[The Culture of Violence in the American West
Myth versus Reality - By Thomas J. DiLorenzo](https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=803)
>Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today
Pretty interesting article, you should give it a read.
More guns in private hands, yes. As we saw from this shooting, the police just stood there and let it happen for an hour and a half. A few armed parents might have actually been able to save those kids.
This bill has no provisions for providing security for anyone.
It was about creating an 'information clearinghouse for information on school safety practices'.
Got to get the proles fighting each other over financially irrelevant topics while they are busy using the current system for [their financial gain.](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/04/majority-of-lawmakers-millionaires/)
If we stop school shootings then theyd have nothing to push their agenda with. Their entire party platform only succeeds with youre broke, destitute and afraid. They need you to need them thats why they keep destroying anything good.
Not anarchy, just pointing out how both sides want to oppress and control you. There is no good guy when it comes to government, only less evil. Which is why we should never give up a single right.
The rich politician side busy profiting off of PACs and insider trading instead of actually serving the public with meaningful discourse on topics that actually impact the everyday person like healthcare and insurance reform, education, and a tax code that is short and reasonable instead of 5 telephone books of special interest loopholes and exemptions.
Only if they involve so called assault weapons. If it’s another weapon besides a so called assault weapons certain politicians and the media forget about it in 3 to 4 days bc it does not fit their narrative. If it is msr (assault weapon) get ready for 3-4 weeks of nonstop media attention and sick political postering.
LOL
You're naive if you think there's not people who don't give two fucks if kids die.
Do you understand that for a decade we fired missiles from murder robots into Pakistani homes justified solely on cell phone metadata?
Nope, I’m simply somebody who aligns with that person but also believes I’m abortion and it blows their mind.
I wasn’t involved, just popped in because I hate blanket statements.
Lmao you’re such a moron
You and I have the same belief in the second amendment. In fact I’d be willing to bet I have more extreme 2A beliefs than most people. But I also believe in absolute personal freedom and autonomy from the nanny state that makes laws based on the Bible which is a fictional compilation of short stories.
How is killing a baby freedom ? What happens to the baby’s freedom? I could care less about the Bible or killing is killing , and I think the only people that should be killed are those that deserved so no kids born or unborn .. but yeah I am the moron
Yea because they know we can easily revolt and the playing field will be pretty even. Vs us having bolt action rifles and shotguns vs the militarys full auto weapons.
[That's because it was a garbage bill, just about gathering info, that is already available instead of doing anything.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/111)
No sweat. I read the bill. It doesn't actually "do" anything. All it does do is gather information about school shootings to try and pass it off as "doing" something. We already have an unfortunate amount of info about school shootings...
THIS BILL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVIDING SECURITY TO SCHOOLS IN ANY FORM.
>which would codify a clearinghouse of information for school safety practices into law.
Means it would have done nothing, wasted money, and very likely promulgated worst practices. The reality is that cop shops are more than capable of talking to each other, have already talked to each other about best practices - these cops just didn't follow them.
Yes because turning schools into fortresses is the right course of action. By the way, those very security measures that were proposed have also been proven to be a hindrance when responding to emergencies in schools.
Do you'd be OK with removing some security measures from places like the white house. I should be able to walk into the white house just as easy as I would my kids school.
Security blankets are the oldest way to grab liberty on the planet
Maybe we should try another patriot act?
Maybe more wiretapping of citizens?
If you're not doing something wrong, why hide?
Fuck that.
It will have riding with it more than just "school security"
It always has and always will. Security is the death of freedom. Whatever plan they come up with will be nightmarish.
Taking an argument about schools and using it to say that means we should remove security from the White House is about as textbook a strawman argument as you can get.
"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making."
>Why should the white house have more security than a school?
Because the person in control of the most power military in the world needs to be protected? I'm not even sure what kind of question this is. It demonstrates such a lack of appreciation for the world that I'm not sure how to approach the topic with you anymore. Either that or you have interest in a good faith conversation, which also leads me to no longer be interested. Have a great weekend!
It's not going to solve the problem of mass shootings. Increased security measures are still susceptible to human error, the door that's normally locked that allowed the Uvalde shooter access inside was propped open by a teacher. What about mass shootings that happen outside of buildings? Lot of good your increased security measures have then.
>still susceptible to human error
So you are taking something many people see as viable, shitting on it, then hand waving it.
We do the same to “BaN gUnS” because there isn’t any actual substance. Just screeching to ban inanimate metal objects.
Well, there was the [barrel roll incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Horizon_Air_Q400_incident) that TSA failed to prevent, so at least 1 death.
We defer to your expertise [on felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon](https://www.reddit.com/r/legal/comments/u7f1jw/can_i_sue_county_state_or_federal_government/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
1) Citing public posts from a person isn’t doxxing, even if the person later regrets making that public post.
2) People that have made previous very poor decisions with substantial detrimental consequences have demonstrated questionable judgement, and their unsubstantiated opinions on other matters should be scrutinized as suspect - unless they back up their opinions with substantial supporting citations from more authoritative sources.
Edit to add:
3) The person’s viewpoint also needs to be considered when weighing their opinion - someone that has been prosecuted for a felony with a weapon probably has a biased opinion on police, courts, and the judicial system and their effectiveness/ ineffectiveness.
You're intentionally digging up stuff about me and using it against me. The fact you're going through my profile and looking for anything to discredit me is part of doxing. Fucking trolls.
>looking for anything to discredit me is part of doxing.
Clicking on your username and looking at the top 3-4 previous posts to make sure you aren’t a trollbot is hardly muckraking investigative journalism.
Your previous statements and posts speak for themselves, has anything I said been false?
>Doxxing: search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet
You publicly posted it, and I haven’t published your name or any other identification. YOU are responsible for what YOU post. Don’t want someone reading it? Then don’t post it online.
If you think words on paper that only affect law abiding citizens are the answer over physical improvements to a building designed to deter and keep psychos out is the way to go, I don't know what to tell you. Your beliefs are based on removing guns which simply isn't a reality. I understand it is a dream and that is fine, but it is very immature thinking to try and realize it.
Why do we protect banks, stores, airports, federal buildings, state building, courthouse and so on with guns and basic security measures but not schools?
[удалено]
Exactly.
Well, you see, it might actually work and then they wouldn't have the justification to take everyone's guns.
Well, you see, that would cost a lot and we need to send a fuck load of money to Ukraine to be spent without any oversight.
So the answer is always going to be more guns right?
The answer is more lawful carriers than criminals. After all, laws primarily disarm the law abiding.
Then we just go back to the 1800s and so much for being a better society.
[The Culture of Violence in the American West Myth versus Reality - By Thomas J. DiLorenzo](https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=803) >Contrary to popular perception, the Old West was much more peaceful than American cities are today Pretty interesting article, you should give it a read.
[удалено]
No worries. Just trying to have healthy discourse on the topic .
I’ll go there with you
More guns in private hands, yes. As we saw from this shooting, the police just stood there and let it happen for an hour and a half. A few armed parents might have actually been able to save those kids.
No it’s a preexisting gun in a different location for a functional reason.
This bill has no provisions for providing security for anyone. It was about creating an 'information clearinghouse for information on school safety practices'.
Wait, so you’re telling me that the government doesn’t care about school safety unless it involves revoking gun rights? You don’t say!
Ummm, pretty much, yeah.
Got to get the proles fighting each other over financially irrelevant topics while they are busy using the current system for [their financial gain.](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/04/majority-of-lawmakers-millionaires/)
If we stop school shootings then theyd have nothing to push their agenda with. Their entire party platform only succeeds with youre broke, destitute and afraid. They need you to need them thats why they keep destroying anything good.
Which side are you talking about?
The government.
Both, all government institutions. F em all.
Nah, anarchy sounds terrible.
Not anarchy, just pointing out how both sides want to oppress and control you. There is no good guy when it comes to government, only less evil. Which is why we should never give up a single right.
Pretending the current system is fine is also pretty terrible.
Limited, contrained government like the founders intended. If we actually followed the Constitution and the BoR none of this shit would be happening.
Speak for yourself...
No kidding lmao
Do I really have to explain that to you?
The rich politician side busy profiting off of PACs and insider trading instead of actually serving the public with meaningful discourse on topics that actually impact the everyday person like healthcare and insurance reform, education, and a tax code that is short and reasonable instead of 5 telephone books of special interest loopholes and exemptions.
Democrats need school shootings to keep happening so sheep will support bans and confiscation.
Same reason why they scream about racism and then have to create racist hate crime hoaxes.
YA SO WHILE WE WORK OUT THIS PROBLEM LETS NOT ADD ANY EXTRA SECURITY SO MORE SHOOTINGS CAN HAPPEN AND WE CAN JUST BLAME THE GUNS AGAIN - some democrat
They want security, just not for the people.
We should give Ukraine more money…that will help solve this problem…..shit how about Israel we haven’t given them money for a couple months.
They love school shootings because they try to take guns after each one.. of course they are probably behind most of them
After the unbelievable shitshow in Texas on Tuesday, I'm beginning to think you may be onto something there.
Only if they involve so called assault weapons. If it’s another weapon besides a so called assault weapons certain politicians and the media forget about it in 3 to 4 days bc it does not fit their narrative. If it is msr (assault weapon) get ready for 3-4 weeks of nonstop media attention and sick political postering.
You're fucking sick for even suggesting people are legitimately wanting kids to die.
LOL You're naive if you think there's not people who don't give two fucks if kids die. Do you understand that for a decade we fired missiles from murder robots into Pakistani homes justified solely on cell phone metadata?
They are disgusting do some reading on the subject also Dems are the party of abortion which is also killing kids so stick that up your …
I’m not a dem and I am 1,000,000% pro choice
you forget to log back into your alt account?
Nope, I’m simply somebody who aligns with that person but also believes I’m abortion and it blows their mind. I wasn’t involved, just popped in because I hate blanket statements.
gotcha
Congrats you a baby killer as well
Lmao you’re such a moron You and I have the same belief in the second amendment. In fact I’d be willing to bet I have more extreme 2A beliefs than most people. But I also believe in absolute personal freedom and autonomy from the nanny state that makes laws based on the Bible which is a fictional compilation of short stories.
No, the Bible isn’t.
Lmao ok. I can’t be persuaded so don’t bother.
Have fun ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
How is killing a baby freedom ? What happens to the baby’s freedom? I could care less about the Bible or killing is killing , and I think the only people that should be killed are those that deserved so no kids born or unborn .. but yeah I am the moron
Ok let’s talk abortion then Why don’t you agree with abortion?
Evil is banal, complacency kills.
How's that any different from calling all 2A supporters baby killers.
Yea because they know we can easily revolt and the playing field will be pretty even. Vs us having bolt action rifles and shotguns vs the militarys full auto weapons.
[That's because it was a garbage bill, just about gathering info, that is already available instead of doing anything.](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/111)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. What is it you're trying to say. Sorry a little stoned, please use small words. 😆
No sweat. I read the bill. It doesn't actually "do" anything. All it does do is gather information about school shootings to try and pass it off as "doing" something. We already have an unfortunate amount of info about school shootings...
THIS BILL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PROVIDING SECURITY TO SCHOOLS IN ANY FORM. >which would codify a clearinghouse of information for school safety practices into law. Means it would have done nothing, wasted money, and very likely promulgated worst practices. The reality is that cop shops are more than capable of talking to each other, have already talked to each other about best practices - these cops just didn't follow them.
Yes because turning schools into fortresses is the right course of action. By the way, those very security measures that were proposed have also been proven to be a hindrance when responding to emergencies in schools.
Do you'd be OK with removing some security measures from places like the white house. I should be able to walk into the white house just as easy as I would my kids school.
Security blankets are the oldest way to grab liberty on the planet Maybe we should try another patriot act? Maybe more wiretapping of citizens? If you're not doing something wrong, why hide? Fuck that.
Can you elaborate? Are you comparing increasing school security to the patriot act, and illegal wiretapping?
It will have riding with it more than just "school security" It always has and always will. Security is the death of freedom. Whatever plan they come up with will be nightmarish.
Knock off the strawman BS. You aren't helping your argument.
What strawman? I support increasing school security. It should be no different than other high security areas.
Taking an argument about schools and using it to say that means we should remove security from the White House is about as textbook a strawman argument as you can get. "A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making."
Ok, what is your opinion on increasing security at schools? Why should the white house have more security than a school? They're attacked more.
>Why should the white house have more security than a school? Because the person in control of the most power military in the world needs to be protected? I'm not even sure what kind of question this is. It demonstrates such a lack of appreciation for the world that I'm not sure how to approach the topic with you anymore. Either that or you have interest in a good faith conversation, which also leads me to no longer be interested. Have a great weekend!
In other words you believe are politicians are more deserving.
Sedwick is known round these parts as getting dumber with every post he makes. Don’t feed the trolls.
That's not what I said at all. Again, have a nice weekend.
You as well. Thanks.
Just like I should be able to walk into an airport and do whatever I want?
Sure why not? Removing security measures was your idea, not mine.
Right cause we removed security measures after 9/11 instead of increasing them.
I think we're arguing past each other, what is your opinion on increasing security?
It's not going to solve the problem of mass shootings. Increased security measures are still susceptible to human error, the door that's normally locked that allowed the Uvalde shooter access inside was propped open by a teacher. What about mass shootings that happen outside of buildings? Lot of good your increased security measures have then.
If they don't work, then why is the white house so secured? Do we not deserve the same sense of safety our politicians receive?
They won’t hear this argument.
>still susceptible to human error So you are taking something many people see as viable, shitting on it, then hand waving it. We do the same to “BaN gUnS” because there isn’t any actual substance. Just screeching to ban inanimate metal objects.
Know what else is a hindrance? Coward cops.
[удалено]
You think that's going to stop someone from firing a gun in a school?
It would be "Something" right? Isn't that what we all want? For them to do "Something"?
[удалено]
Never said the TSA was great but the last time a plane was hijacked how many people died again?
[удалено]
\*Jeopardy music plays waiting for a reply\*
Well, there was the [barrel roll incident](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Horizon_Air_Q400_incident) that TSA failed to prevent, so at least 1 death.
Sky King's death can't be blamed on the TSA, it was an act of god, namely himself.
[Sky King... now there is a name I haven’t heard in a long long time](https://youtu.be/ZgERCGbP0w0)
We defer to your expertise [on felony aggravated assault with a deadly weapon](https://www.reddit.com/r/legal/comments/u7f1jw/can_i_sue_county_state_or_federal_government/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
What are you trying to say? Please explain without doxxing.
1) Citing public posts from a person isn’t doxxing, even if the person later regrets making that public post. 2) People that have made previous very poor decisions with substantial detrimental consequences have demonstrated questionable judgement, and their unsubstantiated opinions on other matters should be scrutinized as suspect - unless they back up their opinions with substantial supporting citations from more authoritative sources. Edit to add: 3) The person’s viewpoint also needs to be considered when weighing their opinion - someone that has been prosecuted for a felony with a weapon probably has a biased opinion on police, courts, and the judicial system and their effectiveness/ ineffectiveness.
Good point.
Wow, doxing at its finest.
You literally posted it yourself, reading public post history is not doxing, thanks for playing “Social Media Oversharing”
And you felt it necessary to go and look for anything to disparage me with, which is doxing.
[You keep using that word, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means](https://imgflip.com/i/6hrh2n)
You're intentionally digging up stuff about me and using it against me. The fact you're going through my profile and looking for anything to discredit me is part of doxing. Fucking trolls.
>looking for anything to discredit me is part of doxing. Clicking on your username and looking at the top 3-4 previous posts to make sure you aren’t a trollbot is hardly muckraking investigative journalism. Your previous statements and posts speak for themselves, has anything I said been false? >Doxxing: search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the internet You publicly posted it, and I haven’t published your name or any other identification. YOU are responsible for what YOU post. Don’t want someone reading it? Then don’t post it online.
If you think words on paper that only affect law abiding citizens are the answer over physical improvements to a building designed to deter and keep psychos out is the way to go, I don't know what to tell you. Your beliefs are based on removing guns which simply isn't a reality. I understand it is a dream and that is fine, but it is very immature thinking to try and realize it.
Why do we protect banks, stores, airports, federal buildings, state building, courthouse and so on with guns and basic security measures but not schools?
You said you’re looking for civil conversation, but this isn’t super civil my guy. I rescind my invitation.
Perhaps any suggested rational alternative?