What is the purpose of assault weapons?

[calicoug]

Try again. Go look and see what my proposal actually was.

Done. See my post above. This circular posting nonsense seems to be your favorite strategy when losing an argument. I don't know why.

I'm not going to waste time with your second proposal which you introduce by saying it is less effective than your first. You know what I do with a salesman who doesn't believe in his product?

[All-American]

Done. See my post above. This circular posting nonsense seems to be your favorite strategy when losing an argument. I don't know why.

I'm not going to waste time with your second proposal which you introduce by saying it is less effective than your first. You know what I do with a salesman who doesn't believe in his product?

If you're not going to address what I said then we're done. Thanks for the chat.

[calicoug]

If you're not going to address what I said then we're done. Thanks for the chat.

You want to focus on an argument you are making that you believe to be inferior to another? Well yeah- I guess we are done. Good day, salesman.

[All-American]

You want to focus on an argument you are making that you believe to be inferior to another? Well yeah- I guess we are done. Good day, salesman.

Still not what I said.

[Non Sequitur]

Don't confuse a law with limited negative impact with a good law.

I think Creekster's idea is better than yours, to be sure. If you're really serious about preventing something like Sandy Hook from happening, then the most effective way to go is to do what the NRA suggested and post armed guards at the entrances. If I were making the rules, though, I would just take down the "Gun Free Zone" sign and replace it with one letting anybody who steps onto the property know that an undisclosed number of unidentified adults on the premises are licensed to carry concealed weapons.

Posting armed guards at schools is logistically ridiculous and cost prohibitive. I'd be fine with forking over money for armed guards at schools as long as the only people doing the forking over were the people whose kids were being protected. I don't have kids in school, and I don't want to pay money so other people's kids can have an armed guard at their school.

Regarding gun free zones, the reason public schools are gun free zones is because that's the way most of the public want it. I wouldn't want to send my kids going to a school where teachers were packing heat. If that's something you want, then send your kids to a weapon friendly private school.

[All-American]

Posting armed guards at schools is logistically ridiculous and cost prohibitive. I'd be fine with forking over money for armed guards at schools as long as the only people doing the forking over were the people whose kids were being protected. I don't have kids in school, and I don't want to pay money so other people's kids can have an armed guard at their school.

Regarding gun free zones, the reason public schools are gun free zones is because that's the way most of the public want it. I wouldn't want to send my kids going to a school where teachers were packing heat. If that's something you want, then send your kids to a weapon friendly private school.

See, Cali? That's how it's done. Take notes.

I agree that posting guards, while certainly among the most effective ways of protecting people, would be expensive, and possibly more expensive than beneficial in a good number of instances. I bet a non-insignificant number of schools (or movie theaters, etc.) would still take the option, if it were available to them.

As for your latter point, yes, it's what a lot of people want. If all popular ideas were also good ideas, you might have a dispositive point instead of a decent one. As it turns out, though, the people have inadvertently designated easy target zones to which homicidal maniacs have been drawn like moths to a flame.

[Bo Diddley]

Posting armed guards at schools is logistically ridiculous and cost prohibitive. I'd be fine with forking over money for armed guards at schools as long as the only people doing the forking over were the people whose kids were being protected. I don't have kids in school, and I don't want to pay money so other people's kids can have an armed guard at their school.

Regarding gun free zones, the reason public schools are gun free zones is because that's the way most of the public want it. I wouldn't want to send my kids going to a school where teachers were packing heat. If that's something you want, then send your kids to a weapon friendly private school.

Make sure they don't go to a public school in Utah.

[SoCalCoug]

this thread is disappointing - it's very CB-like, with the conservative majority shouting down the "radical liberal" without really trying to have an honest dialogue.

[Bo Diddley]

this thread is disappointing - it's very CB-like, with the conservative majority shouting down the "radical liberal" without really trying to have an honest dialogue.

That's funny. I'm sure you'll carry Calicoug on your shoulders and point to how he wants to engage in an honest discussion.

[calicoug]

See, Cali? That's how it's done. Take notes.

I agree that posting guards, while certainly among the most effective ways of protecting people, would be expensive, and possibly more expensive than beneficial in a good number of instances. I bet a non-insignificant number of schools (or movie theaters, etc.) would still take the option, if it were available to them.

As for your latter point, yes, it's what a lot of people want. If all popular ideas were also good ideas, you might have a dispositive point instead of a decent one. As it turns out, though, the people have inadvertently designated easy target zones to which homicidal maniacs have been drawn like moths to a flame.

Trust me, AA. Neither I nor anyone else needs notes on how to obliterate your arguments. There are bountiful examples freely available, so much so that additional reference materials in the form of notes would be superfluous.

Even here you give more evidence of this fact. The form you call the "most effective" means of stopping mass shootings you agree is impractical to implement. We can agree. Your proposal won't work.

So on to your backup proposal (which you have already identified as less effective than your primary proposal, and we know how that one fared). Here, you don't actually make an argument as to why adding guns in schools would work. Instead, you merely note that the absence of guns may be drawing shooters (although it's quite unclear what evidence you site in support of that proposition). So even taking your final paragraph at face value, all you have said is gun free zones present a particular type of problem without explaining why adding guns not only increases the likelihood we solve the intended problem but also why it won't create other problems (which, like you admit with your first proposal, may be greater than the original problem we seek to solve).

[Uncle Ted]

Posting armed guards at schools is logistically ridiculous and cost prohibitive. I'd be fine with forking over money for armed guards at schools as long as the only people doing the forking over were the people whose kids were being protected. I don't have kids in school, and I don't want to pay money so other people's kids can have an armed guard at their school.

Regarding gun free zones, the reason public schools are gun free zones is because that's the way most of the public want it. I wouldn't want to send my kids going to a school where teachers were packing heat. If that's something you want, then send your kids to a weapon friendly private school.

I would rather the local community or school district decide what is best for their schools rather than the federal government that can't even balance national budget (or even just create a budget), kills kids with drones, and other f'ed up stuff.

I have no problem sending my kids to a school where properly train teachers have concealed weapons than sending my kids to school that is in a so called gun free zone that only the criminals and crazies are packing heat.

[Uncle Ted]

Make sure they don't go to a public school in Utah.

Or Texas. Maybe he should move to California.

[Jeff Lebowski]

this thread is disappointing - it's very CB-like, with the conservative majority shouting down the "radical liberal" without really trying to have an honest dialogue.

That's funny.

[Non Sequitur]

As for your latter point, yes, it's what a lot of people want. If all popular ideas were also good ideas, you might have a dispositive point instead of a decent one. As it turns out, though, the people have inadvertently designated easy target zones to which homicidal maniacs have been drawn like moths to a flame.

It's been my experience that popular ideas usually trump good ideas. Banning children under 10 from restaurants is a good idea. Sadly, it will never happen in my lifetime.

[All-American]

Trust me, AA. Neither I nor anyone else needs notes on how to obliterate your arguments. There are bountiful examples freely available, so much so that additional reference materials in the form of notes would be superfluous.

I am very comfortable with how my arguments are being received. Particularly when compared to how persuasive your performances have been.

Even here you give more evidence of this fact. The form you call the "most effective" means of stopping mass shootings you agree is impractical to implement. We can agree. Your proposal won't work.

Not for everyone. I would neither mandate nor prohibit it.

So on to your backup proposal (which you have already identified as less effective than your primary proposal, and we know how that one fared).

Not my backup plan, for one, and for another, the potential problem I noted with armed guards is not that they wouldn't be extremely effective.

Here, you don't actually make an argument as to why adding guns in schools would work. Instead, you merely note that the absence of guns may be drawing shooters (although it's quite unclear what evidence you site in support of that proposition). So even taking your final paragraph at face value, all you have said is gun free zones present a particular type of problem without explaining why adding guns not only increases the likelihood we solve the intended problem but also why it won't create other problems (which, like you admit with your first proposal, may be greater than the original problem we seek to solve).

Actually, you're right on a point here. I haven't even begun to talk about why actually having a gun in the hands of a responsible adult inside the building would make it safer-- although I am confident that it would. So far, I have only noted that the mere designation of a gun free zone encourages shooters hoping to rack up a high body count. The fact that all but one of the mass shootings in the last 20 years occurred in gun free zones is telling.