Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Guns will make us safer they said

illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:36:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.
Dark-one
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:38:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The guy in that picture is gonna have shoulder problems unholstering from that position....

I wonder if they'd make an exception for civilians who've undergone specialized training to handle these situations under stress.
Dark-one
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:40:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:36:36 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.

Untrained idiots with guns will likely end badly, obviously.

Luckily, that training is available to commoners if they know where to look....
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 1:46:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:40:37 PM, Dark-one wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:36:36 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.

Untrained idiots with guns will likely end badly, obviously.

But that isn't the gun rights position now is it ? you have a right to yer gun.

Bad guys with guns, need more good guys with guns, guns make us safe, needs more gun.


Luckily, that training is available to commoners if they know where to look....
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:05:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:36:36 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

That's right. If security can manage a potential threat, they will do so. Untrained, unknown citizens fall under the category of potential threat, whether they are armed or not. Its easier to just ban the guns on that scale, then it is to investigate every single person invited, which is blatantly obvious. Of course they won't allow the assassinator to cozy up to dear old Donald with a firearm, and of course they wouldn't want an unknown with a firearm in a crowd full of people. I think I just read the worlds dumbest petition. Have you seen how angry those political nuts can be?

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

Exactly

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.

Hahaha, I can just see a guy saying that.

Seriously though, assuming the nature of assassination attempts, there would only be 1 or 2 attackers. The team is more then equipped, and the last thing they would want in an enclosed area full of people is a bunch of armed cowboys. Security should be sufficient to handle the threat, and it is easier to manage without additional guns.

Its a gun free zone for a reason. When people say more guns are safer they usually mean in society, like the mugger will be deterred from attacking if the last time it happened he had a gun drawn on him, or the college campus would at least have a chance if they have armed personnel. If you are walking down a street, that is one thing, but in a crowded area, why would you want guns? You can't even shoot the attacker if your back stops are honest Joe and his Wife.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:06:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

What is not to get? Republicans need to stand up and fight for their right to bear arms at the Republican convention. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel if a jihadist gets in the crowd and starts shooting everyone. All the convention goers would be safer packing heat so they can protect themselves.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:19:06 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:06:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

What is not to get? Republicans need to stand up and fight for their right to bear arms at the Republican convention. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel if a jihadist gets in the crowd and starts shooting everyone. All the convention goers would be safer packing heat so they can protect themselves.

There are armed guards at those things....With an actual plan. If the attacker draws first, then it doesn't matter if you are armed or not. That's how guns go. Joe Schmo isn't going to perform any better then the men in black.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:38:47 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.

Gun Free Zones prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying weapons while do nothing to stop criminals from entering them with guns. This make them soft targets (people are helpless). When armed security personnel with measures to prevent guns being brought to an area proper checks of ingress/egress are in place no longer is a soft target.

You are fully capable of discerning the difference.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:44:49 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:38:47 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.

Gun Free Zones prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying weapons while do nothing to stop criminals from entering them with guns. This make them soft targets (people are helpless). When armed security personnel with measures to prevent guns being brought to an area proper checks of ingress/egress are in place no longer is a soft target.

You are fully capable of discerning the difference.

Ahhh I see now, all we need is to have secret service agents and thus we can all have gun free zones.

More guns are not the answer, more secret service agents are.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:53:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:44:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:38:47 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.

Gun Free Zones prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying weapons while do nothing to stop criminals from entering them with guns. This make them soft targets (people are helpless). When armed security personnel with measures to prevent guns being brought to an area proper checks of ingress/egress are in place no longer is a soft target.

You are fully capable of discerning the difference.

Ahhh I see now, all we need is to have secret service agents and thus we can all have gun free zones.

More guns are not the answer, more secret service agents are.

You keep attempting to over simplify and to connect to unconnected situations. If those are the only two alternatives you can draw from what was said then I feel sorry for you.

If this is the level of "rationale" thinking that you are capable of bringing to this discussion, then obviously you know you're grasping at straws.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 2:54:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:53:51 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:44:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:38:47 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.

Gun Free Zones prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying weapons while do nothing to stop criminals from entering them with guns. This make them soft targets (people are helpless). When armed security personnel with measures to prevent guns being brought to an area proper checks of ingress/egress are in place no longer is a soft target.

You are fully capable of discerning the difference.

Ahhh I see now, all we need is to have secret service agents and thus we can all have gun free zones.

More guns are not the answer, more secret service agents are.

You keep attempting to over simplify and to connect to unconnected situations. If those are the only two alternatives you can draw from what was said then I feel sorry for you.

If this is the level of "rationale" thinking that you are capable of bringing to this discussion, then obviously you know you're grasping at straws.

*two
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 3:00:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:54:53 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:53:51 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:44:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:38:47 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.

Gun Free Zones prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying weapons while do nothing to stop criminals from entering them with guns. This make them soft targets (people are helpless). When armed security personnel with measures to prevent guns being brought to an area proper checks of ingress/egress are in place no longer is a soft target.

You are fully capable of discerning the difference.

Ahhh I see now, all we need is to have secret service agents and thus we can all have gun free zones.

More guns are not the answer, more secret service agents are.

You keep attempting to over simplify and to connect to unconnected situations. If those are the only two alternatives you can draw from what was said then I feel sorry for you.

If this is the level of "rationale" thinking that you are capable of bringing to this discussion, then obviously you know you're grasping at straws.

*two

Your the one who wanted to go down the path of gun free zones are good IF...

Remember how you told me about how safe it is if people are dis-armed but there is security around.

Lets expand that concept to more than just one guys political rally eh ?
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 3:37:51 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:00:22 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:54:53 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:53:51 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:44:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:38:47 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.

Gun Free Zones prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying weapons while do nothing to stop criminals from entering them with guns. This make them soft targets (people are helpless). When armed security personnel with measures to prevent guns being brought to an area proper checks of ingress/egress are in place no longer is a soft target.

You are fully capable of discerning the difference.

Ahhh I see now, all we need is to have secret service agents and thus we can all have gun free zones.

More guns are not the answer, more secret service agents are.

You keep attempting to over simplify and to connect to unconnected situations. If those are the only two alternatives you can draw from what was said then I feel sorry for you.

If this is the level of "rationale" thinking that you are capable of bringing to this discussion, then obviously you know you're grasping at straws.

*two

Your the one who wanted to go down the path of gun free zones are good IF...

Remember how you told me about how safe it is if people are dis-armed but there is security around.

Lets expand that concept to more than just one guys political rally eh ?

Did you even read the article you posted? One guy's rally? This was in regards to the Republican Convention, not sure how this became about Trump. There are more people at the Republican Convention than just one man as you put it.

Soft targets are high risk. Advocates for guns in gun free zones are asking for SOMEONE to be armed in order to thwart criminals. As currently there is just legislation to stop criminals from going into gun free zones.

If you approached gun free zones the same way as this convention, we wouldn't even be having a discussion. If schools protected individuals there from the possible introduction of gunmen into ingress/egress locations and had trained personnel to protect the unarmed. I think there would be no problem. The reality is that isn't financially feasible for one, and that's not what's being proposed from the opponents of "more guns".

If you agree that these events should be protected, then you should take that same logic to soft targets and assume that legislation has been ineffective at stopping school shootings and the like thusfar.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 3:41:31 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:37:51 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 3:00:22 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:54:53 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:53:51 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:44:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:38:47 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.

Gun Free Zones prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying weapons while do nothing to stop criminals from entering them with guns. This make them soft targets (people are helpless). When armed security personnel with measures to prevent guns being brought to an area proper checks of ingress/egress are in place no longer is a soft target.

You are fully capable of discerning the difference.

Ahhh I see now, all we need is to have secret service agents and thus we can all have gun free zones.

More guns are not the answer, more secret service agents are.

You keep attempting to over simplify and to connect to unconnected situations. If those are the only two alternatives you can draw from what was said then I feel sorry for you.

If this is the level of "rationale" thinking that you are capable of bringing to this discussion, then obviously you know you're grasping at straws.

*two

Your the one who wanted to go down the path of gun free zones are good IF...

Remember how you told me about how safe it is if people are dis-armed but there is security around.

Lets expand that concept to more than just one guys political rally eh ?

Did you even read the article you posted? One guy's rally? This was in regards to the Republican Convention, not sure how this became about Trump. There are more people at the Republican Convention than just one man as you put it.

Republic convention IS one guys rally.


Soft targets are high risk. Advocates for guns in gun free zones are asking for SOMEONE to be armed in order to thwart criminals. As currently there is just legislation to stop criminals from going into gun free zones.

If you approached gun free zones the same way as this convention, we wouldn't even be having a discussion. If schools protected individuals there from the possible introduction of gunmen into ingress/egress locations and had trained personnel to protect the unarmed. I think there would be no problem. The reality is that isn't financially feasible for one, and that's not what's being proposed from the opponents of "more guns".

If you agree that these events should be protected, then you should take that same logic to soft targets and assume that legislation has been ineffective at stopping school shootings and the like thusfar.

Which goes back to my point, more secret service agents.
vortex86
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:20:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 3:41:31 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
Which goes back to my point, more secret service agents.

So there you have it. People asking for "more guns", and the alternative being presented in opposition is "More secret service agents". Who sounds more rational?
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:23:10 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:44:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:38:47 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:11:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:05:03 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

The glaring difference you seemed to intentionally overlook is the dozens of highly trained secret service agents and law enforcement personnel that are securing the area. Not to mention the actual security measures in place to prevent people from bringing guns into said facility. "gun free zones" don't do either of these and are considered soft targets.

Common sense isn't very common.

So gun free zones are bad...................except when they are not.

Gun Free Zones prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying weapons while do nothing to stop criminals from entering them with guns. This make them soft targets (people are helpless). When armed security personnel with measures to prevent guns being brought to an area proper checks of ingress/egress are in place no longer is a soft target.

You are fully capable of discerning the difference.

Ahhh I see now, all we need is to have secret service agents and thus we can all have gun free zones.

More guns are not the answer, more secret service agents are.

More guns will never be the answer. They're inanimate objects...

Trained secret service agents carrying guns are utilized as a precaution in the event of a worst case scenario as well as a deterrent, and a fast reacting detection/defense system, which is what makes it possible for a "gun free" zone to operate with an acceptable level of safety in an imperfect world.

I don't understand what you are arguing at this point. Are you for or against a select group of trained and trusted gunmen in gun free zones? Are you just trying to say quality over quantity? No one is going to argue with you there.
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
Quadrunner
Posts: 1,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2016 4:29:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 4:20:53 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 3:41:31 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
Which goes back to my point, more secret service agents.

So there you have it. People asking for "more guns", and the alternative being presented in opposition is "More secret service agents". Who sounds more rational?

Neither
Wisdom is found where the wise seek it.
slo1
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:34:12 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 2:19:06 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 2:06:11 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

What is not to get? Republicans need to stand up and fight for their right to bear arms at the Republican convention. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel if a jihadist gets in the crowd and starts shooting everyone. All the convention goers would be safer packing heat so they can protect themselves.

There are armed guards at those things....With an actual plan. If the attacker draws first, then it doesn't matter if you are armed or not. That's how guns go. Joe Schmo isn't going to perform any better then the men in black.

Maybe for the candidates, but definitely not the delegates.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:41:28 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
There are some considerable differences between a convention like this and the world that you return to once you leave. Let me explain:
1. A candidate is speaking to a vast crowd. If someone in the crowd tries to shoot at him, it's not like he would be able to spot the person in the crowd and shoot first without hitting anyone else.
2. There are a multitude of security guards at the convention and people generally cannot get in without being checked for a gun by security. At your home you do not have a bodyguard (unless you're wealthy).

There is no contradiction here.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
frie13
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 3:06:30 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
First off, if a gun accidentally goes off, I would not like to be in the middle of a panicked crowd. I'm small for my age and I would be trampled in the mass chaos, and if not trampled, I might be shot by the dozen trigger-happy gunslingers that were just waiting for an opportunity to show off their guns. Because of this, I advocate for the withdrawal of firearms.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 11:57:48 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/29/2016 1:46:53 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:40:37 PM, Dark-one wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:36:36 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.

Untrained idiots with guns will likely end badly, obviously.

But that isn't the gun rights position now is it ? you have a right to yer gun.

Bad guys with guns, need more good guys with guns, guns make us safe, needs more gun.


Luckily, that training is available to commoners if they know where to look....

This really just assumes you want to be brain dead on half the issue you want to talk about. Before ya protest, hear me out here.

Lets insert the subject matter of "Cars" and make the same comparison, as cars are intended.

By having a car, you and can quickly get from one place to another. You can also haul stuff around, and use it as a general utility. In selecting the a car you can handle, it will aid you in traversing the city or urban areas. Right?

Okay, but doesn't that assume you... well, know how to drive? Like, wnet too a driver's ed course, or at least studied something about cars, possibly even went to an empty parking lot with your parents some place, and practiced driving around?

So, is what is really being said is "If you know what you are doing when you get behind the wheel", then you can get quickly from one place to another, haul stuff around, etc.

Now, back to guns. "Guns will make you safer". But, much like cars, this applies to people that practice. Train. Regularly make use of something that carries such an responsibility to it. If you go to the range, practice unholstering your weapon quickly, and dedicate an amount of time to it, yes, you will be more prepared than any layman whom simply buys a black market gun (or steals one) and attempts to use it for leverage in a robbery. You will be (if we go back to my analogy) a better driver than some guy whom just buys any old beater off a lot with no license, insurance, casual or formal training or practice and the like. And, much like when driving a car, while carrying a firearm, you are supposed to be aware of what is going on around you, while the other won't be (usually!).

We as a society have for some reason dismissed what a responsibility a firearm is, and how much of a utility to the practiced it is, and instead only look to the worst of our society in which to judge whether others (prepared or not) should have the responsibility as well.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:23:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 11:57:48 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:46:53 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:40:37 PM, Dark-one wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:36:36 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.

Untrained idiots with guns will likely end badly, obviously.

But that isn't the gun rights position now is it ? you have a right to yer gun.

Bad guys with guns, need more good guys with guns, guns make us safe, needs more gun.


Luckily, that training is available to commoners if they know where to look....

This really just assumes you want to be brain dead on half the issue you want to talk about. Before ya protest, hear me out here.

Lets insert the subject matter of "Cars" and make the same comparison, as cars are intended.

By having a car, you and can quickly get from one place to another. You can also haul stuff around, and use it as a general utility. In selecting the a car you can handle, it will aid you in traversing the city or urban areas. Right?

Okay, but doesn't that assume you... well, know how to drive? Like, wnet too a driver's ed course, or at least studied something about cars, possibly even went to an empty parking lot with your parents some place, and practiced driving around?

So, is what is really being said is "If you know what you are doing when you get behind the wheel", then you can get quickly from one place to another, haul stuff around, etc.

Now, back to guns. "Guns will make you safer". But, much like cars, this applies to people that practice. Train. Regularly make use of something that carries such an responsibility to it. If you go to the range, practice unholstering your weapon quickly, and dedicate an amount of time to it, yes, you will be more prepared than any layman whom simply buys a black market gun (or steals one) and attempts to use it for leverage in a robbery. You will be (if we go back to my analogy) a better driver than some guy whom just buys any old beater off a lot with no license, insurance, casual or formal training or practice and the like. And, much like when driving a car, while carrying a firearm, you are supposed to be aware of what is going on around you, while the other won't be (usually!).

We as a society have for some reason dismissed what a responsibility a firearm is, and how much of a utility to the practiced it is, and instead only look to the worst of our society in which to judge whether others (prepared or not) should have the responsibility as well.

Here is the problem. Coming from American you have the right to yer gun it's in the constitution, they don't say that one can only have a right to yer gun on the condition that you meet certain performance criteria of gun skills.

And their are obvious reasons why they would reject this, cause they would fear the criteria could be made so high as to become gun control via a performance requirement for yer gen.

So what exactly is your relevance here ? that if one has a gun it would be better that they have better skill in handling a gun ? well that goes under the no sh*t Sherlock category, no one is going to disagree with that.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:35:15 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 12:23:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/30/2016 11:57:48 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:46:53 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:40:37 PM, Dark-one wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:36:36 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.

Untrained idiots with guns will likely end badly, obviously.

But that isn't the gun rights position now is it ? you have a right to yer gun.

Bad guys with guns, need more good guys with guns, guns make us safe, needs more gun.


Luckily, that training is available to commoners if they know where to look....

This really just assumes you want to be brain dead on half the issue you want to talk about. Before ya protest, hear me out here.

Lets insert the subject matter of "Cars" and make the same comparison, as cars are intended.

By having a car, you and can quickly get from one place to another. You can also haul stuff around, and use it as a general utility. In selecting the a car you can handle, it will aid you in traversing the city or urban areas. Right?

Okay, but doesn't that assume you... well, know how to drive? Like, wnet too a driver's ed course, or at least studied something about cars, possibly even went to an empty parking lot with your parents some place, and practiced driving around?

So, is what is really being said is "If you know what you are doing when you get behind the wheel", then you can get quickly from one place to another, haul stuff around, etc.

Now, back to guns. "Guns will make you safer". But, much like cars, this applies to people that practice. Train. Regularly make use of something that carries such an responsibility to it. If you go to the range, practice unholstering your weapon quickly, and dedicate an amount of time to it, yes, you will be more prepared than any layman whom simply buys a black market gun (or steals one) and attempts to use it for leverage in a robbery. You will be (if we go back to my analogy) a better driver than some guy whom just buys any old beater off a lot with no license, insurance, casual or formal training or practice and the like. And, much like when driving a car, while carrying a firearm, you are supposed to be aware of what is going on around you, while the other won't be (usually!).

We as a society have for some reason dismissed what a responsibility a firearm is, and how much of a utility to the practiced it is, and instead only look to the worst of our society in which to judge whether others (prepared or not) should have the responsibility as well.

Here is the problem. Coming from American you have the right to yer gun it's in the constitution, they don't say that one can only have a right to yer gun on the condition that you meet certain performance criteria of gun skills.

Much like any property.

And their are obvious reasons why they would reject this, cause they would fear the criteria could be made so high as to become gun control via a performance requirement for yer gen.

Yes, it assumes that you, as a responsible citizen, take steps. I know, again, novel concept, right? That responsibility of rights only be for those that choose to be responsible.


So what exactly is your relevance here ? that if one has a gun it would be better that they have better skill in handling a gun ? well that goes under the no sh*t Sherlock category, no one is going to disagree with that.

And yet such, some how, is not inherent to the discussion. Common sense should dictate that if you own a property, you are some what experienced or practiced in knowing how to use it. When did that become divorced from the conversation?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:38:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/30/2016 12:35:15 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/30/2016 12:23:52 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/30/2016 11:57:48 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:46:53 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:40:37 PM, Dark-one wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:36:36 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 3/29/2016 1:30:38 PM, Quadrunner wrote:
At 3/29/2016 8:22:38 AM, illegalcombat wrote:
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.

Untrained idiots with guns will likely end badly, obviously.

But that isn't the gun rights position now is it ? you have a right to yer gun.

Bad guys with guns, need more good guys with guns, guns make us safe, needs more gun.


Luckily, that training is available to commoners if they know where to look....

This really just assumes you want to be brain dead on half the issue you want to talk about. Before ya protest, hear me out here.

Lets insert the subject matter of "Cars" and make the same comparison, as cars are intended.

By having a car, you and can quickly get from one place to another. You can also haul stuff around, and use it as a general utility. In selecting the a car you can handle, it will aid you in traversing the city or urban areas. Right?

Okay, but doesn't that assume you... well, know how to drive? Like, wnet too a driver's ed course, or at least studied something about cars, possibly even went to an empty parking lot with your parents some place, and practiced driving around?

So, is what is really being said is "If you know what you are doing when you get behind the wheel", then you can get quickly from one place to another, haul stuff around, etc.

Now, back to guns. "Guns will make you safer". But, much like cars, this applies to people that practice. Train. Regularly make use of something that carries such an responsibility to it. If you go to the range, practice unholstering your weapon quickly, and dedicate an amount of time to it, yes, you will be more prepared than any layman whom simply buys a black market gun (or steals one) and attempts to use it for leverage in a robbery. You will be (if we go back to my analogy) a better driver than some guy whom just buys any old beater off a lot with no license, insurance, casual or formal training or practice and the like. And, much like when driving a car, while carrying a firearm, you are supposed to be aware of what is going on around you, while the other won't be (usually!).

We as a society have for some reason dismissed what a responsibility a firearm is, and how much of a utility to the practiced it is, and instead only look to the worst of our society in which to judge whether others (prepared or not) should have the responsibility as well.

Here is the problem. Coming from American you have the right to yer gun it's in the constitution, they don't say that one can only have a right to yer gun on the condition that you meet certain performance criteria of gun skills.

Much like any property.

And their are obvious reasons why they would reject this, cause they would fear the criteria could be made so high as to become gun control via a performance requirement for yer gen.

Yes, it assumes that you, as a responsible citizen, take steps. I know, again, novel concept, right? That responsibility of rights only be for those that choose to be responsible.



So what exactly is your relevance here ? that if one has a gun it would be better that they have better skill in handling a gun ? well that goes under the no sh*t Sherlock category, no one is going to disagree with that.

And yet such, some how, is not inherent to the discussion. Common sense should dictate that if you own a property, you are some what experienced or practiced in knowing how to use it. When did that become divorced from the conversation?

Your dancing around the issue.

When it goes to gun rights, is the right to own a gun conditional on meeting some performance criteria ?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,207
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2016 12:58:07 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
Hey remember that whole line about gun control just ensures the bad guys are armed against the unarmed good guys, so obviously we are much safer if the good guys have guns too.

http://www.abc.net.au...

Sorry, where are you going with this? To me, the tone reads like you are trying to show a contradiction or something, and I just can't see it.

Or are you saying that gun free zones need trained armed guards? I'd agree with that. Its almost border lining common sense. Is there something else I should be taking from this?

Clearly the people involved in security don't think having everyone armed will make it safer, cause if they did they would be like, hey dudes, remember to bring yer guns.

Also I bet you won't hear Donald complaining either.

When it concerns THEIR OWN security, they want no guns around by the common people, yet they will tell the commoners, oh more guns, more guns is the answer, more guns make us safe, if a terrorist came in here now we would shoot his a**.

Untrained idiots with guns will likely end badly, obviously.

But that isn't the gun rights position now is it ? you have a right to yer gun.

Bad guys with guns, need more good guys with guns, guns make us safe, needs more gun.


Luckily, that training is available to commoners if they know where to look....

This really just assumes you want to be brain dead on half the issue you want to talk about. Before ya protest, hear me out here.

Lets insert the subject matter of "Cars" and make the same comparison, as cars are intended.

By having a car, you and can quickly get from one place to another. You can also haul stuff around, and use it as a general utility. In selecting the a car you can handle, it will aid you in traversing the city or urban areas. Right?

Okay, but doesn't that assume you... well, know how to drive? Like, wnet too a driver's ed course, or at least studied something about cars, possibly even went to an empty parking lot with your parents some place, and practiced driving around?

So, is what is really being said is "If you know what you are doing when you get behind the wheel", then you can get quickly from one place to another, haul stuff around, etc.

Now, back to guns. "Guns will make you safer". But, much like cars, this applies to people that practice. Train. Regularly make use of something that carries such an responsibility to it. If you go to the range, practice unholstering your weapon quickly, and dedicate an amount of time to it, yes, you will be more prepared than any layman whom simply buys a black market gun (or steals one) and attempts to use it for leverage in a robbery. You will be (if we go back to my analogy) a better driver than some guy whom just buys any old beater off a lot with no license, insurance, casual or formal training or practice and the like. And, much like when driving a car, while carrying a firearm, you are supposed to be aware of what is going on around you, while the other won't be (usually!).

We as a society have for some reason dismissed what a responsibility a firearm is, and how much of a utility to the practiced it is, and instead only look to the worst of our society in which to judge whether others (prepared or not) should have the responsibility as well.

Here is the problem. Coming from American you have the right to yer gun it's in the constitution, they don't say that one can only have a right to yer gun on the condition that you meet certain performance criteria of gun skills.

Much like any property.

And their are obvious reasons why they would reject this, cause they would fear the criteria could be made so high as to become gun control via a performance requirement for yer gen.

Yes, it assumes that you, as a responsible citizen, take steps. I know, again, novel concept, right? That responsibility of rights only be for those that choose to be responsible.



So what exactly is your relevance here ? that if one has a gun it would be better that they have better skill in handling a gun ? well that goes under the no sh*t Sherlock category, no one is going to disagree with that.

And yet such, some how, is not inherent to the discussion. Common sense should dictate that if you own a property, you are some what experienced or practiced in knowing how to use it. When did that become divorced from the conversation?

Your dancing around the issue.

When it goes to gun rights, is the right to own a gun conditional on meeting some performance criteria ?

No.

But, when it comes to any other form of legal property ownership, is there any kind of conditional performance criteria? Or is it assumed you have working/responsible knowledge of such? Like if you buy a Skhil saw, does the guy at the check out counter ask you if you have a basic understanding of safety? Its inherent to the device. If you buy a SCUBA set, wetsuit, etc, does the dude behind the counter ask if you are a competent diver? Again, its inherent to the device: you are assumed to know something about it to operate it safely. And, big shock, the people that DON'T are the ones that get featured in the news. Its not about what everyone should or should not be able to do, its about what those that can't should realize about themselves. Personal responsibility. But, in the quest for exonerating everyone of responsibility for their actions, we attempt to bubble wrap the world.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...