A proposal to prevent tragedies like what happened in CO.

[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.