A proposal to prevent tragedies like what happened in CO.

[beevul]

Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2012, 06:45 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm a pro-gun poster advancing an idea to prevent just the sort of tragedy that happened in colorado from happening, and my proposal is this:


Any entity that deems itself to be "gun free" shall be required by law to take measures such as metal detectors, and security guards at doors like the theater door in CO that was propped open, to ensure that such an area actually is and remains "gun free".

This should be something that people can get behind regardless of their stance on guns or the second amendment.

On edit:Just to make this clear, I'm not proposing that this apply to anyones individual home. Businesses, restrants, theaters, are the intended application - places where a lunatic might try killing large numbers of people.

[Scootaloo]

1. So your concern is penalizing businesses that don't want your toy on their property

Gotcha.

[loli phabay]

2. i think his point if im readingit correctly is that if a business wont let you protect yourself

then it is the business who have the burden of protecting you, i cant remember where i saw this proposal before think it was at a county meeting if im correct. I can see what he is saying though.

[Scootaloo]

3. Why not just write a law...

that says victims of attacks are entitled to sue unarmed bystanders?

Same concept, really.

[loli phabay]

4. no its saying that if you make a rule that you must be unarmed on this property then you also are re

responsible for the safety of the unarmed people on yoyur property, not that i agree 100% with it, but as i read it thats the what he was saying. with businesses putting up no carry signs then they kinda have responsibility to ensure no one carries on the premises.

[Scootaloo]

5. Again, it's a penalty for businesses that don't want your toys on their premises.

"Oh, you don't want me to bring my gun in? Well you have to pay these huge fees to install all this equipment if yo want to do that"

The message is, your right as a gun-stuffer trumps my right to tell you to fuck off of my property
It also carries strains of the notion that people who carry guns are "heroes," who are there to defend everyone else.

When all it really is is an attempt to deliver a fuck you to people who don't want your toys under their roofs.

[cbrer]

7. Is there a possibility

That businesses that advertise "gun free" will enjoy an advantage instead of suffering a penalty?

Might seem attractive to families? Or people who enjoy a non violent night out?

Rather than being required by law to install equipment, it could become a marketing gimmick to attract customers.

Maybe a free market approach to the "gun free" establishment idea could bring some partial solutions at least.

[spin]

12. When Florida first passed "shall issue" concealed carry ...

a number of stores posted "no guns allowed" signs.

After about six months most of those signs came down. Business owners realized that they were losing customers.

I wouldn't want to eat in a gun free restaurant in a state like Florida as it might attract a criminal.

[Hoyt]

28. Or a Zimmerman.

[lastlib]

49. Same thing

The two are identical.

[loli phabay]

8. dude you r missing the point, its about claiming to be gun free and making it gun free

if you want to be gun free shouldnt you enforce it and ensure no one carries onto your property, do you really believe that just because you put a sign up that no one will carry on your premises. If you have the sign ill respect it and go elsewhere if im carrying but dont you think you shuold at least ensure if your advertising gun free then i can be sure it is if i come in.

[Reasonable_Argument]

10. Firstly

It's not a toy and you're the one brining up the "heroes" line. If a business is going to ask me to surrender my right to defend my self why shouldn't it then take the responsibility for my protection?

[Hoyt]

29. Businesses who are prohibiting guns on their site are just doing what the right wing state gubment

won't do because of NRA, other right wing gun organizations and gun carriers.

[beevul]

11. Wait a minute.

Businesses have to pay more, for clean air, as mandated by law.

Businesses have to pay more for clean water, as mandated by law.

Businesses have to pay more, for sanitary conditions, as mandated by law.

Tell me, which of those three do we just "take their word for it" on, and not have applicable laws?


So why should anyone take their word for it, where a "gun free" safe envionment is concerned?


Please answer that question.

As I said in another post - I dont carry a gun.

Just this sort of thing seems to work pretty well for courts and secure parts of the airports.

Are you going to picket them and insist that "by ensuring a gun free location they're catering to "gun stuffers"?


Do you have any idea how ridiculous that notion is?

[beevul]

6. Thats laughable.

I don't carry a gun, openly , concealed, or otherwise, so you really don't have a point.

If I were pushing the pro-gun point of view, I'd say "do away with gun free zones, they don't work".

But I'm not doing that.

If I were pushing the anti-gun POV, I'd say "ban them all".

But I'm not doing that.


I simply say that if a venue or entity declares that a place be gun free, the onus ought to be on them to ensure it is gun free.

Tell me you'd demand less than that for making a place "smoke free".

Realisticly, I'm trying to make "gun free zones" actually work as they're intended to.

Why is that a less than decent goal?

[loli phabay]

9. i get what you are saying as we had this argument at a local county meeting about making

part of the town gun free, apart from unforceable signage there was talk of whos to stop people carrying if they just ignore the signs.

[JDPriestly]

54. I suggest below that a tax be placed on all gun sales, public and private, to

fund the cost of the equipment, set-up and supervision of these metal detectors.

I am quite familiar with how the equipment works since the County of LA (and some other counties in our region) have metal detectors at every entrance -- as do many other government buildings in our area.

Having passed through the portals of these government buildings many times in these past years, I think this would not only limit the shootings inside buildings and businesses, but it would insure near full employment. The metal detectors have to be manned, and for them to make any sense at all, you need armed guards to make sure that everyone obeys the command to pass through them.

That is why I favor this idea -- provided that only gun-lovers are taxed to pay the costs. Why should those who don't play with guns have to pay to protect ourselves from the hobbies of others?

[jp11]

13. I don't exactly follow the point, as in I was not aware that the theatre advertised being

gun free and had no security/metal detectors so you believe that is the reason the nut job was able to get in. A policy of not permitting weapons which seems to be what the point was is to say that people caught with weapons, and the point is if you are caught are then removed from the premises/police are called and probably banned from returning. It serves as a deterrent for sane people that might do something stupid like bring a knife etc because they want to show it off or use it afterwards for mischief. Obviously it doesn't do much if you don't get caught till after you commit a crime/kill/hurt people but the point is to deter people from bringing those things with them. No sign or guard will stop someone bent on killing from coming to kill or someone who deems they need their knife/gun/etc and won't listen to a sign.

Beyond that I don't have a problem if a business wants to claim being 'gun free' they need to meet certain regulations like installing metal detectors and hiring armed security guards to search you, your belongings and perform enhanced pat downs ala the TSA. But 'gun free' shouldn't be a blanket that covers businesses that prohibit weapons on their premises(as most do now) and reject/eject people caught with them from their property or firing employees that violate the policy if not authorized to be armed. I find that the point of a 'gun free' business to be pretty pointless as once you leave the 'gun free' aspect is over. In this case 'big deal' the nut can't have his victims sitting in rows for him to open up on, instead he can mow them down from across the street or in the parking lot as they lineup for tickets or exit the theatre. Likewise with just about any other business with large crowds of people, or for someone as prepared/calculating as this particular guy they employ the use of explosives and other weapons to deal with very obvious armed security posted at the doors etc.

Maybe this 'gun free' zone pushes the nut to go down the block to the hospital with less security or the school, or the office building, etc so in making one place more 'secure' you could just push the crime down the street. The only way to 'fix' that is to then have everyplace employ those kinds of security measures so you are searched and patted down at every entrance you step through and the street becomes the target lane.

Employing armed guards to sit in every theatre and you'd need probably 2 in each theatre to even have a chance of covering both the entrance and exit and could easily need more for multiple entrances/exits that provide blind spots from eachother.
Plus the cost of the metal detectors and armed guards in front of the building and perhaps more guards to patrol the parking lot all adds up. It just doesn't seem likely that would happen absent rampant violence and sustained consumer demand to provide that security which I'm fairly sure isn't happening on either front. Movie theatres are 'losing' patrons while consumers remain in decades of stagnant wages and fewer jobs.

I admit not knowing where this 'gun free' idea comes from and who thinks it is such a draw to consumers or even why it might be, as I said it just pushes the nut to deal with the guards first, escalate the violence(explosives), target consumers on the way in/out when they have less 'protection' if any or just move to easier targets. I'm not saying that having some security is a bad thing but to do what you seem to be describing, guard entrances/exits and monitor theatres, parking lots, etc requires more than just a few guards. Or else any nut can come in absent their guns then walk to the exit and prop the door open during the film then come back with weapons or go next door/etc.

Personally I wouldn't be interested to go through metal detectors, get an enhanced pat down to see a movie, shop in a mall, etc. Though I fully admit to being a homebody, if I had to deal with that kind of fear mongering behavior left and right I'd go out even less. If someone wants to defeat the 'system' you put in place to fight this or that they will find a way or come up with something that completely circumvents it. Then when we are all safe hiding in our homes ordering our supplies online the nuts can look to mailing out bombs in packages or poisoning food/clothes in warehouse jobs they get.

Again not saying that means no one does anything to provide some safety/security but if the solution is more situations that treat your average consumer or citizen as the criminal through searches/id/detainment/etc *I*, at least, am not interested. I think efforts would be better used to help people with mental problems, rebuild our country to get people employed, reduce the mobility problems, as well as address other issues that affect the quality of life that people have that can push them to do horrible things. Will it stop crazy people from doing crazy things and killing/hurting other people no, but I think it would do loads more to try and avert these people's fall than to try and be there to get them as they start their violent outburst against other people.

Sorry for the long post.

[loli phabay]

14. no good post. problem is its not the nor

Al gun carrier you have to worry about its the guy wanting to cause harm.

[sadbear]

15. Fine

As long as gunowners subsidize this whole thing.

[Fumesucker]

16. Yes, an annual ad valorem tax on guns should cover it nicely..

Excellent suggestion..

[Hoyt]

31. Exactly, and a hefty fee on the manufacturers for making the dang things and promoting more guns.

[Chorophyll]

17. Absolutely ridiculous to put the entire burden on theaters, restaurants, supermarkets, bars,

...the list goes on...

When it would be so much easier to just leave your gun at home.

[beevul]

18. I do leave my gun at home.

"Absolutely ridiculous to put the entire burden on theaters, restaurants, supermarkets, bars"

It only puts the burden of taking reasonable measures to be "gun free" on those that publicly make the choice to be "gun free". That would seem to me to be a burden they've already chosen, if they're honest about what they want.

Do you believe they aren't?

I don't carry a gun,, FWIW, and don't have a carry permit, and don't have any plans or ambition to get one.

This thread isn't about people that might get a carry license, and be prevented from doing so.

Its about preventing events like the CO shooting, by making those that deem a venue to be gun free, tke reasonable measures to ensure that it is.

Did you have a problem with this particular suggestion, or care to comment on it?

[Edweird]

19. Sue them. They made the 'gun free' claim.

[loli phabay]

23. i wonder how that would work i am.sure theres a lawyer somewhere willing to look

[turtlerescue1]

20. Isn't there a place for compromise?

The NRA started before the next of kin knew for sure. Since they are one of, if not THE most powerful lobby in D.C.-shouldn't it be they who offer a solution to this insanity? Raygun did away with the access to Mental Health, and Lord forgive me but that he ended up with Alzheimer's is just poetic justice. So MH as a piece of a solution was blocked since. Next up will be the death sentence to be fought about and over. We follow the same paths on the same slippery slope each time these issues force another bout of tragic realities.

There has to be a middle ground with the NRA. Still say limit the number of bullets a "legal" gun owner can purchase per year, you get a "debit" type card, and with that alone you can purchase ammunitions, so many per weapon. Mr. Holmes would not have had 6000 rounds, if he had had to load 2500 himself. Why we need a rapid fire with a magazine of rounds is way beyond my ability to understand.

Per protection: not long ago enough, because I was a block leader just before the gang activity and violence increased, and that our one "advise" piece from law enforcement was to be "visible". Yes, I did give in and loaded my old .22 that pulled a little to the left with two loads of birdshot and a short shell, because if I've fired twice and nothing had changed, it was time to get pretty serious about defense.

Its the middle ground, someplace LEVEL where all the sides can come together. No one likes to give up Rights, no one likes to be subjected, and no one likes what took place in Aurora. It is a place to start. The passions of both sides are high, inflamed and lacking tolerance. For decades I've loved my democratic party, but those same decades saw it splinter over issues and passions.

[beevul]

21. You and I define "compromise" differently, apparently.

"The NRA started before the next of kin knew for sure."

Actually, according to other posts here in GD, nra didnt even know about it the next morning, while the anti-gun folks at brady and company, and their supporters, were trying to make any political hay they could out of this.

Beyond that...

The pro-gun side has given already:

The national firearms act of 1934.

The gun control act of 1968.

Background checks at retail sale, which did not exist before the mid 1990s.

What has the other side given in return?

Nothing.

What you propose, this "middleground", one side gives and the other side gets.

Thats not compromise by any definition, and it never has been, though it is often characterized that it is.

What I propose, asks neither side to "give" anything, and simply proposes that businesses that decide to be "gun free" follow through with that decision, and take reasonable measures to ensure that outcome.

For the life of me, I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this, other than perhaps businesses that want to talk the talk but not walk the walk.

[turtlerescue1]

30. So what would end the insanity Americans face?

Seriously.

[loli phabay]

24. you realise six tbousands rounds is not a lot to even a semi.seriou shooter.

If we have a shooting party at tbe weekend we will burn more than that.

[Hoyt]

32. You guys shooting any silhouette targets (human likenesses)?

[loli phabay]

35. yeah we use the standard ones for the handguns. concentric ones for rifles and with the shotguns we

Use clay pidgeons or large pieces of card. We also run therapy ones were you shoot shit you hate ie paulnsimon records.

[Hoyt]

39. Yeah those gun festivals/parties are so much fun.

Do I need sarcasm thingy?

[loli phabay]

40. yjp they are fun. you get some good practice and the family and friends who dont have space

Get to sight their rifles for the season.

[smirkymonkey]

81. I so don't get it.

I really don't. Guess I am part of the hopeless minority.

[turtlerescue1]

34. Sorry, but 6000 rounds seems like "overkill" to me.

Maybe target/skeet, yeah okay. Still that's a lot of shots. Couldn't we manage something that would help? We cannot mandate sanity, we cannot demand such thorough background checks, which the suspect would have passed. So what can be done?

[ileus]

71. no way to guarantee stable prices....

Knowing what I know now I wished I bought 100000 rounds in the 90's.

Ammo is one of those commodities that will never decrease in price.

I used to buy 4000 rounds of eley a month for 4xx now it's 950....and this was just 6 or 7 years back.

[MadHound]

22. Well gee, just abolish even more of our civil liberties why don't you.

Sorry, I don't want to be stopped and frisked, I don't want to have to subject myself to scans simply to go to a movie.

Oh, and who is going to pay for all this extra security? The cash strapped theater? You do realize that this would drive a lot of theaters out of business.

[beevul]

25. Civil liberties?

Theaters and businesses are private property.

That kinda undercuts the "civil liberties" angle.

"Sorry, I don't want to be stopped and frisked, I don't want to have to subject myself to scans simply to go to a movie."

I never suggested that anyone should.

I would rather suggest - metal detectors at the entrance, and door monitors at the exit doors in theater exits, for example.

Really not quite what you're interpreting from what I wrote.

"Oh, and who is going to pay for all this extra security? The cash strapped theater? You do realize that this would drive a lot of theaters out of business."

I don't think a metal detector at the entrance, and monitors at the exit doors of the individual screening rooms is going to break anyones bank.

[MadHound]

27. Sorry, but I consider it to be a civil liberty

To go where I wish, within reason, without being treated like a suspect. Without having to empty my pockets to go through a medal detector, without having to subject myself to searches and scans that can potentially actually harm my body. I object to it in airports, which is why I don't fly. I would object to it in theaters or any other public venue, and wouldn't attend. It would be, actually it already is, a very slippery slope.

So you put all this extra security in theaters, what happens when somebody shoots up a grocery store. Are you then going to require extra security at grocery stores? Or book stores, or malls or wherever else your paranoia runs rampant?

As a great American once said, he who would trade liberty for security deserves neither. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a police state any greater than the one we already live in.

As far as costs go, you obviously don't know what thin margins theaters operate on. They don't make their money from ticket prices, but concessions, and it is just enough to continue operating. Force them to add this extra security and they will go out of business.

[beevul]

36. You're forgetting.

"So you put all this extra security in theaters, what happens when somebody shoots up a grocery store. Are you then going to require extra security at grocery stores? Or book stores, or malls or wherever else your paranoia runs rampant?"

My paranoia?

This isn't a requirement in general, for ANY business.

Only for those that proclaim to be gun free. If you choose to be "gun free" you have to mean it, and take reasonable measures to that end.

Businesses simply lose the ability to say "hey were a gun free establishment", and expect words on a placard to make that happen, as most of them now do.

[MadHound]

38. So how many businesses do you think would adapt this?

In my opinion, due to the cost, very few.

[hack89]

42. Then lets stop businesses from declaring themselves "gun free".

if they are unwilling to actually make themselves gun free.

[HockeyMom]

26. Landmarks, Courts, DMV, some high rise buidlings in NYC, and NYS

do this. You have to go through metal detectors. Yes, they have either law enforcement, or private security checking.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Thank you for your patently idiotic suggestion....

Do you have any idea how many small businesses you just put out of business? And how many more will go out of business because of lawsuits. And since a lunatic can go on a killing spree just about anywhere -- Churches, parking lots, transit systems, sporting events -- you're basically suggesting that we should live in a world of metal detectors and security guards.

Jesus Holy Fucking Christ, just leave your goddam gun at home!

[beevul]

37. Did you bother to read what I wrote?

"Jesus Holy Fucking Christ, just leave your goddam gun at home!"

I've said, three times in this thread, and countless times in others, that I don't carry a gun.

Nor do I have any intention of carrying one, or ambition to get a carry permit.

"Do you have any idea how many small businesses you just put out of business?"

You tell me. How many small businesses choose to be "gun free zones"?

Those are the only businesses it would apply to.

"And how many more will go out of business because of lawsuits."

Businesses that choose to be "gun free" should be immune to heing held accountable when they when they take no reasonable steps to ensure that end?

Really?


"And since a lunatic can go on a killing spree just about anywhere -- Churches, parking lots, transit systems, sporting events -- you're basically suggesting that we should live in a world of metal detectors and security guards."

Nothing of the sort.

The only businesses that would be effected in any way, would be those that make the choice to be "gun free".

Do you really think that most businesses do?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. OMG

I was really hoping you were writing sarcasm. I was hoping that you're really not this dense.

Many businesses choose to be gun-free, others simply remain silent on the matter. A high-end restaurant is not exactly thrilled to have a sign saying "NO SHOOTIN' IRONS" posted above their door.

As far as lawsuits, your proposal would make suing an establishment a slam-dunk because, ipso facto, any patron injured in a shooting was injured because your security measures were negligent.

A business owner has the right to say, "Keep your guns out of my establishment" and if you don't, he has the right to have you thrown out.

'Nuff said.

[hack89]

44. If they have no way to enforce it then "gun free" is meaningless

if it is intended to imply a degree of safety from guns.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

47. They can enforce it...

Depending on the state, if you carry a concealed weapon into an establish with a posted ban, your CCW permit is null and void, and you can be prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon. If you did so knowingly (i.e., as a "fuck you" to the business owner), you can also be cited for disturbing the peace.

[hack89]

50. I was thinking more about criminals and others that carry illegally

they have a tendency not to obey laws. They are also the ones more likely to start a gun fight in a public place.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

65. They are also more likely to circumvent any security measures...

Unless you suggesting that every business should be set up like an airport terminal. So that way I have to arrive at the Piggly-Wiggly one hour before I want to begin shopping and take off my shoes....

[hack89]

66. I am just pointing out that "gun free" is a meaningless term

that does nothing more than instill a false sense of security. That's all.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

77. No, it's not...

If you carry a concealed weapon into an establishment that says, "No Weapons" you are, in most jurisdictions, going to be charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon, which would very likely cause you to be stripped of your CCW license.

[hack89]

79. And that is enough to stop a determined mass murderer? Really? nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

82. There is no security system on earth...

that could stop a determined mass murderer. And only an idiot would go about his/her daily life in preparation for something like that.

[hack89]

83. So if gun free zones are not about stopping shootings

don't you think that they instill a false sense of security?

[beevul]

45. Lol, the tables have turned, I guess.

"Many businesses choose to be gun-free, others simply remain silent on the matter. A high-end restaurant is not exactly thrilled to have a sign saying "NO SHOOTIN' IRONS" posted above their door".

Yeah, theyre so out of place next to those "no smoking" signs, right?

"As far as lawsuits, your proposal would make suing an establishment a slam-dunk because, ipso facto, any patron injured in a shooting was injured because your security measures were negligent."

What exactly stops that now?



"A business owner has the right to say, "Keep your guns out of my establishment" and if you don't, he has the right to have you thrown out."

How well did that work for the theater in CO? I guess they just should have went in there and asked him to leave, and thrown him out when he refused.



"I was really hoping you were writing sarcasm. I was hoping that you're really not this dense."

All I hear is "businesses can procalim their gun free-ness all they like, but they dont have to mean it".

Thats EXACTLY what this boils down to.

I'm really beginning to wonder if the "if it saves just one life" gun control crowd only means that where gun restrictions that apply to gun owners and possession are concerned.

[Mike_Valentine]

43. They only have to provide the security...

... if they choose to claim that I give up the right to provide my own.

[Nye Bevan]

46. The next mass shooting would probably be of people waiting in line at a metal detector.

Just like I wouldn't be surprised if the next air-travel related atrocity is a bombing of one of those enormous TSA security lines where everyone is being held up due to grandmothers and toddlers being strip-searched, supposedly to make us all safer.

[grantcart]

48. so your proposal to stop gun fatalities is to

1) Pass billions of dollars of additional expense to businesses, many of them owned by small business owners like the restrants (sic) you speak of.

2) Now all of the people who really don't like guns will now have to gone through the pain in the ass procedures of allowing for a personal search of their body so that they can get a chef's salad and see a movie.

3) The lunatics who were going to go into a crowded theater or restaurant will, in your proposal, now no longer be able to find crowds of people at the beach, shopping center or at the hundreds of thousands of establishments that now have people crowding in a single file in front of restaurants, movie theaters and other businesses.


I know thousands of gun owners, all of my clients are gun owners. They are not gun nuts or fantastics.

What makes me worry about gun owners are the people who are gun owners who get on the internet and talk about the 2nd amendment, or how a gun that shoots a hundred rounds a minute is not an 'assault weapon', or how the entire rest of society should completely re engineer their lives to accommodate a gun fetish culture that no other developed country has.

Most developed European and Asian countries have a very similar approach. They put the metal detectors at the borders of their country, the technical term is Custom Port of Entry, and have the entire country gun free. I like your basic approach but unfortunately your not thinking big enough. Somehow I think that your gun fetish friends are not going to like the direction your proposal is taking.

[booley]

70. +1

how the entire rest of society should completely re engineer their lives to accommodate a gun fetish culture that no other developed country has.

THANK YOU!

There can be a happy medium between gun ownership and public safety.

But I now doubt that was the OP's intent.

[booley]

51. of course that will be really expensive

and hard for most small businesses to do.

So whether you intended it that way or not, it would penalize businesses for not wanting guns in their business.

It's also a bit insulting to the rest of us to made to feel that the only way we are allowed to be safe is to be surrounded by guns which we see as the source of the problem to begin with.

And I am not sure this would even do what you claimed. Some of these shootings were on public property where one can carry a gun. Yet that fact didn't stop these shootings.

I afraid I do not agree this is an idea "both sides" can get behind.

[beevul]

52. Welcome to the crowd.

"So whether you intended it that way or not, it would penalize businesses for not wanting guns in their business."

Yeah, I get it. Companies that advertise a product as "lead free" should be just given a pass. They don't need to be required by law to follow through with it, right?

"Smoke free" establishments? I'm sure everyone would be willing to give them a pass. They don't need to be required by law to follow through with it, right?


Its really simple - If theyre going to say it, they really should do it.



"It's also a bit insulting to the rest of us to made to feel that the only way we are allowed to be safe is to be surrounded by guns which we see as the source of the problem to begin with."

Insulting?

No, I'll give you insulting:

The shooting in CO, happened at a "gun free zone", just like Columbine, and VT, and a host of others.

And every single time, not so much as a peep about the failure of the "gun free zone". No sir. Instead, you get what we have here today, and have had since last week. Railing against the second amendment. Railing against gun owners. Railing against anyone that doesn't see these so called "reasonable restrictions" as reasonable.

And now when it comes right down to it, and a proposal is made to actually do something to ensure that these so called "gun free zones" actually ARE gun free, the "reasonable restrictions" crowd, and the ones that typically do all the railing I mentioned above...

Well, they just aren't having any.

Thats insulting.

[booley]

55. Oh where to begin?

Yeah, I get it. Companies that advertise a product as "lead free" should be just given a pass. They don't need to be required by law to follow through with it, right?

"Smoke free" establishments? I'm sure everyone would be willing to give them a pass. They don't need to be required by law to follow through with it, right?

That's a straw man.

Having or not having lead in a product is because of the manufacturer's actions, not the customers.

Customers arent' putting lead in products behind the manufacturer's back.

And having a smoke free environment is not on the same level as the invasive needs to check for guns. Smoking is by it's nature pretty obvious. Your nose works for free. A metal detector costs money and has to be maintained plus would require a security guard to then wand people who undoubtidly set off the detector since guns are hardly the only metallic objects one can carry on their person.

This sort of thing may need to be done in airports and government buildings. But it would be impossible to do at every convenience store, bank, restaurant and other place of business. The practical effect would be if this is the requirement to be "a gun free zone , then no business will be oen anymore whether they want to be or not. The costs will be prohibitive.

So right there it appears you didn't really think about this very far and when presented with that, tried to dodge with a fallacious argument.

The shooting in CO, happened at a "gun free zone", just like Columbine, and VT, and a host of others.

and yet others, like the gifford shooting happened in spaces where guns were allowed.

You seem to have missed the point I made about that.

Gun free zones do not function in a vacuum. As long as guns over all are so easy to obtain and carry everywhere then of course setting up some areas as gun free won't be as effective.

Your argument is illogical.

Worse it's, yes insulting. Your faux outrage isn't hiding that so please save trying to put me on the defensive because you can't adequately defend your own position. I'm not 12. It won't work.

What you are proposing isn't a solution. It's a rather poor attempt at forcing every one to accept your meme that we need guns to defend ourselves, that the only other "possible" answer is to implement costly and ineffective measures that just happen to penalize those of us who don't want guns in places of business. You putting the onus on others, that we should all accomodate you, and calling that a compromise.

And lets not forget the projection as when it's pointed out your "solution" wont' work, then of course you claim it's anyone who disagrees with you that's the real problem. No non fallacious response to the practical problems of your "solution"

Has it occurred to you that maybe shit like what you just tried to pull is WHY many think we can't have a rational discussion about guns?

Ok probably not. An me telling you is unlikely to change your habit of pushing bad arguments and then blaming others when those arguments fall apart.

But I had t try.

[beevul]

62. By reading what I actually wrote.

"Having or not having lead in a product is because of the manufacturer's actions, not the customers."

Kindly address what I wrote - here it is again:

Companies that advertise a product as "lead free" should be just given a pass. They don't need to be required by law to follow through with it, right?

"And having a smoke free environment is not on the same level as the invasive needs to check for guns."

Really? Metal detectors are invasive?

"This sort of thing may need to be done in airports and government buildings. But it would be impossible to do at every convenience store, bank, restaurant and other place of business."

Nobody has said to make it so at every convenience store, bank, restaurant and other place of business.

The practical effect would be if this is the requirement to be "a gun free zone , then no business will be oen anymore whether they want to be or not. The costs will be prohibitive."

Yeah, and the practical effect otherwise? Gun free zones that aren't. And people can conveniently blame guns for it when they inevitably fail, just as they have every single time.

Bonus.

Don't say it if you''re not going to do it. Nothing fallacious about that. Beyond that, are you going to point out to those that have said/implied "gun owners have blood on their hands" over the last few days, that those who have declared these places to be "gun free" and failed have equally as much blood on their hands?

Somehow, I doubt it.

"Gun free zones do not function in a vacuum. As long as guns over all are so easy to obtain and carry everywhere then of course setting up some areas as gun free won't be as effective."

Show me one, other than a court of law, or an airport, that has been effective in ANY measurable way, and I'll show you a bunch that weren't.

"Your argument is illogical."

How can you say something is illogical, when you don't understand why whats being said, is being said.

"Worse it's, yes insulting. Your faux outrage isn't hiding that so please save trying to put me on the defensive because you can't adequately defend your own position. I'm not 12. It won't work."

Its not faux outrage. Its not meant to put you on the defensive.

"What you are proposing isn't a solution. It's a rather poor attempt at forcing every one to accept your meme that we need guns to defend ourselves, that the only other "possible" answer is to implement costly and ineffective measures that just happen to penalize those of us who don't want guns in places of business. You putting the onus on others, that we should all accomodate you, and calling that a compromise."

I'll just distill that down to the only relevant sentence it contains:

"You putting the onus on others, that we should all accomodate you, and calling that a compromise."

Another one that can't read, I guess. How can you be "acommodating me" when I don't carry a gun? I wouldn't be carrying a gun whether the place is gun free or not. So you need to rethink that a bit.

If others decide that THEIR place of business is to be gun free, then the onus is on them to make it so. Not on others.

Theres just no escaping that simple fact, really.

Maybe it will change when someone does sue the next place that claims to be gun free, yet takes no reasonable steps to be.

"And lets not forget the projection as when it's pointed out your "solution" wont' work, then of course you claim it's anyone who disagrees with you that's the real problem. No non fallacious response to the practical problems of your "solution"


Lets use the movie theater in colorado as an example. Does the guy still pull off this shooting, if theres a monitor for the exit door, and a metal detector in the front?

I think not.

If he does, did the theater take reasonable steps to ensure their place of business was "gun free"? Yep.

Did they take reasonable steps to ensure their place was gun free as it actually unfolded last week?

You tell me.

"Has it occurred to you that maybe shit like what you just tried to pull is WHY many think we can't have a rational discussion about guns?"

I'll tell you exactly why we can't have a rational discussion about guns. Because those pushing for "reasonable restrictions" are only interested in "reasonable restrictions" where guns and gun ownership are concerned.


Seen any of the "if it saves just one life" gun control folks suggesting ways to keep places gun free that don't involve restrictions on guns and gun owners?
Or suggesting any variations that might cost businesses less, or be more workable?

Not a single one.

Seen many of those same folks talking much about mental health issues where this mass shooting topic is concerned?

Nope.


Its the guns they're interested in.

Thats why well never have a discussion about guns, because to the loud usual suspects, thats all they see, all they want to talk about - and tellingly - the only solution they and their well funded organizations are interested in.

[booley]

69. I read what you wrote.. did you?

Companies that advertise a product as "lead free" should be just given a pass. They don't need to be required by law to follow through with it, right?

Except as I pointed out, those two things are not the same.

Lead content is dependent on manufacturer's actions.

Gun free zones are based on the customer's actions.

Repeating fallacious arguments doens't make them not fallacious.

Metal detectors are invasive?

Comments liek this make me wonder if you even know what a metaL detector is

Metal detectors detect metal. To it a gun is the same as a set of keys or spare change or a belt buckle. Which is why where they use metal detectors they also have a guard with a wand to find the metal the detector found. To make sure it's not a gun. It's also why the places where they have detectors give you a basket to empty your pockets.

Being searched just to attempt to get a box of toothpaste on the premise that whether a gun owner takes a gun into a store or not is the responsibilty of the store and not the gun owner may be unreasonable.

Sorry, not may be. It is.

When I have to explain this kind of thing to you, it makes it clear that you are not interested in any kind of actual conversation of debate.

The rest of your response is also crap . But seeing as how you unlikely you are to make a cogent argument, I see no reason to waste the energy.

[beevul]

72. And this, is where we disagree.

"Gun free zones are based on the customer's actions."

If theyre unenforced - and we all know how well thats worked out - thats true.

I submit that if the decision is going to be made that a place is going to be gun free, that it should be enforced, and that while the onus of obeying it falls on the individual, the onus of enforcing it falls on those that decided to make it a gun free zone.


You, don't.

That about sums it up.

[JDPriestly]

53. beevul, great idea, and let's tax the sales of guns to pay for placing these

metal detectors in public places.

[booley]

56. and for the security guards

.... that will need to go with them.

And the loss of business as people decide they don't want to wait in a long line just to enter the store.

[beevul]

58. Ever been to a best buy store?

"And the loss of business as people decide they don't want to wait in a long line just to enter the store."

Take a closer look next time. Then look to see if theres a line.

[booley]

60. that's christmas

and they are buying expensive electronics at steep discount.

Now.. would you do the same for toothpaste?

seriously, are you even thinking about the stuff you write before you write it?

When I first responded I gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you simply hadnt' thought your idea out and while naive were still sincere.

Now I realize it's all about dumping on people you disagree with, proposing absurd "solutions" and then when these absurd ideas get rejected for being unworkable, using that to attack others.

[beevul]

63. The last time I was at a best buy was in april.

And I walked through metal detectors.

[booley]

68. so what do you when your keys set them off?

because metal detectors don't detect guns.. they detect metal.

Are you sure they were metal detectors? Are you sure they weren't anti theft scanners?

Because I have never seen a metal detector in a retail store. It would go off anytime someone brought their purse in. which means there would have to be a security guard to wand you each time it went off to make sure it was spare change that set it off and not a gun.

[JDPriestly]

74. Yes. As I point out, people without guns create no risk, so those who buy

guns and therefore create the risk, should pay to insure that a place that is gun-free really is.

I don't ever carry a gun, therefore, there is no need to check and see whether I am carrying a gun. Therefore, I should not have to pay for the metal detector and personnel that mans it. I create no risk.

The person who buys a gun and might accidentally or intentionally carry it into a place in which I believe I am safe from guns should pay to insure my safety.

That is not too much to ask.

I am not a potential danger to anyone. But a person who owns a gun may be a potential danger to others and should foot the bill for the metal detectors if this is implemented.

[beevul]

57. Gun sales are already taxed.

And of course, we all pay tax for those metal detectors in say...courthouses.

As for businesses, I think they can foot the bill. I don't think any of us needs to be singled out to foot the bill for corporations that decide to go gun free and are forced by law to actually do it instead of just saying it.

[booley]

61. so other people will have to pay for your proposal

if you're committed to your idea then put your money where your mouth is.

It's YOUR guns after all.

[beevul]

64. For the 5th or 6th time in this thread...

"It's YOUR guns after all."

For the 5th or 6th time in this thread, I don't carry a gun, it can not, therefore, be about "my guns".

Hows that for logic, eh?


"so other people will have to pay for your proposal"

Being gun free is their proposal, and their choice, why should anyone but them fund it?


"if you're committed to your idea then put your money where your mouth is."

Wow. Just wow. Thats what this entire thread is about.

Asking those who are committing to an idea to put their money where their mouth is.

You're willing to apply that me, and yet unwilling to apply it to those who propose "gun free zones".


And you wonder why nobody can talk about guns.

Because "put your money where your mouth is", can only be asked of people that want gun free zone proponents to put their money where their mouth is, and can not be asked of the gun free zone proponents themselves.

You just laid it right out there, didn't you.

[booley]

67. still not working

I don't carry a gun,

So? Your proposal still put the onus for some one else's action on the people NOT engaging in that action. Whether you own a gun or not the central problem of your proposal here remains.

It's like expecting me to pay for non handicapped people to not park their car in the handicapped zone

And somehow you think that's fair? of course, because as yous aid youre' a "pro gun poster".

I should not have to pay for other people to be able to carry around guns. It's not like health care.

So let people who buy guns pay the exorbitant amounts of tax that would be needed for your proposal. And hey i f you want to step in an contribute too be my guest.

And why am I not surprised that after the practical problems have repeatindly been brought up, you still keep ignoring this.

OF course, because I've seen it before. Propose an outlandish solution and when your opponents point out how not a solution that solution is, attack them as part of the problem.

[JDPriestly]

73. I don't want to pay a premium for the right to be in a gun-free environment

for Sunday lunch.

I'm not the person causing a danger. It's the people who insist on carrying guns and allowing others to carry them into restaurants (where children eat) or bars (where people get drunk) who cause the risk. The person who causes a risk normally is asked to pay for that risk. That is the concept behind requiring car owners to buy insurance but not requiring pedestrians to buy it. The pedestrian does not cause a risk. The driver does.

[Reasonable_Argument]

75. Well

From the opposite perspective you're the one causing a risk to the law abiding gun owner who just wants to be able to defend himself and his family. I carried a weapon with my CCW for years, I'm no threat to you. I don't see boogie men around every corner and just understand that it's a savage world and should the worst happen I'd like to at least have slightly better odds at having another day on this planet. I no longer carry, but I certainly don't fear those that do. In fact I'm more comfortable knowing you're armed.

[99Forever]

59. That's the most ridiculous idea I've heard...

... from massacre apologists yet. Let's lay a huge cost everyone else so the manly men can "pack heat."

Git stock in a metal detector corporation, maybe?


RI-FUCKING-DICULOUS.

[SDjack]

76. Maybe we should just put the responsibility on the potential victims. We could all

buy full body armor, to be worn when we step out of our homes. The NRA should be OK with that, as it does not weaken anyone's 2nd Amendment rights.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

78. And if I shoot you...

I can sue you to recover the cost of the bullet. Because it's you're fault for provoking me

[SDjack]

84. Yes !!! It will work just like it works now. It's the victims' fault for

providing an inadequate defense. And, why sue just for the cost of the bullets? There is wear and tear on the guns, etc.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

85. I like the way you think...

Now that we've solved the problem of gun control, what's next? World Peace or the Ongoing Threat Posed By The Kardashians?

[nadinbrzezinski]

80. It's gone as I expected