Conservatives call for door control

[Jimmy Higgins]

At some point you’ll explain how this in any way prevents a student at that school from entering with guns.

 

[Patooka]

At some point you’ll explain how this in any way prevents a student at that school from entering with guns.

Or a stadium. Or a baseball practice thingy. Or a country music concert in Las Vegas. Or a Cafe. Or a tourist resort.

Remember kids, we better military equipment than what was used to storm the beaches in Normandy in our house because, well, reasons.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you’re not living in a hole in your backyard surrounded by landmines and cradling a machine gun, you’re basically asking to be murdered.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Odd, I view it as trying to limit mass casualties in schools.

Oh, and the answer is ‘we can’t’. Pandora’s box is open and despite changes to security, killers will modify their techniques. It really sucks how terribly wrong the NRA was in the 80s.

Maybe you're right. But I grew up a military dependent, with secure facilities being a pretty common thing. And I work at a health insurer, with controlled access. Most of my family has worked in jobs that have some element of controlled access. Limiting the number of ways that a person can enter the premises seems like a fairly reasonable step. You just can't be dumb about it, of course - you still need sufficient fire doors to allow egress in the event of an emergency. They would just be one-way doors.

It's not going to be a magic solution that makes all of this go away. But it could feasibly increase the difficulty of it by enough to reduce both the incidence rate and the damage done. No guarantee, but not really a bad idea.

I take your point to a degree. I think there's a reason you're meeting some resistance to this here, besides it being a "pet" project. We could enact legislation to identify, flag, and schedule certain buildings all over the country that may indeed have an effect by (possibly) lessening the lethality of certain shooting events. It will be difficult to measure. As a case in point, there are many that have pointed out that Santa Fe has had recent active shooter drills, two armed guards, and other deterrents at the school. So now there's an argument to be made that it could be that all actually helped. It could have been 20 or 40 people dead instead of 10. It's cold comfort, but could possibly be true.

Or we could enact some common sense gun safety regulation. A better database with mandatory reporting. Better communication to get to that database. Taking guns away from domestic violence cases and other certain crimes. Not allowing those on terror watch lists to buy guns. Closing the gun show loophole. Banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines, mandatory *real* gun safety education. Mandatory insurance for gun owners. Enforced gun safety laws, like making a properly secured weapon mandatory. Recertification for gun owners on an ongoing basis. Better reporting of mentally ill status to law enforcement.

There's no magic bullet here (excuse the pun) but there are a lot of different measures that we can take that will make a real difference all over the country. It will not "take way people's guns". It will create specific barriers to gun ownership, but these are similar barriers to anyone that owns a vehicle and not insurmountable. It's a piecemeal approach, but one that will make a difference in people's lives while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Not because I think it should be an inalienable right personally, but because I think there's no going back from where we are at.

 

[Derec]

[*]Doors are not sentient, so regulating doors is completely stupid. Are you going to blame doors for what's going on and pass laws expecting the doors to obey your laws? They're fucking doors for crying out loud, and incapable of following whatever unnecessary laws you pass.

Unless they are made by Sirius Cybernetics Corporation of course.

Oh, and is anyone surprised that many conservatives are demanding that women have sex with any man who asks in order to prevent mass shootings? Gotta love those Christian Family Values[ent]trade[/ent]. Is the taxpayer going to have to pay for the ensuing abortion?

How about taxpayer funded hookers?
German Political Party Suggests Paying for Disabled People to Visit Sex Workers

 

[Underseer]

[*]Doors are not sentient, so regulating doors is completely stupid. Are you going to blame doors for what's going on and pass laws expecting the doors to obey your laws? They're fucking doors for crying out loud, and incapable of following whatever unnecessary laws you pass.

Unless they are made by Sirius Cybernetics Corporation of course.

Oh, and is anyone surprised that many conservatives are demanding that women have sex with any man who asks in order to prevent mass shootings? Gotta love those Christian Family Values[ent]trade[/ent]. Is the taxpayer going to have to pay for the ensuing abortion?

How about taxpayer funded hookers?
German Political Party Suggests Paying for Disabled People to Visit Sex Workers

Wow. Your ability to change the subject whenever you know you're wrong is really impressive. Usually only Muslim apologists are this blatant about that.

 

[Emily Lake]

Odd, I view it as trying to limit mass casualties in schools.

Oh, and the answer is ‘we can’t’. Pandora’s box is open and despite changes to security, killers will modify their techniques. It really sucks how terribly wrong the NRA was in the 80s.

Maybe you're right. But I grew up a military dependent, with secure facilities being a pretty common thing. And I work at a health insurer, with controlled access. Most of my family has worked in jobs that have some element of controlled access. Limiting the number of ways that a person can enter the premises seems like a fairly reasonable step. You just can't be dumb about it, of course - you still need sufficient fire doors to allow egress in the event of an emergency. They would just be one-way doors.

It's not going to be a magic solution that makes all of this go away. But it could feasibly increase the difficulty of it by enough to reduce both the incidence rate and the damage done. No guarantee, but not really a bad idea.

I take your point to a degree. I think there's a reason you're meeting some resistance to this here, besides it being a "pet" project. We could enact legislation to identify, flag, and schedule certain buildings all over the country that may indeed have an effect by (possibly) lessening the lethality of certain shooting events. It will be difficult to measure. As a case in point, there are many that have pointed out that Santa Fe has had recent active shooter drills, two armed guards, and other deterrents at the school. So now there's an argument to be made that it could be that all actually helped. It could have been 20 or 40 people dead instead of 10. It's cold comfort, but could possibly be true.

Or we could enact some common sense gun safety regulation. A better database with mandatory reporting. Better communication to get to that database. Taking guns away from domestic violence cases and other certain crimes. Not allowing those on terror watch lists to buy guns. Closing the gun show loophole. Banning bump stocks and high capacity magazines, mandatory *real* gun safety education. Mandatory insurance for gun owners. Enforced gun safety laws, like making a properly secured weapon mandatory. Recertification for gun owners on an ongoing basis. Better reporting of mentally ill status to law enforcement.

There's no magic bullet here (excuse the pun) but there are a lot of different measures that we can take that will make a real difference all over the country. It will not "take way people's guns". It will create specific barriers to gun ownership, but these are similar barriers to anyone that owns a vehicle and not insurmountable. It's a piecemeal approach, but one that will make a difference in people's lives while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Not because I think it should be an inalienable right personally, but because I think there's no going back from where we are at.

Agreed. I don't think there's a single action that will solve it. I certainly didn't mean to imply that limited entry points would fix it all by itself!

 

[Emily Lake]

Oh, and is anyone surprised that many conservatives are demanding that women have sex with any man who asks in order to prevent mass shootings?

How about taxpayer funded hookers?

Wow. Your ability to change the subject whenever you know you're wrong is really impressive. Usually only Muslim apologists are this blatant about that.

Okay, I'm calling foul here. Derec's post seemed a perfectly reasonable response to your hyperbole about demanding that women have sex with men to prevent shootings. It was certainly no LESS off topic than yours.

 

[steve_bank]

Doors as a metaphor for vaginas? Intriguing, sounds like a bestseller.