- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Prepare to start having your things checked in at hotels.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 8:59 am to cdaniel76
Posted on 10/2/17 at 8:59 am to cdaniel76
quote:
So an unknown number of adults surveyed during a total of 28 days earlier this year represents "Most Americans"?
There are many different surveys the past few years by Pew, Gallup, etc that have similar percentages.
1
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:00 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Prepare to start having your things checked in at hotels.
I do think areas that are technically "gun free zones" should have security to ensure that they are "gun free".
That's irrelevant to this particular case though.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:01 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
So what do we do? Wait for the next 400+ people to get shot up with bullets?
A guy in France killed 86 people and wounded almost 500 with a box truck. You want to ban those as well?
It isn't about the instrument... if someone wants to kill they will find a way to do it.
I'm not one to willingly give up my rights because something bad might happen.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:02 am to member12
quote:
I do think areas that are technically "gun free zones" should have security to ensure that they are "gun free".
That's irrelevant to this particular case though.
Who's paying for that?
Wouldn't it be easier to just make the "gun free" zones not gun free so that law abiding gun owners could have access to their weapons for when the nutjobs start shooting people up in these supposedly gun free zones?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:02 am to terd ferguson
quote:
A guy in France killed 86 people and wounded almost 500 with a box truck. You want to ban those as well?
It isn't about the instrument... if someone wants to kill they will find a way to do it.
I'm not one to willingly give up my rights because something bad might happen.
You can't exactly ban trucks.
Is it really unreasonable to think that at least at the very minimum deterrents should be included at high probability sites?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:03 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Who's paying for that?
Again, it's irrelevant in this case....but IMO places like movie theaters should be held liable if they don't have adequate security to make themselves actually "gun free".
quote:
Wouldn't it be easier to just make the "gun free" zones not gun free so that law abiding gun owners could have access to their weapons for when the nutjobs start shooting people up in these supposedly gun free zones?
Yes. That's the point.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:04 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
s it really unreasonable to think that at least at the very minimum deterrents should be included at high probability sites?
Every high rise building in any major city fits as a "high probability" site. It's impossible to do something like that.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:04 am to 50_Tiger
This is very much a possibility. I can see detectors in hotel lobbies now.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:04 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
If it isn't commonly used for hunting, or self-defense then it is unnecessary.
By this logic, we should stop making any cars that go over 70mph.
No one NEEDS a car that fast and it's illegal to go over 70 mph.
Fortunately, we don't ban things because the opinion of some is that they are unnecessary. Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:04 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
DO you think you're helping your argument here?
What's my argument?
quote:
ike further regulating law abiding citizens more when perpetrators of these crimes clearly aren't concerned with the law?
No, I didn't suggest that. I don't have the answer, but clearly continuing on exactly as we have been isn't solving anything.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:05 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
You can't exactly ban trucks.
Right. And you can't exactly ban drugs or guns or anything else that a criminal wants to use.
quote:
Is it really unreasonable to think that at least at the very minimum deterrents should be included at high probability sites?
That's a completely different talking point. I have no problem with deterring criminal activity... but banning certain firearms does not prevent criminal activity. That has been proven time and time again across the globe.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:05 am to member12
quote:
Again, it's irrelevant in this case....but IMO places like movie theaters should be held liable if they don't have adequate security to make themselves actually "gun free".
How is the question of how you actually implement something irrelevant?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:05 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
Because eliminating high-capacity magazines and military style weapons is a completely tyrannical violation of the Second Amendment
How did the prohibition of alcohol work out for the US? How's the War on Drugs going for us right now?
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:05 am to Scooba
quote:
we should stop making any cars that go over 70mph.
Terrible logic. Obviously you cannot compare vehicles with guns. It's just as dumb comparing a knife to a gun.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:05 am to 50_Tiger
quote:
Is it really unreasonable to think that at least at the very minimum deterrents should be included at high probability sites?
Areas where there are a lot of pedestrians and crowds should include a lot of law enforcement on foot or on horseback. That is already the case in many places.
I see no problem with ballards and other things being placed to block trucks and cars from plowing through pedestrian corridors. You can't do that for every sidewalk though. A curb isn't going to stop every vehicle.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:06 am to Isabelle81
quote:
The NRA will make sure nothing changes.
When Sandy Hook happened and nothing changed, it's official. Guns are untouchable.
I was listening to David Webb's show this morning and some assclown immediately called in and started with "Everybody should be allowed to be armed everywhere under any circumstances, and this kind of stuff wouldn't happen...". Then Webb told him that there was a sniper on the 32nd floor and he was like "oh. I didn't know that."
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:06 am to TheOcean
quote:
Terrible logic. Obviously you cannot compare vehicles with guns. It's just as dumb comparing a knife to a gun.
He wasn't comparing it to a gun, mr logic.
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:06 am to terd ferguson
quote:
Right. And you can't exactly ban drugs or guns or anything else that a criminal wants to use.
Never called for either of those.
quote:
That's a completely different talking point. I have no problem with deterring criminal activity... but banning certain firearms does not prevent criminal activity. That has been proven time and time again across the globe.
Again not calling for a gun ban. I simply suggested a reasonable thought that could possibly happen (bag checks at hotels) .
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:06 am to fouldeliverer
quote:
There are many different surveys the past few years by Pew, Gallup, etc that have similar percentages.
Gallup has done many polls that found half of the households in America legally own firearms. By that math, then finding 77% of non gun owners in agreement with you means that only about 38% of Americans agree with you.
This post was edited on 10/2/17 at 9:09 am
Posted on 10/2/17 at 9:07 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
How is the question of how you actually implement something irrelevant?
That's up to the businesses and institutions that want to implement a gun free zone. They need to offer a reasonable amount of security measures to ensure that. Or don't have a gun free zone.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News