timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (2 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

..

...3. The police yesterday used armored vehicles. Is this a good argument as to why police forces should have this type of military equipment? Or do you prefer if they didn't?

....

3. I've been against this but after this and Col. Springs where an armored vehicle saved the day I'm rethinking it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...4. Yesterday's attack was not prevented by the NSA's collection of metadata. Is that because what the NSA is doing will never stop these sorts of attacks, and therefore the NSA should stop (since many believe it is a violation of our civil liberties)? Or should the NSA continue collecting metadata, since chances are they will stop future attacks? Or should the NSA actually increase their efforts, as some Republican congressmen want (like Kevin McCarthy)?

...

4. I've always been against this. Example: some have been insisting (maybe rightly) that Col. Springs is terrorism. Some insist that any "mass shooting" is terrorism and now are even including things like large scale murders by gangs and criminals. Ok then think about how far our data collection will have to go, basically by expanding the definition of 'terror' you've now included almost every class of American citizen into people who have no right of privacy, no 4th or the other related amendment apply. - And for what?

I think the SB incident is not unlike Paris though because authorities knew Farooq was communicating with terrorists. What exactly are they waiting for? Civil liberties I'm afraid. or maybe they are overwhelmed.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?

...

5. I think you're talking two different issues. "Profiling" ie authorities suspecting that middle eastern people might be most likely to engage by far in islamic terror is a realistic viewpoint. - But calling the police because you see 12 Arab men living in a house together and doing stuff in their garage late at night an packages being delivered occasionally.... probably isn't a good idea. I do feel bad for some people who will be getting some police knocks because their neighbors suddenly suspect them. I wouldn't call a fellow poster a bigot though, let's keep it excellent in here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...6. If yesterday's attack turns out to be ISIS related, should the USA retaliate against ISIS? If so, what specifically should we do that we are not doing?

....

6. Uhm, we're at war with Isis. Our president asked for an AUMF against Isis and then didn't do anything to see it passed, but meanwhile we're still at war with them from the original GWOT AUMF so, no worries we're already nailing them every single day.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...7. Does it bother you whether or not our leaders, including Obama, refer to this as a terrorist attack, or as an act of radical Islam? Why or why not?

...

7. Bother me? No. Do I think our political and military leaders should be realistic considering we are indeed at war and American soldiers and citizens are putting their lives at risk for America? Yeah. I don't think they want to do that for political correctness though.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

...4. Yesterday's attack was not prevented by the NSA's collection of metadata. Is that because what the NSA is doing will never stop these sorts of attacks, and therefore the NSA should stop (since many believe it is a violation of our civil liberties)? Or should the NSA continue collecting metadata, since chances are they will stop future attacks? Or should the NSA actually increase their efforts, as some Republican congressmen want (like Kevin McCarthy)?

...

4. I've always been against this. Example: some have been insisting (maybe rightly) that Col. Springs is terrorism. Some insist that any "mass shooting" is terrorism and now are even including things like large scale murders by gangs and criminals. Ok then think about how far our data collection will have to go, basically by expanding the definition of 'terror' you've now included almost every class of American citizen into people who have no right of privacy, no 4th or the other related amendment apply. - And for what?

I think the SB incident is not unlike Paris though because authorities knew Farooq was communicating with terrorists. What exactly are they waiting for? Civil liberties I'm afraid. or maybe they are overwhelmed.

There is no content in the metadata, and the NSA can't ingest it all anyway. I'm for the collection if it is targeted, but the way it has been done is just throwing a fishing net over a mountain. Sure it may have helped in a few dozen investigations, but it's not worth the trouble if you are going to miss a lot key data points.

 

[timschochet]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

1. Do you believe that increased gun control measures might have prevented yesterday's attack? If so, which measures and how would they have helped?

...

1. It's not a gun control issue, so it's irrelevant. So to answer your questions, no and n/a.

Wait. Of course it's a gun control issue. Any time there is a mass shooting in the USA, gun control is going to be raised. If your answer is no, that's fine. But it's not irrelevant.

 

[timschochet]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

1. Do you believe that increased gun control measures might have prevented yesterday's attack? If so, which measures and how would they have helped?

...

1. It's not a gun control issue, so it's irrelevant. So to answer your questions, no and n/a.

Wait. Of course it's a gun control issue. Any time there is a mass shooting in the USA, gun control is going to be raised. If your answer is no, that's fine. But it's not irrelevant.

No. Terrorism is not about gun control. It's a national security issue. Terrorists don't give a damn about gun laws and they are not affected by them.

 

[timschochet]

...5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?

...

5. I think you're talking two different issues. "Profiling" ie authorities suspecting that middle eastern people might be most likely to engage by far in islamic terror is a realistic viewpoint. - But calling the police because you see 12 Arab men living in a house together and doing stuff in their garage late at night an packages being delivered occasionally.... probably isn't a good idea. I do feel bad for some people who will be getting some police knocks because their neighbors suddenly suspect them. I wouldn't call a fellow poster a bigot though, let's keep it excellent in here.

I didn't do that- on this occasion. I don't believe MOP is a bigot, and I explained the distinction.

However, if someone here IS a bigot, is it wrong in your opinion to call them out for it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

I think gun free zones might be different where you are. To me, they're about no guns near schools. I think the culture needs to be changed. People in bad neighborhoods still shoot near schools though. kids get hurt, sometimes it's kids themselves. I'm guessing in SB the gun free zone was different, I guess the idea is anyone going into the place had to leave their gun behind. This is probably a good example of why the incident had nothing to do with terrorism. The policy was fine for the situation they crafted it for, crime. It wasn't crafted with terrorism in mind.

 

[timschochet]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

1. Do you believe that increased gun control measures might have prevented yesterday's attack? If so, which measures and how would they have helped?

...

1. It's not a gun control issue, so it's irrelevant. So to answer your questions, no and n/a.

Wait. Of course it's a gun control issue. Any time there is a mass shooting in the USA, gun control is going to be raised. If your answer is no, that's fine. But it's not irrelevant.

No. Terrorism is not about gun control. It's a national security issue. Terrorists don't give a damn about gun laws and they are not affected by them.

Mentally ill people don't give a damn about gun control either. What is the difference?

The point of gun control is to make it more difficult for bad guys to obtain guns. Bad guys include felons, mentally ill, AND terrorists. The fact that they are terrorists doesn't change the nature of the discussion in this area.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

...5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?

...

5. I think you're talking two different issues. "Profiling" ie authorities suspecting that middle eastern people might be most likely to engage by far in islamic terror is a realistic viewpoint. - But calling the police because you see 12 Arab men living in a house together and doing stuff in their garage late at night an packages being delivered occasionally.... probably isn't a good idea. I do feel bad for some people who will be getting some police knocks because their neighbors suddenly suspect them. I wouldn't call a fellow poster a bigot though, let's keep it excellent in here.

I didn't do that- on this occasion. I don't believe MOP is a bigot, and I explained the distinction.

However, if someone here IS a bigot, is it wrong in your opinion to call them out for it?

I guess I don't know where all that is coming from them. Maybe it's from some old argument?

Apologies if I took that at face value. Yeah, I think you need serious evidence or real evidence before you do that here. If someone posts something from stormfront or has a real racist attitude then maybe I would recommend you just report them to the mods. I don't think I've ever seen an internet situation made better by calling a person a name, it blows up whole discussions, people leave, conversation over.

 

[John Bender]

...5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?

...

5. I think you're talking two different issues. "Profiling" ie authorities suspecting that middle eastern people might be most likely to engage by far in islamic terror is a realistic viewpoint. - But calling the police because you see 12 Arab men living in a house together and doing stuff in their garage late at night an packages being delivered occasionally.... probably isn't a good idea. I do feel bad for some people who will be getting some police knocks because their neighbors suddenly suspect them. I wouldn't call a fellow poster a bigot though, let's keep it excellent in here.

I didn't do that- on this occasion. I don't believe MOP is a bigot, and I explained the distinction.

However, if someone here IS a bigot, is it wrong in your opinion to call them out for it?

It's not wrong, but it also doesn't appear productive to me. Bigots aren't going to listen to tim from the internet and labelling someone as such does so little to move anything forward as it just comes off as combative. We all know who the bigots are here, and they probably know who they are either and they don't care.

 

[McGarnicle]

Tim what's your take on Trump's remarks at the Jewish Republican event? Put yourself in that crowd, replace Trump with someone you've never heard of -- were some of the remarks funny at all? How offended would you have been overall?

 

[timschochet]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

I think gun free zones might be different where you are. To me, they're about no guns near schools. I think the culture needs to be changed. People in bad neighborhoods still shoot near schools though. kids get hurt, sometimes it's kids themselves. I'm guessing in SB the gun free zone was different, I guess the idea is anyone going into the place had to leave their gun behind. This is probably a good example of why the incident had nothing to do with terrorism. The policy was fine for the situation they crafted it for, crime. It wasn't crafted with terrorism in mind.

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented.

How do you respond to this argument?

 

[NCCommish]

Although you are not a liberal or a progressive you are really needed as another voice of reason in a forum where 75% of the posters are way right of center.

Wait, what?

It's an interesting question. The right of center ones are more vocal. I note that in many if not most of the political debate threads, there are 3-4 conservatives for every 1 liberal. So I'd have to say that, at least in terms of who is posting, he's correct. (Also, most of the liberal people in this forum are pretty damn liberal- Bernie Sanders supporters. )

I get a lot.of supportive perosnal messages from people for posts I make. But those folks often don't post in the thread itself.

 

[timschochet]

Tim what's your take on Trump's remarks at the Jewish Republican event? Put yourself in that crowd, replace Trump with someone you've never heard of -- were some of the remarks funny at all? How offended would you have been overall?

I only read the one remark you posted. It was dumb, but not at the level of some of the other crap he spewed, not even close.

"Positive" stereotypes, no matter how stupid, never fail to crack me up a little. I always think about Reggie White.

 

[NCCommish]

We're not really super liberal. We're just twenty years early.

Personally I'm pretty darn liberal.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

1. Do you believe that increased gun control measures might have prevented yesterday's attack? If so, which measures and how would they have helped?

...

1. It's not a gun control issue, so it's irrelevant. So to answer your questions, no and n/a.

Wait. Of course it's a gun control issue. Any time there is a mass shooting in the USA, gun control is going to be raised. If your answer is no, that's fine. But it's not irrelevant.

No. Terrorism is not about gun control. It's a national security issue. Terrorists don't give a damn about gun laws and they are not affected by them.

Mentally ill people don't give a damn about gun control either. What is the difference?

The point of gun control is to make it more difficult for bad guys to obtain guns. Bad guys include felons, mentally ill, AND terrorists. The fact that they are terrorists doesn't change the nature of the discussion in this area.

First of all that's a whole other issue. Mental health is a big problem in this country, if you want to raise that, fine, in my opinion we need much better better health treatment. Here in NO & LA it's a wreck.

Felons are on the records as just that, criminals. Done.

Mentally ill people are not obviously (doctors don't report their patients to the police except when they're really going off the rails) but again we need better mental health treatment in this country.

Terrorists are not on the records, and they are not getting treatment. They are at war. They will get any gun or weapon that can be legally or illegally gotten. Terrorism is a national security issue, it's a fatal error for us as a nation if we don't recognize that but as a matter of fact that is exactly what we do.

 

[NCCommish]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

I think gun free zones might be different where you are. To me, they're about no guns near schools. I think the culture needs to be changed. People in bad neighborhoods still shoot near schools though. kids get hurt, sometimes it's kids themselves. I'm guessing in SB the gun free zone was different, I guess the idea is anyone going into the place had to leave their gun behind. This is probably a good example of why the incident had nothing to do with terrorism. The policy was fine for the situation they crafted it for, crime. It wasn't crafted with terrorism in mind.

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented. How do you respond to this argument?

More guns aren't the answer

 

[timschochet]

...5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?

...

5. I think you're talking two different issues. "Profiling" ie authorities suspecting that middle eastern people might be most likely to engage by far in islamic terror is a realistic viewpoint. - But calling the police because you see 12 Arab men living in a house together and doing stuff in their garage late at night an packages being delivered occasionally.... probably isn't a good idea. I do feel bad for some people who will be getting some police knocks because their neighbors suddenly suspect them. I wouldn't call a fellow poster a bigot though, let's keep it excellent in here.

I didn't do that- on this occasion. I don't believe MOP is a bigot, and I explained the distinction.

However, if someone here IS a bigot, is it wrong in your opinion to call them out for it?

It's not wrong, but it also doesn't appear productive to me. Bigots aren't going to listen to tim from the internet and labelling someone as such does so little to move anything forward as it just comes off as combative. We all know who the bigots are here, and they probably know who they are either and they don't care.

Hmm. This is Saints' argument and it's probably good advice.

GrandpaRox's rants mean nothing to me. For some reason though, Eminence pisses me off. Even though I know a lot of it's shtick. Can't really explain it. I felt the same way about LHUCKS. It takes a lot to piss me off, usually I'm pretty unaffected. For example StrikeS2k followed me from thread to thread and it never affected me at all beyond amusement. But those two guys...I can't explain it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

I think gun free zones might be different where you are. To me, they're about no guns near schools. I think the culture needs to be changed. People in bad neighborhoods still shoot near schools though. kids get hurt, sometimes it's kids themselves. I'm guessing in SB the gun free zone was different, I guess the idea is anyone going into the place had to leave their gun behind. This is probably a good example of why the incident had nothing to do with terrorism. The policy was fine for the situation they crafted it for, crime. It wasn't crafted with terrorism in mind.

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented.

How do you respond to this argument?

Again I live in a place where there are armed cops at schools. There are sometimes greater threats within than there are without. - IMO schools should be protected like precious cargo. It's not something that we grew up with but the reality is that in Newtown that nutjob offed himself as soon as he heard the police sirens.

I'm not in favor of the whole idea that people should bring guns into churches and schools and universities etc. I just think we need proper security. I know it's really sad that we have gotten this unraveled but I don't think the answer is that we should all get more and more unraveled. Let the guys in the uniforms do their jobs, hire more of them and hire good ones.

 

[timschochet]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

I think gun free zones might be different where you are. To me, they're about no guns near schools. I think the culture needs to be changed. People in bad neighborhoods still shoot near schools though. kids get hurt, sometimes it's kids themselves. I'm guessing in SB the gun free zone was different, I guess the idea is anyone going into the place had to leave their gun behind. This is probably a good example of why the incident had nothing to do with terrorism. The policy was fine for the situation they crafted it for, crime. It wasn't crafted with terrorism in mind.

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented. How do you respond to this argument?

More guns aren't the answer

I love you NC, but that's a bromide, not really an answer.

 

[McGarnicle]

Tim what's your take on Trump's remarks at the Jewish Republican event? Put yourself in that crowd, replace Trump with someone you've never heard of -- were some of the remarks funny at all? How offended would you have been overall?

I only read the one remark you posted. It was dumb, but not at the level of some of the other crap he spewed, not even close. "Positive" stereotypes, no matter how stupid, never fail to crack me up a little. I always think about Reggie White.

He kinda didn't let it go

 

[John Bender]

...5. In my disagreement with Ministry of Pain, I came out against profiling of Middle Eastern looking people. He is for it. He thinks it's necessary to keep us safe, while I worry it will lead to bigotry against a lot of innocent people. Which side do you come down on?

...

5. I think you're talking two different issues. "Profiling" ie authorities suspecting that middle eastern people might be most likely to engage by far in islamic terror is a realistic viewpoint. - But calling the police because you see 12 Arab men living in a house together and doing stuff in their garage late at night an packages being delivered occasionally.... probably isn't a good idea. I do feel bad for some people who will be getting some police knocks because their neighbors suddenly suspect them. I wouldn't call a fellow poster a bigot though, let's keep it excellent in here.

I didn't do that- on this occasion. I don't believe MOP is a bigot, and I explained the distinction.

However, if someone here IS a bigot, is it wrong in your opinion to call them out for it?

It's not wrong, but it also doesn't appear productive to me. Bigots aren't going to listen to tim from the internet and labelling someone as such does so little to move anything forward as it just comes off as combative. We all know who the bigots are here, and they probably know who they are either and they don't care.

Hmm. This is Saints' argument and it's probably good advice.

GrandpaRox's rants mean nothing to me. For some reason though, Eminence pisses me off. Even though I know a lot of it's shtick. Can't really explain it. I felt the same way about LHUCKS. It takes a lot to piss me off, usually I'm pretty unaffected. For example StrikeS2k followed me from thread to thread and it never affected me at all beyond amusement. But those two guys...I can't explain it.

I hear ya. hucks was the same for me, yet eminence just makes me chuckle (then again, I don't frequent threads where race/political discussions are happening so I'm sure I've missed the egregious stuff). But guys like that just want to piss you off. That's their main purpose and I try not to be a mark in that regard. Sometimes it's all about who catches you in a bad mood at some given time and then it sticks with you. It seemed for a few months thread you were literally in every thread about politics, religion, current events, posting from morning til night and getting affected by it negatively. The ignore feature works well when you're letting people get you that lathered up

 

[NCCommish]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

I think gun free zones might be different where you are. To me, they're about no guns near schools. I think the culture needs to be changed. People in bad neighborhoods still shoot near schools though. kids get hurt, sometimes it's kids themselves. I'm guessing in SB the gun free zone was different, I guess the idea is anyone going into the place had to leave their gun behind. This is probably a good example of why the incident had nothing to do with terrorism. The policy was fine for the situation they crafted it for, crime. It wasn't crafted with terrorism in mind.

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented. How do you respond to this argument?

More guns aren't the answer

I love you NC, but that's a bromide, not really an answer.

Actually Tim it is an answer. We are awash in guns. We have enough guns, that we know of, for every man, woman and child in this country to have at least one. Are we safer? Or has the rate of mass public shootings tripled since 2011?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

John Bender wrote:

if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.

This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.

This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.

I kinda liked Slapdash's response more than mine to be honest. Because I agree with you, I would hate for American born and peaceful US resident folks who identify as Muslim to ever be caught up in such a situation based on what they look like. My significant other (my jewish significant other) spends a third of her year in middle eastern countries helping students get enrolled in college in America and comes back with such great stories about the people in these places. My best friends wife is Yemeni and the nicest person I know. So, I hear you. It really sucks, but that's what I'd be feeling if the above scenario happened next door to me. I think MoP's comments/position are WAY too far on the other side. But I think there is some middle ground. Folks travelling to and from these countries with ISIS breeding grounds should probably be profiled to an extent and within reason until times change again for the better. I'm ok with that as long as it's done responsibly and by the government.

Unfortunately, people are scared ####less. Randomly in the grocery store aisle yesterday some lady started telling me, literally out of the blue, about how crazy it was what happened in California and how she's so scared to death of even being out in the store. I guess I walked up behind her a bit too quietly and scared the crap out of her. These are the types of folks I could see taking the MoP viewpoint and there are a LOT of them. It's especially noticeable now that I've moved to the south after spending much of my life outside of Boston and Philadelphia.

I like how I have now become in all of 1 day and not even post until page 183 or so in this thread, but suddenly I have become the poster child for people who are scared when you walk up behind them at Publix and yell BOO!!!



I would enjoy having my own update thread but I think that might agitate more than anything. I do think my journey over the last 12-18 months in terms of teaching middle school would be interesting to some in here. I posted this before and again this is the biggest crack in the MOP shield and that is when the poop hits the fan especially on the World Terrorism be it here or abroad, I just find it comforting to come in here and gather info, fact, and 3rd party opinions as well as weigh in on the actual topic since I was here from the start. It's like a worn in pair of shoes or underwear, it just feels good. But I'm a realist and I know if I start spending a lot of time here on a daily basis I will start pulling my hair out again.

 

[timschochet]

OK Saints (and NC) I don't disagree. But let's play Devil's Advocate again because I want to extend this argument:

Let's take ICON for a moment. He carries a gun everywhere he goes. He does this, he says, for personal protection, so let's take him at his word. He worked hard to get a CCW permit. He trains with his guns all the time, and he is very responsible.

Now, according to the laws that you and I believe in, when ICON enters a school, he has to leave his gun behind. Same for a shopping mall, a theater, etc, or the Christmas Party in San Bernardino. But let's suppose that in one of these places that ICON is visiting, there is either a terrorist or a deranged gunman bent on killing as many people as possible. If ICON had been armed, he might have been able to save lives. Instead, because of our restrictions, he is simply a target like everyone else.

Aren't we a society weakened by restricting ICON here and everyone like him? (FWIW, I know I'm basically repeating an NRA argument here, but it's an intriguing argument, isn't it?)

 

[John Bender]

John Bender wrote:

if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.

This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.

This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.

I kinda liked Slapdash's response more than mine to be honest. Because I agree with you, I would hate for American born and peaceful US resident folks who identify as Muslim to ever be caught up in such a situation based on what they look like. My significant other (my jewish significant other) spends a third of her year in middle eastern countries helping students get enrolled in college in America and comes back with such great stories about the people in these places. My best friends wife is Yemeni and the nicest person I know. So, I hear you. It really sucks, but that's what I'd be feeling if the above scenario happened next door to me. I think MoP's comments/position are WAY too far on the other side. But I think there is some middle ground. Folks travelling to and from these countries with ISIS breeding grounds should probably be profiled to an extent and within reason until times change again for the better. I'm ok with that as long as it's done responsibly and by the government.

Unfortunately, people are scared ####less. Randomly in the grocery store aisle yesterday some lady started telling me, literally out of the blue, about how crazy it was what happened in California and how she's so scared to death of even being out in the store. I guess I walked up behind her a bit too quietly and scared the crap out of her. These are the types of folks I could see taking the MoP viewpoint and there are a LOT of them. It's especially noticeable now that I've moved to the south after spending much of my life outside of Boston and Philadelphia.

I like how I have now become in all of 1 day and not even post until page 20 or so in this thread, but suddenly I have become the poster child for people who are scared when you walk up behind them at Publix and yell BOO!!!



I would enjoy having my own update thread but I think that might agitate more than anything. I do think my journey over the last 12-18 months in terms of teaching middle school would be interesting to some in here. I posted this before and again this is the biggest crack in the MOP shield and that is when the poop hits the fan especially on the World Terrorism be it here or abroad, I just find it comforting to come in here and gather info, fact, and 3rd party opinions as well as weigh in on the actual topic since I was here from the start. It's like a worn in pair of shoes or underwear, it just feels good. But I'm a realist and I know if I start spending a lot of time here on a daily basis I will start pulling my hair out again.

I don't think you're a bigot. I think what you said is very common and understandable on the heels of crap like this. I felt the same way for about 3 seconds after the Paris stuff. I was just making the point re: the chick at the grocery store that people are on edge and reactions like yours, while I think aren't the answer, are very understandable and I certainly see how one might feel the way you do right now.

 

[NCCommish]

You guys let people get to you too much. Water off a ducks ### is how I roll. If I didn't I'd have been run off a long time ago.

 

[timschochet]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

I think gun free zones might be different where you are. To me, they're about no guns near schools. I think the culture needs to be changed. People in bad neighborhoods still shoot near schools though. kids get hurt, sometimes it's kids themselves. I'm guessing in SB the gun free zone was different, I guess the idea is anyone going into the place had to leave their gun behind. This is probably a good example of why the incident had nothing to do with terrorism. The policy was fine for the situation they crafted it for, crime. It wasn't crafted with terrorism in mind.

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented. How do you respond to this argument?

More guns aren't the answer

I love you NC, but that's a bromide, not really an answer.

Actually Tim it is an answer. We are awash in guns. We have enough guns, that we know of, for every man, woman and child in this country to have at least one. Are we safer? Or has the rate of mass public shootings tripled since 2011?

But overall gun crime is down, isn't it? Mass shootings are only a small percentage of total gun crimes.

And how many of these mass shooters were what you and i would call NRA paranoid gun nut types? Maybe the guy in Charleston. I can't think of too many others.

 

[McGarnicle]

John Bender wrote:

if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.

This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.

This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.

I kinda liked Slapdash's response more than mine to be honest. Because I agree with you, I would hate for American born and peaceful US resident folks who identify as Muslim to ever be caught up in such a situation based on what they look like. My significant other (my jewish significant other) spends a third of her year in middle eastern countries helping students get enrolled in college in America and comes back with such great stories about the people in these places. My best friends wife is Yemeni and the nicest person I know. So, I hear you. It really sucks, but that's what I'd be feeling if the above scenario happened next door to me. I think MoP's comments/position are WAY too far on the other side. But I think there is some middle ground. Folks travelling to and from these countries with ISIS breeding grounds should probably be profiled to an extent and within reason until times change again for the better. I'm ok with that as long as it's done responsibly and by the government. Unfortunately, people are scared ####less. Randomly in the grocery store aisle yesterday some lady started telling me, literally out of the blue, about how crazy it was what happened in California and how she's so scared to death of even being out in the store. I guess I walked up behind her a bit too quietly and scared the crap out of her. These are the types of folks I could see taking the MoP viewpoint and there are a LOT of them. It's especially noticeable now that I've moved to the south after spending much of my life outside of Boston and Philadelphia.

I like how I have now become in all of 1 day and not even post until page 183 or so in this thread, but suddenly I have become the poster child for people who are scared when you walk up behind them at Publix and yell BOO!!!



I would enjoy having my own update thread but I think that might agitate more than anything. I do think my journey over the last 12-18 months in terms of teaching middle school would be interesting to some in here. I posted this before and again this is the biggest crack in the MOP shield and that is when the poop hits the fan especially on the World Terrorism be it here or abroad, I just find it comforting to come in here and gather info, fact, and 3rd party opinions as well as weigh in on the actual topic since I was here from the start. It's like a worn in pair of shoes or underwear, it just feels good. But I'm a realist and I know if I start spending a lot of time here on a daily basis I will start pulling my hair out again.

By any chance did you fall down a flight of stairs while you were away?

 

[timschochet]

John Bender wrote:

if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.

This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.

This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.

I kinda liked Slapdash's response more than mine to be honest. Because I agree with you, I would hate for American born and peaceful US resident folks who identify as Muslim to ever be caught up in such a situation based on what they look like. My significant other (my jewish significant other) spends a third of her year in middle eastern countries helping students get enrolled in college in America and comes back with such great stories about the people in these places. My best friends wife is Yemeni and the nicest person I know. So, I hear you. It really sucks, but that's what I'd be feeling if the above scenario happened next door to me. I think MoP's comments/position are WAY too far on the other side. But I think there is some middle ground. Folks travelling to and from these countries with ISIS breeding grounds should probably be profiled to an extent and within reason until times change again for the better. I'm ok with that as long as it's done responsibly and by the government. Unfortunately, people are scared ####less. Randomly in the grocery store aisle yesterday some lady started telling me, literally out of the blue, about how crazy it was what happened in California and how she's so scared to death of even being out in the store. I guess I walked up behind her a bit too quietly and scared the crap out of her. These are the types of folks I could see taking the MoP viewpoint and there are a LOT of them. It's especially noticeable now that I've moved to the south after spending much of my life outside of Boston and Philadelphia.

I like how I have now become in all of 1 day and not even post until page 183 or so in this thread, but suddenly I have become the poster child for people who are scared when you walk up behind them at Publix and yell BOO!!!



I would enjoy having my own update thread but I think that might agitate more than anything. I do think my journey over the last 12-18 months in terms of teaching middle school would be interesting to some in here. I posted this before and again this is the biggest crack in the MOP shield and that is when the poop hits the fan especially on the World Terrorism be it here or abroad, I just find it comforting to come in here and gather info, fact, and 3rd party opinions as well as weigh in on the actual topic since I was here from the start. It's like a worn in pair of shoes or underwear, it just feels good. But I'm a realist and I know if I start spending a lot of time here on a daily basis I will start pulling my hair out again.

By any chance did you fall down a flight of stairs while you were away?

 

[NCCommish]

OK Saints (and NC) I don't disagree. But let's play Devil's Advocate again because I want to extend this argument:

Let's take ICON for a moment. He carries a gun everywhere he goes. He does this, he says, for personal protection, so let's take him at his word. He worked hard to get a CCW permit. He trains with his guns all the time, and he is very responsible.

Now, according to the laws that you and I believe in, when ICON enters a school, he has to leave his gun behind. Same for a shopping mall, a theater, etc, or the Christmas Party in San Bernardino. But let's suppose that in one of these places that ICON is visiting, there is either a terrorist or a deranged gunman bent on killing as many people as possible. If ICON had been armed, he might have been able to save lives. Instead, because of our restrictions, he is simply a target like everyone else.

Aren't we a society weakened by restricting ICON here and everyone like him? (FWIW, I know I'm basically repeating an NRA argument here, but it's an intriguing argument, isn't it?)

Nothing personal against Icon but no. Some guy hitting the range and taking a couple of weekend courses is not SWAT. Leave the gun at home. You don't have the training or experience. Without a lot of luck you are more of a danger than a help.

I have the training and I have the experience and I don't carry because I know that in almost every mass shooting type event I would be better off using my phone than a gun. It would take a very narrow circumstance for that not to be the case.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

John Bender wrote:

if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.

This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.

This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.

I kinda liked Slapdash's response more than mine to be honest. Because I agree with you, I would hate for American born and peaceful US resident folks who identify as Muslim to ever be caught up in such a situation based on what they look like. My significant other (my jewish significant other) spends a third of her year in middle eastern countries helping students get enrolled in college in America and comes back with such great stories about the people in these places. My best friends wife is Yemeni and the nicest person I know. So, I hear you. It really sucks, but that's what I'd be feeling if the above scenario happened next door to me. I think MoP's comments/position are WAY too far on the other side. But I think there is some middle ground. Folks travelling to and from these countries with ISIS breeding grounds should probably be profiled to an extent and within reason until times change again for the better. I'm ok with that as long as it's done responsibly and by the government. Unfortunately, people are scared ####less. Randomly in the grocery store aisle yesterday some lady started telling me, literally out of the blue, about how crazy it was what happened in California and how she's so scared to death of even being out in the store. I guess I walked up behind her a bit too quietly and scared the crap out of her. These are the types of folks I could see taking the MoP viewpoint and there are a LOT of them. It's especially noticeable now that I've moved to the south after spending much of my life outside of Boston and Philadelphia.

I like how I have now become in all of 1 day and not even post until page 183 or so in this thread, but suddenly I have become the poster child for people who are scared when you walk up behind them at Publix and yell BOO!!!



I would enjoy having my own update thread but I think that might agitate more than anything. I do think my journey over the last 12-18 months in terms of teaching middle school would be interesting to some in here. I posted this before and again this is the biggest crack in the MOP shield and that is when the poop hits the fan especially on the World Terrorism be it here or abroad, I just find it comforting to come in here and gather info, fact, and 3rd party opinions as well as weigh in on the actual topic since I was here from the start. It's like a worn in pair of shoes or underwear, it just feels good. But I'm a realist and I know if I start spending a lot of time here on a daily basis I will start pulling my hair out again.

By any chance did you fall down a flight of stairs while you were away?

 

[Shula-holic]

OK Saints (and NC) I don't disagree. But let's play Devil's Advocate again because I want to extend this argument:

Let's take ICON for a moment. He carries a gun everywhere he goes. He does this, he says, for personal protection, so let's take him at his word. He worked hard to get a CCW permit. He trains with his guns all the time, and he is very responsible.

Now, according to the laws that you and I believe in, when ICON enters a school, he has to leave his gun behind. Same for a shopping mall, a theater, etc, or the Christmas Party in San Bernardino. But let's suppose that in one of these places that ICON is visiting, there is either a terrorist or a deranged gunman bent on killing as many people as possible. If ICON had been armed, he might have been able to save lives. Instead, because of our restrictions, he is simply a target like everyone else.

Aren't we a society weakened by restricting ICON here and everyone like him? (FWIW, I know I'm basically repeating an NRA argument here, but it's an intriguing argument, isn't it?)

This is a tough question. I have two friends who carry that immediately come to mind. One of which I feel is almost a "gun nut", yet he's very responsible with training with it. I'd totally trust him to use it for protection and in a pinch I'd feel better with him there and armed.

My other friend I used to travel with some. We used to have to go into some questionable areas. He was almost too jumpy to me. I saw him pull it on a guy one time who thank heavens backed off. There was another time where he didn't pull it and I really thought he was about to in a situation where we were probably fine but had he done so we would have been heavily outgunned.

This depends on the person and I don't know how you can adequately legislate who falls into each category.

 

[John Bender]

John Bender wrote:

if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.

This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.

This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.

I kinda liked Slapdash's response more than mine to be honest. Because I agree with you, I would hate for American born and peaceful US resident folks who identify as Muslim to ever be caught up in such a situation based on what they look like. My significant other (my jewish significant other) spends a third of her year in middle eastern countries helping students get enrolled in college in America and comes back with such great stories about the people in these places. My best friends wife is Yemeni and the nicest person I know. So, I hear you. It really sucks, but that's what I'd be feeling if the above scenario happened next door to me. I think MoP's comments/position are WAY too far on the other side. But I think there is some middle ground. Folks travelling to and from these countries with ISIS breeding grounds should probably be profiled to an extent and within reason until times change again for the better. I'm ok with that as long as it's done responsibly and by the government. Unfortunately, people are scared ####less. Randomly in the grocery store aisle yesterday some lady started telling me, literally out of the blue, about how crazy it was what happened in California and how she's so scared to death of even being out in the store. I guess I walked up behind her a bit too quietly and scared the crap out of her. These are the types of folks I could see taking the MoP viewpoint and there are a LOT of them. It's especially noticeable now that I've moved to the south after spending much of my life outside of Boston and Philadelphia.

I like how I have now become in all of 1 day and not even post until page 183 or so in this thread, but suddenly I have become the poster child for people who are scared when you walk up behind them at Publix and yell BOO!!!



I would enjoy having my own update thread but I think that might agitate more than anything. I do think my journey over the last 12-18 months in terms of teaching middle school would be interesting to some in here. I posted this before and again this is the biggest crack in the MOP shield and that is when the poop hits the fan especially on the World Terrorism be it here or abroad, I just find it comforting to come in here and gather info, fact, and 3rd party opinions as well as weigh in on the actual topic since I was here from the start. It's like a worn in pair of shoes or underwear, it just feels good. But I'm a realist and I know if I start spending a lot of time here on a daily basis I will start pulling my hair out again.

By any chance did you fall down a flight of stairs while you were away?

jesus

 

[timschochet]

OK Saints (and NC) I don't disagree. But let's play Devil's Advocate again because I want to extend this argument:

Let's take ICON for a moment. He carries a gun everywhere he goes. He does this, he says, for personal protection, so let's take him at his word. He worked hard to get a CCW permit. He trains with his guns all the time, and he is very responsible.

Now, according to the laws that you and I believe in, when ICON enters a school, he has to leave his gun behind. Same for a shopping mall, a theater, etc, or the Christmas Party in San Bernardino. But let's suppose that in one of these places that ICON is visiting, there is either a terrorist or a deranged gunman bent on killing as many people as possible. If ICON had been armed, he might have been able to save lives. Instead, because of our restrictions, he is simply a target like everyone else.

Aren't we a society weakened by restricting ICON here and everyone like him? (FWIW, I know I'm basically repeating an NRA argument here, but it's an intriguing argument, isn't it?)

Nothing personal against Icon but no. Some guy hitting the range and taking a couple of weekend courses is not SWAT. Leave the gun at home. You don't have the training or experience. Without a lot of luck you are more of a danger than a help.

I have the training and I have the experience and I don't carry because I know that in almost every mass shooting type event I would be better off using my phone than a gun. It would take a very narrow circumstance for that not to be the case.

All right. This is a reasonable answer that I can accept.

 

[NCCommish]

OK, here are some questions that interest me since yesterday's horrific attack. I'm hoping people provide me some detailed answers, but yes or no is fine as well:

...

2. Yesterday's attack was in a gun free zone. Do you believe that gun free zones are working out for us? Do you think that if one or more of the party guests had been armed, the result might have been different in a positive way (i.e., lives would have been saved)?

...

2. Again, irrelevant. - To answer your questions I'm in favor of them around schools, they can work or not, in NO they don't work but I'm still in favor of them. - As for your last question, maybe, sure, guy has a gun and shoots the terrorists then game over, lives saved.

If you believe they don't work, and you believe that lives can be saved, why are you still in favor of them. (I think I'm in favor of them too, but I'm not understanding your logic.)

I think gun free zones might be different where you are. To me, they're about no guns near schools. I think the culture needs to be changed. People in bad neighborhoods still shoot near schools though. kids get hurt, sometimes it's kids themselves. I'm guessing in SB the gun free zone was different, I guess the idea is anyone going into the place had to leave their gun behind. This is probably a good example of why the incident had nothing to do with terrorism. The policy was fine for the situation they crafted it for, crime. It wasn't crafted with terrorism in mind.

All right, but let's take the school example. I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. After Newtown, ATC1 (I think it was him) made the argument that the elementary school was chosen BECAUSE it was a gun free zone- he called it a "soft target". He argued that schools should not be gun free zones, that it would be safer if responsible teachers and other adults were armed, and that quite possibly that massacre would have been prevented. How do you respond to this argument?

More guns aren't the answer

I love you NC, but that's a bromide, not really an answer.

Actually Tim it is an answer. We are awash in guns. We have enough guns, that we know of, for every man, woman and child in this country to have at least one. Are we safer? Or has the rate of mass public shootings tripled since 2011?

But overall gun crime is down, isn't it? Mass shootings are only a small percentage of total gun crimes. And how many of these mass shooters were what you and i would call NRA paranoid gun nut types? Maybe the guy in Charleston. I can't think of too many others.

No Tim it isn't down. The rate has stayed roughly the same since 2000 as I already explained.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim to answe your question look at Chatanooga. People not know or remember but one or two of the soldiers there did have personal guns despite that are being a supposed gun-free zone. They just had pistols because the jihadi in that situation was loaded up with an AK or something similar. Your Glock or 9mm likely will be overmatched.

I think you're letting mass shootings and terrorism control this debate. To me in NO the biggest threat for a school is some kid is going to take revenge for a drug deal or some stupid words or some gang slight. The kids in the school are checked for guns and so is everyone that comes in it. There are armed guards there. The children are safe. Create a secure zone and you will have security.

 

[Slapdash]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I know a lot of people with concealed carry permits, and none of them are what I would consider "trustworthy." I have to carry for work a lot and I could get a concealed carry, even in Maryland, whenever I like. I don't see the need. I have confidence that I can beat a mugger to death with a mag light and the chance of me running into an active shooter is about the same chance as I have to plow Miss Argentina. I'll take my chances.

 

[NCCommish]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Can we at least get universal background checks? Is that too much to ask?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right.

Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

John Bender wrote:

if I saw 6 middle eastern looking 40 year old men all move into a house next door to me and start working in their garage all hours of their night, I'd find this suspicious. If it were 6 20 year old college aged kids, I'd probably think they were frat brothers and smoking weed in the garage. If that is bigoted, then I guess I am one, but it's just based on life experiences, knowledge, and being aware of the world.

This troubles me, because earlier I wrote that such behavior would indeed be bigoted. But now I'm doubting myself about that, because this seems like a very reasonable, NOT bigoted response.

This is such a hard issue for me. I am really afraid right now for Muslims and Middle Eastern looking people. Trump's rhetoric, which the Republican party has failed to condemn, has really set me on edge. On the other hand, what Bender wrote makes sense. Dammit.

I kinda liked Slapdash's response more than mine to be honest. Because I agree with you, I would hate for American born and peaceful US resident folks who identify as Muslim to ever be caught up in such a situation based on what they look like. My significant other (my jewish significant other) spends a third of her year in middle eastern countries helping students get enrolled in college in America and comes back with such great stories about the people in these places. My best friends wife is Yemeni and the nicest person I know. So, I hear you. It really sucks, but that's what I'd be feeling if the above scenario happened next door to me. I think MoP's comments/position are WAY too far on the other side. But I think there is some middle ground. Folks travelling to and from these countries with ISIS breeding grounds should probably be profiled to an extent and within reason until times change again for the better. I'm ok with that as long as it's done responsibly and by the government. Unfortunately, people are scared ####less. Randomly in the grocery store aisle yesterday some lady started telling me, literally out of the blue, about how crazy it was what happened in California and how she's so scared to death of even being out in the store. I guess I walked up behind her a bit too quietly and scared the crap out of her. These are the types of folks I could see taking the MoP viewpoint and there are a LOT of them. It's especially noticeable now that I've moved to the south after spending much of my life outside of Boston and Philadelphia.

I like how I have now become in all of 1 day and not even post until page 183 or so in this thread, but suddenly I have become the poster child for people who are scared when you walk up behind them at Publix and yell BOO!!!



I would enjoy having my own update thread but I think that might agitate more than anything. I do think my journey over the last 12-18 months in terms of teaching middle school would be interesting to some in here. I posted this before and again this is the biggest crack in the MOP shield and that is when the poop hits the fan especially on the World Terrorism be it here or abroad, I just find it comforting to come in here and gather info, fact, and 3rd party opinions as well as weigh in on the actual topic since I was here from the start. It's like a worn in pair of shoes or underwear, it just feels good. But I'm a realist and I know if I start spending a lot of time here on a daily basis I will start pulling my hair out again.

By any chance did you fall down a flight of stairs while you were away?

Actually I died but I lived.

g1 btw

 

[NCCommish]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I just find it hard to picture what kind of gun regulations could have a significant enough impact to stop this stuff (or make it much less common) without seriously impacting liberties. The whole no-fly, no guns angle is really bizarre given the issues with the no-fly list and would likely have little impact. But what proposals do people think could be sensible?

Only issue I have is the need for people to have these assault rifles. Otherwise, have at it, it's your right. Also I wish someone would put me on a no fly list, it's so much of a hassle now I'd just rather not do it. I've been pretty much everywhere I ever wanted to go, just need to go to Australia. As long as I'm not on a no-sail list, I'm good.

Actually it's only recently this universal ownership right has been a thing. It is a reversal of a couple of hundred years of jurisprudence.

How so? I'm not much into the 2nd amendment, teach me Yoda.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

OK Saints (and NC) I don't disagree. But let's play Devil's Advocate again because I want to extend this argument:

Let's take ICON for a moment. He carries a gun everywhere he goes. He does this, he says, for personal protection, so let's take him at his word. He worked hard to get a CCW permit. He trains with his guns all the time, and he is very responsible.

Now, according to the laws that you and I believe in, when ICON enters a school, he has to leave his gun behind. Same for a shopping mall, a theater, etc, or the Christmas Party in San Bernardino. But let's suppose that in one of these places that ICON is visiting, there is either a terrorist or a deranged gunman bent on killing as many people as possible. If ICON had been armed, he might have been able to save lives. Instead, because of our restrictions, he is simply a target like everyone else.

Aren't we a society weakened by restricting ICON here and everyone like him? (FWIW, I know I'm basically repeating an NRA argument here, but it's an intriguing argument, isn't it?)

Nothing personal against Icon but no. Some guy hitting the range and taking a couple of weekend courses is not SWAT. Leave the gun at home. You don't have the training or experience. Without a lot of luck you are more of a danger than a help.

I have the training and I have the experience and I don't carry because I know that in almost every mass shooting type event I would be better off using my phone than a gun. It would take a very narrow circumstance for that not to be the case.

Good post NC, I like it but I have a couple questions or asterisks next to it. Not every terrorist plans as well as these 2 in San Bernadino. The idiots in Boston were sloppy, rare that anybody gets away with the act for long, most die during the horrific event. I don't know that ICON could have saved anyone yesterday, he probably wouldn't post he could have done much. But what he could have provided possibly is getting a small group huddled in an office, barricade the door, then tell everyone he has a pistol and will shoot anything trying to come in thru that door until they have been assured law enforcement has the place secured again.

I don't think a civilian is going to step in and mow down the terrorists. I do think however I would like someone armed with a gun on my side if I am in that building and trapped. Please someone have a gun and we can just get behind them in an office. It offers at least some hope. But I think much of what you say is good solid real world smarts.