Then who are you expecting to arm with more guns inside the school if not teachers and children? You end your point with being able to defend yourselves because the police won’t, so the commenter replies as such - then you switch your main point to the police should have been trained to be inside to defend people - making your first point moot?
Alternatively, hire security, I guess. Because yes, clearly the cops aren’t doing their jobs in cases like this.
Also MAY-FUCKIN’-BE that I’m suggesting we fix the systemic issues, namely that cops don’t have to protect us. Seems that’s controversial enough that you have to attack me with mischaracterizations of my argument, surprising to me.
I’m guessing you find these cop’s actions entirely reasonable and justified, since you’re defending them so hard, right? Or is that a mischaracterization of your argument?
Yeah? Where did you get the idea that I’m defending cops or that they are trained well? I’m trying to get you to clarify how a more gun stance or status quo stance helps in this situation. How’d you get from that to COPS GOOD? Also calm the hell down, nobody is attacking anyone. I don’t care about the pro or anti gun movement and I’m only interested if there are even pros for gun use to be had here.
The main useful point you’ve mentioned there is hiring security… You mean like school police, that didn’t help in Uvalde? If you don’t want people to mischaracterize your points, could you be more specific?
If you need me to spell my stance out, obviously the cops are terribly trained and useless here. Also whoops I posted twice by accident, deleting the first one as it is a dupe.
If you can decide what I mean despite my corrections and protestations, I too can decide what you mean. I’m over here saying the cops failed to do their jobs and have systemic issues and you’re fighting with me using misinformation. Sure as shit sounds like you’re a back the blue MAGA idiot to me.
Then who are you expecting to arm with more guns inside the school if not teachers and children? You end your point with being able to defend yourselves because the police won’t, so the commenter replies as such - then you switch your main point to the police should have been trained to be inside to defend people - making your first point moot?
THE COPS SHOULD HAVE GONE IN AND DONE THEIR JOBS
Can ya read it now?
Alternatively, hire security, I guess. Because yes, clearly the cops aren’t doing their jobs in cases like this.
Also MAY-FUCKIN’-BE that I’m suggesting we fix the systemic issues, namely that cops don’t have to protect us. Seems that’s controversial enough that you have to attack me with mischaracterizations of my argument, surprising to me.
I’m guessing you find these cop’s actions entirely reasonable and justified, since you’re defending them so hard, right? Or is that a mischaracterization of your argument?
Yeah? Where did you get the idea that I’m defending cops or that they are trained well? I’m trying to get you to clarify how a more gun stance or status quo stance helps in this situation. How’d you get from that to COPS GOOD? Also calm the hell down, nobody is attacking anyone. I don’t care about the pro or anti gun movement and I’m only interested if there are even pros for gun use to be had here.
The main useful point you’ve mentioned there is hiring security… You mean like school police, that didn’t help in Uvalde? If you don’t want people to mischaracterize your points, could you be more specific?
If you need me to spell my stance out, obviously the cops are terribly trained and useless here. Also whoops I posted twice by accident, deleting the first one as it is a dupe.
If you can decide what I mean despite my corrections and protestations, I too can decide what you mean. I’m over here saying the cops failed to do their jobs and have systemic issues and you’re fighting with me using misinformation. Sure as shit sounds like you’re a back the blue MAGA idiot to me.