us Target asks its customers to kindly not shop while armed with guns

[Torolol]

While this seems oxymoron, I would suggest for gun free zones to be effective and not became target of planned mass shootings,

on those 'gun free zones' need some protections from professional well-trained armed security personels.

 

As comparison: the total number of dead politicians who was being guarded by armed agents, are far less than number of death childrens/students/other peoples that happens in gun free zones that entangled in mass shootings.

 

So it seems armed guards are doing their job far better than a policy about 'gun free zones'.

[Memphis]

While this seems oxymoron, I would suggest for gun free zones to be effective and not became target of planned mass shootings,

on those 'gun free zones' need some protections from professional well-trained armed security personels.

 

As comparison: the total number of dead politicians who was being guarded by armed agents, are far less than number of death childrens/students/other peoples that happens in gun free zones that entangled in mass shootings.

 

So it seems armed guards are doing their job far better than a policy about 'gun free zones'.

 

 

Gun free zones work well only with an armed presence, Instead of doing something ridiculous like arming the teachers, each school should have an onsite police officer or private security. (no I don't support this in any way, but given the amount of guns we have in our society it may be the only thing we can do). I do not support arming the students or teachers on campus though.

[Rippleman]

I'm in S.E. Arizona. We see guns everyday, everywhere you go. I feel safer than I do in the cities where I know only bad guys have guns. In the city of Tombstone, for example, there are way more people carrying than not. NO GUN CRIME. More people are killed by drunk drivers in the U.S. than by guns. Maybe we should leave our cars at home... :D

 

curious, currently, how do you determine who is a bad guy and who is not? If someone with a gun doesn't kill someone with a today, should one assume he wont tomorrow? Do bad guys kill people everyday of their life? When do they become a bad guy, is with their first kill?

 

Trying to point out that anyone at anytime can snap. We are human and fallible and subject to uncountable external stimuli such as stress, sickness, chemical imbalance, environment, need,  etc. All the killers (bad guys) were once regular guys just like you and me. Then at some point, do to any one of the stimuli i mentioned earlier, made them make new choices and those choice lead to killing. Happens to be the easiest and most impersonal way to kill some one is a gun.

[rr_dRock]

curious, currently, how do you determine who is a bad guy and who is not? If someone with a gun doesn't kill someone with a today, should one assume he wont tomorrow? Do bad guys kill people everyday of their life? When do they become a bad guy, is with their first kill?

 

Trying to point out that anyone at anytime can snap. We are human and fallible and subject to uncountable external stimuli such as stress, sickness, chemical imbalance, environment, need,  etc. All the killers (bad guys) were once regular guys just like you and me. Then at some point, do to any one of the stimuli i mentioned earlier, made them make new choices and those choice lead to killing. Happens to be the easiest and most impersonal way to kill some one is a gun

 

I could choose to tie someone up and rape them, should I have all of my rope removed? Should we think that I won't rape, simply because I haven't yet?

 

Your line of thinking is ridiculous.

[nekkidtruth]

I could choose to tie someone up and rape them, should I have all of my rope removed? Should we think that I won't rape, simply because I haven't yet?

 

Your line of thinking is ridiculous.

 

Not nearly as ridiculous as yours.  Tying someone up and raping them is not the same as shooting someone and killing them.  Although both horrendous, one ends in death while the other doesn't.  Quit being so absurd.

[Rippleman]

I could choose to tie someone up and rape them, should I have all of my rope removed? Should we think that I won't rape, simply because I haven't yet?

 

Your line of thinking is ridiculous.

 

This come back is the 2nd WORST comeback i have ever heard. May I ask your age?

[rr_dRock]

Not nearly as ridiculous as yours.  Tying someone up and raping them is not the same as shooting someone and killing them.  Although both horrendous, one ends in death while the other doesn't.  Quit being so absurd.

 

Yes, because for most people, rape is such a better option than death.

The point is harm, not outcome. It's absurd you think everyone will kill someone just because they have a gun.

 

 

This come back is the 2nd WORST comeback i have ever heard. May I ask your age?

 

never ask a ladys age.

 

And 2nd? Come on, I could be at the top!

 

The simple fact that you think people shouldn't have guns because there's a possibility they may at some point shoot someone (although not for sure) is the epitome of nanny state ######. I'm getting really tired of this namby pamby ######. It's not that I don't think background checks, psychological analysis, and registration are a bad thing, I just don't believe in this "guns are evil and if you have one you are Satan" agenda.

The teacher that is in your (hypothetical or otherwise) childs classroom could go crazy too, and stab some kids with scissors! Better homeschool your kids.

 

 

(yes there are mass stabbings. Such as the recent ones in Alberta, China, etc)

 

 

 

OT: I would assume that the majority of Targets shoppers will be okay with this.... Walmarts on the other hand....

[Rippleman]

Yes, because for most people, rape is such a better option than death.

The point is harm, not outcome. It's absurd you think everyone will kill someone just because they have a gun.

 

 

 

never ask a ladys age.

 

And 2nd? Come on, I could be at the top!

 

The simple fact that you think people shouldn't have guns because there's a possibility they may at some point shoot someone (although not for sure) is the epitome of nanny state ######. I'm getting really tired of this namby pamby ######.

The teacher that is in your (hypothetical or otherwise) childs classroom could go crazy too, and stab some kids with scissors! Better homeschool your kids.

 

 

(yes there are mass stabbings. Such as the recent ones in Alberta, China, etc)

everything comes down to this... "risk vs reward" AND/OR "worst possible outcome vs best possible outcome"

 

the risk of you having rope is EXTREMELY LOW and the reward is great since it serves A LOT of other uses in life. Rope also has a very low WORST possible out come like the scenario that you suggested vs all the great things rope can do.

 

Use this example with anything (including your guns) and you will see what I am suggesting.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Both of you missed his point.  He was referring and in response to rippleman's post about knowing who is a bad guy and who isn't and if they are not bad guy now, when will they become one. So, if we don't know who may snap, we should remove weapons for the just-in-case moment that we have absolutely no control over.   A ridiculous line of thinking.

 

And what in the world does age have to do with anything, rippleman?  Looking for that angle so you can come back with more impossible and ridiculous scenarios?

 

Yes guns are bad when used to kill (except for legitimate and regulated use in hunting, target practice or competitive shooting), no one disagrees with that.  And a vast majority of Americans who own/use guns believe we need to do a much better job of regulating firearms. As a gun owner and other gun owners I know we want to see stricter laws, better and more in depth background checks, etc.  And I agree with Target's position, in fact, most of the businesses around here have signs prohibiting weapons.

 

[nekkidtruth]

Yes, because for most people, rape is such a better option than death.

The point is harm, not outcome. It's absurd you think everyone will kill someone just because they have a gun.

 

 

The point is, stop making absurd B.S. comparisons.  Feel free to point out where I said every single person who owns a gun will kill.  I'll wait here...

[nekkidtruth]

Both of you missed his point.  He was referring and in response to rippleman's post about knowing who is a bad guy and who isn't and if they are not bad guy now, when will they become one. So, if we don't know who may snap, we should remove weapons for the just-in-case moment that we have absolutely no control over.   A ridiculous line of thinking.

 

And what in the world does age have to do with anything, rippleman?  Looking for that angle so you can come back with more impossible and ridiculous scenarios?

 

Yes guns are bad when used to kill (except for legitimate and regulated use in hunting, target practice or competitive shooting), no one disagrees with that.  And a vast majority of Americans who own/use guns believe we need to do a much better job of regulating firearms. As a gun owner and other gun owners I know we want to see stricter laws, better and more in depth background checks, etc.  And I agree with Target's position, in fact, most of the businesses around here have signs prohibiting weapons.

 

I didn't miss anything.  Ridiculous comparisons are ridiculous.  Attempting to correlate tying someone up and raping them to shooting someone with a gun is absurd.  Death vs Rape is what it's coming down to because it's obvious there is no logical thought process when it comes to gun nuts.  Seriously....If it wasn't for the stupid gay comparison from early on in the thread, that one would certainly take the cake. 

[rr_dRock]

everything comes down to this... "risk vs reward" AND/OR "worst possible outcome vs best possible outcome"

 

the risk of you having rope is EXTREMELY LOW and the reward is great since it serves A LOT of other uses in life. Rope also has a very low WORST possible out come like the scenario that you suggested vs all the great things rope can do.

 

Use this example with anything (including your guns) and you will see what I am suggesting.

 

The risk of me owning a weapon is also very low, as determined by the Canadian government.    

the worst possible outcome of rope? Death.

the worst possible outcome of guns? Death....

Best possible outcome of rope? You can make a raft if you're stuck on an island, lasso'ing an animal for killing, autoerotic asphyxiation.

Best possible outcome of Guns? Staying alive in a terrible situation, feeding your family, entertainment....

 

Seems rather similar. It's the person, not the object. Psychological analysis for restricted firearms is a must, not just calling people and asking if they're afraid of this person having guns. Background checks, and registration for everything except long guns.

 

I own a wonderful samurai sword. It was made for killing things. Should we take away all swords as well because possibly someone might go crazy and kill someone with a sword? (That already happened a few million times btw)

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't miss anything.  Ridiculous comparisons are ridiculous.  Attempting to correlate tying someone up and raping them to shooting someone with a gun is absurd.  Death vs Rape is what it's coming down to because it's obvious there is no logical thought process when it comes to gun nuts.  Seriously....If it wasn't for the stupid gay comparison from early on in the thread, that one would certainly take the cake. 

It's nice to see they're making advancements in computing for the blind. Sorry you still can't see outside your box.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

He wasn't comparing the act of rape with death by firearms.  Please reread what I said and at least try to understand what his point was, instead of going off about "gun nuts".

 

 

@+rr_dRock, I'm thinking just as we find extremist opinions (some incredibly ridiculous) in favor of guns, we find extremist opinions (and again ridiculous ) by some against firearms.

[Rippleman]

Both of you missed his point.  He was referring and in response to rippleman's post about knowing who is a bad guy and who isn't and if they are not bad guy now, when will they become one. So, if we don't know who may snap, we should remove weapons for the just-in-case moment that we have absolutely no control over.   A ridiculous line of thinking.

 

 

You are stretching what i said. If you are ok with someone having a gun, why not a suicide vest? or anthrax? or a nuclear device? As long as they use it ONLY in a responsible manner, there will be no problem right?

[Rippleman]

The risk of me owning a weapon is also very low, as determined by the Canadian government.    

the worst possible outcome of rope? Death.

the worst possible outcome of guns? Death....

Best possible outcome of rope? You can make a raft if you're stuck on an island, lasso'ing an animal for killing, autoerotic asphyxiation.

Best possible outcome of Guns? Staying alive in a terrible situation, feeding your family, entertainment....

 

Seems rather similar. It's the person, not the object. Psychological analysis for restricted firearms is a must, not just calling people and asking if they're afraid of this person having guns. Background checks, and registration for everything except long guns.

 

I own a wonderful samurai sword. It was made for killing things. Should we take away all swords as well because possibly someone might go crazy and kill someone with a sword? (That already happened a few million times btw)

 

 

 

 

 

It's nice to see they're making advancements in computing for the blind. Sorry you can't see outside your box.

 

are you comfortable with me walking around with suicide vest? or anthrax? or a nuclear device? I am safe and not a threat so why restrict this? 

[nekkidtruth]

The risk of me owning a weapon is also very low, as determined by the Canadian government.    

the worst possible outcome of rope? Death.

the worst possible outcome of guns? Death....

Best possible outcome of rope? You can make a raft if you're stuck on an island, lasso'ing an animal for killing, autoerotic asphyxiation.

Best possible outcome of Guns? Staying alive in a terrible situation, feeding your family, entertainment....

 

Seems rather similar. It's the person, not the object. Psychological analysis for restricted firearms is a must, not just calling people and asking if they're afraid of this person having guns. Background checks, and registration for everything except long guns.

 

I own a wonderful samurai sword. It was made for killing things. Should we take away all swords as well because possibly someone might go crazy and kill someone with a sword? (That already happened a few million times btw)

 

Rope was not designed for killing.  There are probably thousands of things rope can/will be used for, killing is the least of those things.  You can literally compare pretty much anything on this planet to guns, but the fact remains....guns are designed for killing.   I suppose my toothbrush is dangerous because I could potentially stab someone's eye out with it.  I guess it would be horribly inappropriate for me to walk around with it in my hand.  Stop making absurd comparisons.

 

He wasn't comparing the act of rape with death by firearms.  Please reread what I said and at least try to understand what his point was, instead of going off about "gun nuts".

 

I read just fine.

[rr_dRock]

are you comfortable with me walking around with suicide vest? or anthrax? or a nuclear device? I am safe and not a threat so why restrict this? 

 

If the government deemed it safe for you to do so, then that's what I'll accept.

You realize that those things happen every day right? There are people moving dangerous goods everywhere, every day.... Not sure why you, when deemed sane and able, would be any less careful than the others...

[+Raze Subscriber²]

You are stretching what i said. If you are ok with someone having a gun, why not a suicide vest? or anthrax? or a nuclear device? As long as they use it ONLY in a responsible manner, there will be no problem right?

 

I'm stretching?  You have got to be kidding.    You did just as I said, "Looking for that angle so you can come back with more impossible and ridiculous scenarios?"

[nekkidtruth]

I'm stretching?  You have got to be kidding.    You did just as I said, "Looking for that angle so you can come back with more impossible and ridiculous scenarios?"

 

No, he's making absurd comparisons.  Sort of like rope vs guns or rape vs death.

[rr_dRock]

Rope was not designed for killing.  There are probably thousands of things rope can/will be used for, killing is the least of those things.  You can literally compare pretty much anything on this planet to guns, but the fact remains....guns are designed for killing.   I suppose my toothbrush is dangerous because I could potentially stab someone's eye out with it.  I guess it would be horribly inappropriate for me to walk around with it in my hand.  Stop making absurd comparisons.

 

It wasn't designed for killing, but it does a damn good job of it, and seems to be involved with a laaaarge percentage.

 

Gun were designed for killing, yes. But then so was the sword, or arrows, or even knives. Are you an advocate of banning those things?

   How do you suggest we solve the mental health issues that are the real problem?

 

 

Oh, and there's a reason they don't allow inmates regular toothbrushes. They tend to whittle them down and stab each other.

And you just essentially repeated my point that it's ridiculous to stop someone from having something, because they MAY hurt someone with it..... But of course, you won't see that.

[nekkidtruth]

It wasn't designed for killing, but it does a damn good job of it, and seems to be involved with a laaaarge percentage.

 

Gun were designed for killing, yes. But then so was the sword, or arrows, or even knives. Are you an advocate of banning those things? 

   How do you suggest we solve the mental health issues that are the real problem?

 

Still continuing to use absurd comparisons.  Last time I checked, normal sane people didn't walk around with arrows or swords.  Or pretty much anywhere for that matter (aside from those who use them to hunt).  I absolutely would ban knives from being used outside of cooking/hunting.

 

Call me an extreme anti-gun person or whatever floats your boat, but guns are absolutely unnecessary for any civilian.  Personally, I don't believe police officers should carry guns either.  Regardless, I'm not a complete idiot and am well aware that guns aren't going anywhere any time soon and I'm certainly in favour of more restrictions put in place, such as those in Canada for a start.

[+Raze Subscriber²]

Rope was not designed for killing.  There are probably thousands of things rope can/will be used for, killing is the least of those things.  You can literally compare pretty much anything on this planet to guns, but the fact remains....guns are designed for killing.   I suppose my toothbrush is dangerous because I could potentially stab someone's eye out with it.  I guess it would be horribly inappropriate for me to walk around with it in my hand.  Stop making absurd comparisons.

 

 

I read just fine.

 

Your responses are very similar to people who insist on their right to own a firearm no matter what.  Plainly put, unable/unwilling to understand the other point of view.

 

Never-mind, I remember you and I having pretty much the same discussion in the Gun Debate thread.

 

No, he's making absurd comparisons.  Sort of like rope vs guns or rape vs death.

 

You're the one making that comparison, he was referring to something else.

[rr_dRock]

Still continuing to use absurd comparisons.  Last time I checked, normal sane people didn't walk around with arrows or swords.  Or pretty much anywhere for that matter (aside from those who use them to hunt).  I absolutely would ban knives from being used outside of cooking/hunting.

 

Call me an extreme anti-gun person or whatever floats your boat, but guns are absolutely unnecessary for any civilian.  Personally, I don't believe police officers should carry guns either.  Regardless, I'm not a complete idiot and am well aware that guns aren't going anywhere any time soon and I'm certainly in favour of more restrictions put in place, such as those in Canada for a start.

 

The ones in Canada are okay... for Canada. The US will need a totally different and more wide reaching system than Canada.

 

 

The last time I checked, normal sane people don't walk into schools and shoot kids. So you agree the issue is mental health then? 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you're extreme. I've seen much worse, even in this community. I also don't think you're an idiot.

[HawkMan]

Yes, because for most people, rape is such a better option than death.

The point is harm, not outcome. It's absurd you think everyone will kill someone just because they have a gun.

 

 

 

never ask a ladys age.

 

And 2nd? Come on, I could be at the top!

 

The simple fact that you think people shouldn't have guns because there's a possibility they may at some point shoot someone (although not for sure) is the epitome of nanny state ######. I'm getting really tired of this namby pamby ######. It's not that I don't think background checks, psychological analysis, and registration are a bad thing, I just don't believe in this "guns are evil and if you have one you are Satan" agenda.

The teacher that is in your (hypothetical or otherwise) childs classroom could go crazy too, and stab some kids with scissors! Better homeschool your kids.

 

 

(yes there are mass stabbings. Such as the recent ones in Alberta, China, etc)

 

 

 

OT: I would assume that the majority of Targets shoppers will be okay with this.... Walmarts on the other hand....

 

So how many died in the China mass stabbing? Im guessing by the fact you used that example you don't know, like most pro gun extremists who use that example.

[Rippleman]

If the government deemed it safe for you to do so, then that's what I'll accept.

You realize that those things happen every day right? There are people moving dangerous goods everywhere, every day.... Not sure why you, when deemed sane and able, would be any less careful than the others...

 

the question was "would you be comfortable with it"? Not if you would accept it.