• Blog Entries

    • By Destino in ES Coverage
         1
      The home team fans are at home, these games no longer matter, and it’s probably better for the team to lose than it is to win.  It must be December in Washington.  Welcome to week 15!
       
      Redskins Inactive: 
      Colt McCoy  
      Trey Quinn 
      Quinton Dunbar  
      Josh Harvey-Clemons  
      Ross Pierschbacher  
      Brandon Scherff  
      Caleb Wilson  
       
      Eagles Inactive: 
      Nate Sudfeld  
      Nelson Agholor 
      Jordan Howard  
      Shareef Miller 
      Lane Johnson  
      Sua Opeta  
      Derek Barnet
       
      There are two camps for Redskins fans at this time of year.  Those that want to tank and those that want to win.  If this describes you, I want you to know something important. You’re wrong.  You should probably feel bad about it too, but that’s your business.  The right way to go about this, is simply to embrace the doublethink.  
       
      Before and after the game it’s perfectly reasonable to acknowledge that losing has its advantages.  It does and it is undeniable.  Afterall we could be talking about the difference between Chase Young being in a Redskins uniform, or not.  What we need for that to happen is simple.  Redskins lose out.  Giants beat the Dolphins and Redskins.  Dolphins beat the Bengals.  All of these things are perfectly reasonable outcomes.  We’re that close to having an elite pass rusher.   
       
      Before that happens, we have a game to play.  It is in this moment that we should embrace the other side of our demented doublethink.  While the game is being played, especially against a division opponent, fans should want their team to do well.  Assuming they have a soul and any decency.  There is just no way that I can root for the Eagles to beat the Redskins during a game.  If you are the type of fan that does this, I hope you find someone that can fix what has broken inside of you.   
       
      Pregame Prediction:  Redskins 23 – Eagles 30  
      More interesting game we are missing because we are still watching the Redskins:  Packers – Bears  
      Things I am snacking on:  Brownie.   
      Number of colons used:  Six.  (so far)  
       
      Check back for updates.  I’m going to wander around the room for a while and stretch my legs to get away from a certain well-known ESPN Eagle fan’s boring conversations that my ear phones aren’t blocking out entirely.
       
      1st Quarter Redskins 7 - 3 Eagles
      "The Closer" Haskins showed up for work early today and hit his former college teammate for a touchdown.  He really took the life out of this crowd in *checks notes* Fedex Field. 
       
      2nd Quarter Redskins 14 - 10 Eagles
      This quarter was defined by penalties.  The Redskins made the mistake of lightly hitting an Eagles tight end on the shoulder, and then another by tackling the Eagles QB around the waist.  Refs clearly didn't appreciate the Redskins playing football.
       
      This is the best half of football of Haskins pro career.  The Redskins passing offense as a whole has looked impressive, which... well it just shouldn't be.  Right?  Feels like a trap.  As soon as we start to feel good about it, BOOM they'll tear our hearts out. 
       
      I'll say this much though, Redskins receivers have been running around wide open throughout this first half.  The Redskins should have scored more than 14.
       
      Halftime:  If you had a choice between standing in a relatively long line for ice cream and cookies or nachos and hot dogs which would you choose?  I would go with ice cream.  Unfortunately I didn't realize there were two separate lines, and so I ended up with nachos and disappointment.  Also, I should probably mention Urban Meyer is here.  I bet he got the ice cream.   
       
      3rd Quarter Redskins 14 - 17 Eagles
      Wentz made a good throw, giving his team the lead, and it reminded me that Wentz was once a pretty good QB.  Hasn't looked like it often today.  The Eagles really haven't had a lot of open players for Wentz to throw to, but there is more to it than that.  Wentz looks slow. 
       
      Haskins has out played him through three quarters, and we haven't even reached Haskins best quarter. 
       
      4th Quarter Redskins 27 - 37 Eagles
      Some drunk Redskins fans sitting in front of the press box have recognized a Eagles fan that appears often on CNN and have started knocking on the glass to wave their hands and smile at him now the the Redskins have the lead.  These fans have apparently never learned not to tempt fate.
       
      Redskins defense played fairly well all game but picked the worst possible time to give up a long drive for a touchdown.  The Eagles offense came off the field with a four point lead and less than a minute left in the game.  The fumble return for a touchdown on the aborted hail marry attempt just added insult to injury.  Redskins come up short, for the eleventh time this season. 
       
      End of game thoughts.  Haskins actually looked like a real NFL QB for an entire NFL game.  Not just a drive here or there, but for an entire game Haskins looked like he belonged.  He looked like one of the reasons the Redskins might win the game.  He's shown flashes in the past but nothing like this.  A very encouraging sign for fans that believe he can be a part of the future here. 
       
      The Giants did their part to fall back in the draft, by absolutely dismantling the mighty Dolphins.  May the Giants be victorious, at least one more time this season.  We just need to lose to the Giants and have the Dolphins beat the Bengals, and the Redskins will be sitting alone at 3 wins.  Chase Young could happen.

       
       
       
Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

You think one can be fixed without the other?

 

i absolutely don’t. 

Abso-fn-lutely they can.  What aspect of the culture needs to change to get universal background checks passed?  The NRA getting out the way?  Is that a culture problem or a political corruption problem?  The only thing that could change is Dems get White House and the senate and that gets passed without any GOP votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

Abso-fn-lutely they can.  What aspect of the culture needs to change to get universal background checks passed? 

Pass your universal background checks

 

mass shootings and general gun crime will continue. 

 

The **** is staring you in the face. 

 

But whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Maybe gun worship IS the cultural problem?

 

Certainly is A problem.....we have many others though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, twa said:

 

Certainly is A problem.....we have many others though.

People aren’t interested in that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tshile said:

Pass your universal background checks

 

mass shootings and general gun crime will continue. 

 

The **** is staring you in the face. 

 

But whatever. 

 

Chill, no is saying not address the other, but the culture didnt happen over night and no law is going to change that overnight.  Things like background checks can make a difference immediately, if were saying one individually program cant stop all of it so why bother that's exactly what the NRA wants us to think.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tshile said:

Pass your universal background checks

 

mass shootings and general gun crime will continue. 

 

The **** is staring you in the face. 

 

But whatever. 

 

Nihilism might be a cultural problem, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Chill, no is saying not address the other, but the culture didnt happen over night and no law is going to change that overnight.  Things like background checks can make a difference immediately, if were saying one individually program cant stop all of it so why bother that's exactly what the NEA wants us to think.

 

I’m not against background checks. 

 

Im just realistic about the problem and what background checks will and won’t accomplish. 

7 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Nihilism might be a cultural problem, too.

I’d argue stupidity is a much bigger cultural problem. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I’m not against background checks. 

 

Im just realistic about the problem and what background checks will and won’t accomplish. 

 

Same, but we both do cybersecurity and both understand layers of security, so let's not have this discussion in a vacuum like we haven't had this discussion before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I’d argue stupidity is a much bigger cultural problem. 

 

Nah.  Stupid people are fine..unless you tell them life is meaningless and give them an AR-15.  Then it becomes problematic.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Nah.  Stupid people are fine..unless you tell them life is meaningless and give them an AR-15.  Then it becomes problematic.

 

I'm somewhat empathetic to gun owners because it's really a small percentage of them making hell for everyone else.  But you cant pass a law telling people how to think, you can pass a law saying what guns they can have.  It's not impossible to change how people think, but in some cases they are jus too far gone, then what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Want a cultural problem?  

 

A douchebag TV star who got famous by “firing” people somehow became president and he’s basically telling people to kill those that don’t agree with him.

 

A douchebag walks into a ****ing supermarket, flexing his glock, so that his dick doesn’t shrivel up if he sees a black guy in baggy jeans.

 

A country summarily sucks the dick of the military that protects them from the evils of the world, lest they be booed into oblivion if they speak badly about them.

 

Oh and movies and video games and music and all that other stuff that doesn’t actually matter.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Want a cultural problem?  

 

A douchebag TV star who got famous by “firing” people somehow became president and he’s basically telling people to kill those that don’t agree with him.

 

A douchebag walks into a ****ing supermarket, flexing his glock, so that his dick doesn’t shrivel up if he sees a black guy in baggy jeans.

 

A country summarily sucks the dick of the military that protects them from the evils of the world, lest they be booed into oblivion if they speak badly about them.

 

Oh and movies and video games and music and all that other stuff that doesn’t actually matter.

 

You guys are so busy hating Trump you never bother to ask why he was elected.  For all his faults, why did so many think he was a better option than Hillary?  Why is he STILL a better option for many of us than her and any other Democrat currently running?  Instead of insulting and hating half the country, why don’t you ever stop to ask us why and actually listen? 

 

Why are you making this a race thing?  I know plenty of law-abiding minorities I would trust with my life.  The scared white boy who has to have a gun to feel tough is far more a myth than “good guy with a gun stops bad guy with gun”. I think every person in this country regardless of race or social status should enjoy their rights as Americans to own firearms. 

 

Movies, video games, and all that other stuff as you put it absolutely matter and are part of the larger picture.  Let a social reject with mental health problems play Call of Duty 24/7 and see what that does to his psyche.  I have witnessed what it does.

 

People love to make the NRA the boogy man in all this, but how many of our national murders are perpetuated by NRA members?

Edited by Painkiller
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, Trump didn't get elected because of Hillary's emails?  This is the wrong thread for trying to dissect the psyche of Trump voters/supporters. There is a specific thread for that, however, if you'd be willing to, then yes please go to that thread and lay out why now, 3 years into Trump's Presidency you think he is better than any other (D) candidate running. This is of course assuming you'd ever theoretically vote for a Democrat in the first place, because we already have established there are plenty of folks who wouldn't, so if you fall into that category then, nevermind. 

 

How does a background check prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a gun?

Edited by NoCalMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

You guys are so busy hating Trump you never bother to ask why he was elected.  For all his faults, why did so many think he was a better option than Hillary?  Why is he STILL a better option for many of us than her and any other Democrat currently running?  Instead of insulting and hating half the country, why don’t you ever stop to ask us why and actually listen? 

 

Why are you making this a race thing?  I know plenty of law-abiding minorities I would trust with my life.  The scared white boy who has to have a gun to feel tough is far more a myth than “good guy with a gun stops bad guy with gun”. I think every person in this country regardless of race or social status should enjoy their rights as Americans to own firearms. 

 

Movies, video games, and all that other stuff as you put it absolutely matter and are part of the larger picture.  Let a social reject with mental health problems play Call of Duty 24/7 and see what that does to his psyche.  I have witnessed what it does.

 

People love to make the NRA the boogy man in all this, but how many of our national murders are perpetuated by NRA members?

 

1. This is a gun thread, not a Trump thread. That said, he’s a part of this, as one of the most recent shooters was inspired by him.  He doesn’t propose anything to stop mass shooters, anything of merit at least.

 

2. Its a euphemism.  If you walk around with your pistol hanging out for everyone to see, you’re a douche.  That and you’re probably afraid.  That and I’d be you wished a mother****er would.  Also, point to the plethora of good guys with a gun that are stopping all these mass shooters, I’ll wait.

 

3.  It has been scientifically proven that violent video games and movies don’t increase gun violence.  To claim anything else is incorrect.

 

As far as the NRA, they’re about as violent as Antifa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

This is a gun thread, not a Trump thread.

Says the guy that brought Trump into the thread...

 

Also, you've become quite the douchebag on the subject yourself.

18 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

How does a background check prevent a law abiding citizen from owning a gun?

Is anyone legitimately arguing that?

 

The only argument I've seen is that requiring a background check to lend a gun to a family member or friend would be preventing a law abiding citizen from using a gun.

 

(That's not my argument and I don't give a crap about that argument, I'm just clarifying... i think... i may be wrong...)

56 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Oh and movies and video games and music and all that other stuff that doesn’t actually matter.

Yeah the control people don't want to acknowledge the culture problem.

They want their gun TV shows and movies they just don't want anyone to actually own them.

 

Edited by tshile
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

People love to make the NRA the boogy man in all this, but how many of our national murders are perpetuated by NRA members?

 

The problem with the NRA is not that they are shooting people.

 

It's that they have an immense amount of power and money (or at least they used to, reports these days are that they're in trouble?) and they've chosen to use it to support gun manufacturers in selling more guns, instead of doing what's right for our society in the context of the 2nd amendment. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tshile said:

Is anyone legitimately arguing that?

 

The only argument I've seen is that requiring a background check to lend a gun to a family member or friend would be preventing a law abiding citizen from using a gun.

 

(That's not my argument and I don't give a crap about that argument, I'm just clarifying... i think... i may be wrong...)

 

 

 

I don't know, but that is why I keep asking.  There is obviously some kind of resistance to universal background checks on the right, so I am trying to figure out what it is.  Or let's say the gun show loophole allowing people to buy without the background check.  Is it just a matter of inconvenience? 

 

As far as the "lending a friend a gun." I am kind of curious as to what the actual law(s) are on that (Probably varies state to state?)  I didn't even know you could just hand off your gun to someone else to let them borrow it.  I only brought it up because it seemed like a silly argument. If your friend felt that much in danger traveling alone, you'd think they would go through the steps to purchase their own gun, get training, etc etc......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tshile said:

Is anyone legitimately arguing that?

 

 

I think the problem is less about the what and more about the "how".  I'm all for background checks for private sales/transfers, but the process would have to somehow be protected against becoming burdensome, intentionally or otherwise.  It would have to be either free to perform the check or only be a nominal administrative fee.  You would either have to open NICS up to everyone to perform checks (prone to abuse and privacy violations) or let private sellers initiate a NICS check through a local FFL in which case the FFL would need to be reimbursed for their costs.  The thing that worries me are anti-gun folk getting a workable private background check system approved and running, then making it impossible for anyone to actually use (exorbitant fees, unreachable hurdles/requirements, etc.)  in order to suppress private transfer entirely.  It's the problem we are currently struggling with here in NJ; guns are allowed, carry permits are allowed, licenses are issued, etc. but the requirements are so onerous that relatively few people are able to actually exercise their rights and it only gets worse here every year.  That's, I think, the core fear of universal background checks; that it will be used as an avenue to back-door restrictions as we can't trust that whoever is administering such a program will act in good faith.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I don't know, but that is why I keep asking.  There is obviously some kind of resistance to universal background checks on the right, so I am trying to figure out what it is.  Or let's say the gun show loophole allowing people to buy without the background check.  Is it just a matter of inconvenience? 

 

As far as the "lending a friend a gun." I am kind of curious as to what the actual law(s) are on that (Probably varies state to state?)  I didn't even know you could just hand off your gun to someone else to let them borrow it.  I only brought it up because it seemed like a silly argument. If your friend felt that much in danger traveling alone, you'd think they would go through the steps to purchase their own gun, get training, etc etc......

 

The proposed bill (or one of) said that you had to go through the background check to lend a gun to a friend.

And then when that friend returned the gun, you'd have to go through another background check.

 

I cannot remember if that was literally the language, or if that was how it was interpreted (which means it could be entirely made up...)

 

So the common complaint is that if I go into another state to go hunting with a friend, I cannot borrow their gun. Unless we want to arrange to go do the whole background check thing before hunting, and then when we're done we have to go do it again to return the gun. The argument continues that traveling with a gun is more of a burden, and that different state laws cause problems, etc.

 

I don't know how realistic the complaint is. I don't do enough hunting to know how often that actually comes up. For all I know avid hunters are attached to their guns and wouldn't dream of spending time traveling to hunt and then using a gun they've never used before.... I don't know.

 

What I recall from reading the bill was that there was some cumbersome language about the whole thing that didn't feel right, but that it could be easily addressed and fixed assuming both sides were arguing in good faith and behaving like adults interested in solving a complex problem.

 

Of course none of that describes our government in its current form so it's just a bunch of people opposed to gun rights finding a reason to, yet again, not support a bill that adds restrictions to gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

1. This is a gun thread, not a Trump thread. That said, he’s a part of this, as one of the most recent shooters was inspired by him.  He doesn’t propose anything to stop mass shooters, anything of merit at least.

 

2. Its a euphemism.  If you walk around with your pistol hanging out for everyone to see, you’re a douche.  That and you’re probably afraid.  That and I’d be you wished a mother****er would.  Also, point to the plethora of good guys with a gun that are stopping all these mass shooters, I’ll wait.

 

3.  It has been scientifically proven that violent video games and movies don’t increase gun violence.  To claim anything else is incorrect.

 

As far as the NRA, they’re about as violent as Antifa.

 

1.) As was mentioned, you brought up Trump first not me. 

 

2.)It's a stereo-type, and a bad one...not based in any kind of fact.  I've heard it before from others who are likeminded.  They can't stop the mass shooters, because most of the mass shootings are happening in places "guns are not allowed."  Think about that for a minute.  We have people in this country who don't even want armed cops in their establishments because they carry.  Think about that for a minute. 

 

3.)They are absolutely part of our culture of glorifying violence and part of the problem where we don't empathize with one another.  To apply a question often asked of gun owners.  "Why do you need that gun anyway?"  Well..."Why do you need a violent video game?"  What purpose does it serve?  How does it better mankind? 

 

With that said, I think banning violent video games would accomplish as much as banning AR-15's.  Nothing.  These two things in and of themselves are not the causes of our problems. 

Edited by Painkiller
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, tshile said:

Says the guy that brought Trump into the thread...

 

Also, you've become quite the douchebag on the subject yourself.

 

Fair enough, but it’s hard to argue that he isn’t fully apart of American culture now.  As he goes, so does America.  I have no interest in deflecting to Hillary in this thread.

 

To your second point, I have two kids that are school aged now.  It’s infuriating that the kids will go to school and possibly be shot up randomly one day because Johnny’s dad didn’t lock up his AR well enough.  That essentially nothing is done to this other than turn our schools into prisons.  So, yeah, I have less tact in my opinions these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@NoCalMike

That was my point in the AOC thread.

 

I think she misread the tweet. And instead of realizing that, because she was so determined to get her witty shot in, she steamrolled through the whole situation.

 

(I like AOC, she just screwed up there, but based on what I'm seeing none of the people who like her actually caught that... so probably no damage was done)

Just now, Springfield said:

 

Fair enough, but it’s hard to argue that he isn’t fully apart of American culture now.  As he goes, so does America.  I have no interest in deflecting to Hillary in this thread.

 

To your second point, I have two kids that are school aged now.  It’s infuriating that the kids will go to school and possibly be shot up randomly one day because Johnny’s dad didn’t lock up his AR well enough.  That essentially nothing is done to this other than turn our schools into prisons.  So, yeah, I have less tact in my opinions these days.

Yeah I've got two kids in daycare which is similar to being in school, and 1 will be in school shortly.

 

I didn't consider that a reason to be an asshole to people. Maybe I should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

So the common complaint is that if I go into another state to go hunting with a friend, I cannot borrow their gun. Unless we want to arrange to go do the whole background check thing before hunting, and then when we're done we have to go do it again to return the gun. The argument continues that traveling with a gun is more of a burden, and that different state laws cause problems, etc.

 

I don't know how realistic the complaint is. I don't do enough hunting to know how often that actually comes up. For all I know avid hunters are attached to their guns and wouldn't dream of spending time traveling to hunt and then using a gun they've never used before.... I don't know.

 

 

 

I totally get that the language in current laws may be messy, vague, and troublesome, but for me, that is a prime opportunity for both sides of the issue to get together and clean up the langue, make it more clear, make it more efficient, change it to make better sense.   These should be opportunities for both sides to work together to improve something, and not to just retreat to their corners and scrap doing anything at all.  Dems can say, we want background checks, the right can counter with, Ok, but if we agree to that, we need to clean up the current language on blah blah blah......Ok agree!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stugein said:

 

I think the problem is less about the what and more about the "how".  I'm all for background checks for private sales/transfers, but the process would have to somehow be protected against becoming burdensome, intentionally or otherwise.  It would have to be either free to perform the check or only be a nominal administrative fee.  You would either have to open NICS up to everyone to perform checks (prone to abuse and privacy violations) or let private sellers initiate a NICS check through a local FFL in which case the FFL would need to be reimbursed for their costs.  The thing that worries me are anti-gun folk getting a workable private background check system approved and running, then making it impossible for anyone to actually use (exorbitant fees, unreachable hurdles/requirements, etc.)  in order to suppress private transfer entirely.  It's the problem we are currently struggling with here in NJ; guns are allowed, carry permits are allowed, licenses are issued, etc. but the requirements are so onerous that relatively few people are able to actually exercise their rights and it only gets worse here every year.  That's, I think, the core fear of universal background checks; that it will be used as an avenue to back-door restrictions as we can't trust that whoever is administering such a program will act in good faith.

 

Yeah but you fix the cumbersomeness by saying "If check isn't completed in X days/weeks, sale is defacto approved"

Which is what we do now for guns in my state. And concealed carry permits.

 

It prevents control people from implementing things designed to just stall the process. I think it works, but that's just my personal observation so doesn't really mean anything.

 

The fee should be appropriate for the task at hand. 20-30$ is what a FFL-required transfer costs around here i believe? That's just a 'receive gun, run background check, hand over gun' so I don't know why a private transaction would be any different. 

 

The problem with the anti-control people's "fears" is that they're all reasonably accommodated for. It just requires them to negotiate in good faith.

 

They're not interested in fixing it so the bill resolves their fears and can be passed. They're just interested in finding one reason they can say "Welp, that's why I wont support this"

 

I realize that's not all of them, and it might not be you. But it sure as hell seems like it's all the media and talking heads; the people crafting an argument they can push out to the general population to give them a reason to object to it (Cause let's be honest, maybe 10% of the country even read the ****ing thing, everyone else gets their opinions from others)

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I totally get that the language in current laws may be messy, vague, and troublesome, but for me, that is a prime opportunity for both sides of the issue to get together and clean up the langue, make it more clear, make it more efficient, change it to make better sense.   These should be opportunities for both sides to work together to improve something, and not to just retreat to their corners and scrap doing anything at all.  Dems can say, we want background checks, the right can counter with, Ok, but if we agree to that, we need to clean up the current language on blah blah blah......Ok agree!  

I agree.

 

I'm sad the dems objected to the amendment about the illegals trying to purchase guns.

 

Cause in my view, they were doing exactly what they always accuse the GOP of doing on guns.

 

At some point both sides need to grow the **** up. I realize the Dems think they already have, but they quite clearly havent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Fair enough, but it’s hard to argue that he isn’t fully apart of American culture now.  As he goes, so does America.  I have no interest in deflecting to Hillary in this thread.

 

To your second point, I have two kids that are school aged now.  It’s infuriating that the kids will go to school and possibly be shot up randomly one day because Johnny’s dad didn’t lock up his AR well enough.  That essentially nothing is done to this other than turn our schools into prisons.  So, yeah, I have less tact in my opinions these days.

 

Your fear of your kids being shot up is exactly the kind of fear that the anti-gun crowd accuse gun owners of.  Statistically, your kids probably have a better chance of being struck by lighting or winning the lottery than being shot in a school shooting.  Having reasonable security at the access points to a school is common sense.  I liken it to a courthouse.  You can't enter or leave a courthouse without walking through security.  Why should a school be any different?  Planting armed security in the schools is a far more rational solution and has a far greater probability for reducing these incidents than ban gun X.

 

I find it amazing sometimes that many of the people who will vehemently argue about gun control will not apply that same logic to the drug trade and illegal immigration.  We don't need the wall, because it won't accomplish anything.  The wall won't stop the drugs from coming across the border, BUT we should ban this type of gun or that because it will stop mass shootings.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.