf those killed in mass shootings. Look, if you want to require firearms training enroute to legal gun ownership then I think most gun supporters would be behind that.

Yes, it does if you’re foolish about securing your weapons. Buying your kid a car is probably more dangerous and yet there is no outcry to ban them.

As I said, you might as well try to stop the sun from rising. The all or nothing solution isn’t happening. I get it. Someone has reached a different conclusion about their personal safety and you feel derision is the best path forward. Whatever. I’m not here for your approval. You are inadvertently making my point. The odds of dying in a plane crash are astronomically low. And yet the pilots practice for emergencies as a matter of course several times a year. And you would demand no less of them. Statistically speaking, they shouldn’t bother.

You can control what you can control and can’t what you can’t. You’re happy rolling the dice one way. I prefer another. I have a doohickey in my car that will break a window or cut a seatbelt. I’ll probably never use it. It’s there for all the possibilities I can’t see coming. Not the ones I do.

Also incorrect. It’s not a “wish you had it” statement. It’s a “you would absolutely use it” statement.

You’re not following. It’s a life and death situation. Doesn’t matter if it’s gun play, house fire, auto accident, plane crash or whatever. In the heat of the moment every last one of us would agree to use the option that gives us a 5% better chance of surviving. Or protecting our loved ones. It’s easy to say that you wouldn’t because of strong beliefs on a subject, but that’s just not how it works.

The quoted OP suggested that conceal carry guys with guns are only effective 5% of the time. We’d all take that extra 5 % of margin when the chips are down and our life is on the line. I agree, parents would want that margin for their killed kids too. It’s not CHL people committing these atrocities so taking the guns away isn’t a direct correlation, those who carry often have them for their children too and one has to ask if fewer people would have died if one of the adults slain in Nashville had any means at all to protect themselves or their students. Unfortunately, it’s not a one to one transaction where if x then y, and we can quantify the possibilities definitively.

I would suspect that the NPD probably regularly practiced such exercises and was funded to o so whereas UPD did not and was not. It does not excuse the cowardice of letting children die in safety.