LogFAQs > #973038975

Ozmose posted...

They just recently proposed putting armed security at every school. Can you guess who shot it down? And yes, there were many errors. If you actually read what I posted, you would have seen that I pretty much bullet pointed them. You were literally proposing bans on things that are already banned. You wouldn't consider that to be an error?
It looks to me like you're not actually interested in discussing this anyway. You asked me a question, demanded I answer it, and when I provided you with a very thorough answer you completely disregarded it. I think you're just here to bask in the sound of your own voice.

It's not surprising that a proposition for providing armed security in schools was derided, given what we saw in Uvalde with a heavily armed response to a single shooter, and given that research suggests armed security will do little to prevent school shootings.

I wasn't proposing banning anything. I was merely mentioning how certain aspects of firearms/firearms ownership are the target of regulation/bans, while a full-on ban on gun ownership is a fringe stance. So no, I wouldn't consider that an error. Again, the point wasn't the examples provided so much as it was to highlight that a full 2A repeal is a fringe stance. This is why your bullet points are off-base and warrant no further discussion, because you've missed the point.

If you can absorb the point I'm making and make a salient argument worth responding to, I'd be happy to discuss things further. But you continue to focus on how I worded something, even after I clarified for you.

Initially I had responded to your claim that there's no give-and-take, which insinuate that there's some give from 2A defenders. There is not. Proposals like armed security in schools fail to address the problem, which is an overabundance of firearms in the hands of people who are I'll-equipped to own them.