Maybe you missed it.

Ridiculous comparison in my opinion. Prior to 9/11, how many people, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, would have thought the security procedures now in place at airports would have been necessary and agreed to them? .... Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You're an idiot. The "security procedure" at the time was to let high jackers take control of the airliner and negotiate with them once they landed. The updated TSA "show" is generally just smoke and mirrors.

Never give up the pilot chair.

All these wonderful rants.

So, what is the simple (simplistic) solution that would prevent these things? This forum is 90% whining little boys with a gun-phalus problem and a hard-on for either the current or former president.

So, what is the simple (simplistic) solution that would prevent these things? Originally Posted by TGBeldin

Since you are from "DC" ... and are "presumptively smarter than everyone else"...

... you don't have a solution?

Conclusion : If only "a handful of people at best" are smart enough, proactive and courageous enough to go on guard against possible terroristic attacks, then they should be scoffed at and ignored ??? Originally Posted by rioseco

Totally incorrect conclusion.

Probably NO ONE, prior to 9/11, was out there asking for MORE screening at airports. Were we naive in thinking that such a disaster could occur? Certainly. But you tell me who was out there asking for more screening prior to 9/11. You?

Totally incorrect conclusion.

Probably NO ONE, prior to 9/11, was out there asking for MORE screening at airports. Were we naive in thinking that such a disaster could occur? Certainly. But you tell me who was out there asking for more screening prior to 9/11. You? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Apparently, you have reading comprehension issues. Or blinders on.


"White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security
FINAL REPORT TO PRESIDENT CLINTON"

"3.1. The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements.

The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose. In its initial report, the Commission called for approximately $160 million in federal funds for capital costs associated with improving security, and Congress agreed. As part of its ongoing commitment, the federal government should devote significant resources, of approximately $100 million annually, to meet capital requirements identified by airport consortia and the FAA. The Commission recognizes that more is needed. The Commission expects the National Civil Aviation Review Commission to consider a variety of options for additional user fees that could be used to pay for security measures including, among others, an aviation user security surcharge, the imposition of local security fees, tax incentives and other means."

And

Larry King Live Interview with Senator John Kerry About Terrorism
Website:www.twa800.com updates2001.htm ^ | September 11, 2001 | Larry King Live Transcript

Larry King Live September 11, 2001

KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did you committee on international operations and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

KERRY: ...."We have always known this could happen.

I guess Kerry really is a "NO ONE"!!!! After all .... Not to mention..

AL GORE!!! Another "NO ONE"!!!!

Totally incorrect conclusion.

Probably NO ONE, prior to 9/11, was out there asking for MORE screening at airports. Were we naive in thinking that such a disaster could occur? Certainly. But you tell me who was out there asking for more screening prior to 9/11. You? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

"Screening" ... There you go again. Trying to narrow the discussion in a lame effort to be "correct" ..... And you call anyone else ... "naive"?

"Ignorance is bliss" .. fits you to a "T"!

1996:
"3.7. The FAA should work with airlines and airport consortia to ensure that all passengers are positively identified and subjected to security procedures before they board aircraft.

Curb-side check-in, electronic ticketing, advance boarding passes, and other initiatives are affecting the way passengers enter the air transportation system. As improved security procedures are put into place, it is essential that all passengers be accounted for in that system, properly identified and subject to the same level of scrutiny. The Commission urges the FAA to work with airlines and airport consortia to ensure that necessary changes are made to accomplish that goal."

aka "screening".....

"all passengers are positively identified and subjected to security procedures before they board aircraft" ...

It is spelled phallus and it is not one simple action. It is a mindset and the acceptance of what is unacceptable. Everyday people have to answer the question; what should we do if a earthquake strikes here, how can we stop it or how can we lessen the damage? Add to that hurricanes, floods, riots, fires, airplane crashes, and mass shootings. Nothing is guaranteed and some things can't be stopped but you really need to accept that it could happen. Hell, isn't that the essence of the global warming argument except a mass shooting is far more likely to happen that global warming. How do you stop school shootings or mass shootings in general?

Allow the voluntary arming of teachers, employees, students (college) who pass a background check and get the necessary training. The mere idea that someone may be armed and have the power to resist will deter some people (but not all because it takes more than one solution).

Did you know that ALL the doors in schools are designed to open outwards for the ease of the students? Rather than have doors that open inward, into the faces of departing students they open to the outside. So if someone is outside with a gun they can force a door open with brute strength or shoot the person trying to hold the door shut. A door that opens to the inside can be held fast by a simple rubber wedge. You kick it under the door and it would take a gorilla to open that door and no one has to risk their life trying to hold the shut.

Make the walls of a school (or any vulnerable building) strong enough to stop most rifle rounds, ditto the door. What good is a secure door if you can just fire through the wall. Even if you don't want to do the entire wall for sake of money, then just do the lower four feet so people can crouch.

Quit being more afraid of guns than the people who carry them.

This is just for starters. Take these four things, apply them to any or all of the school shootings in this country and I guarantee the body counts would have been much lower.

Sir! The question of the safety of our most innocent and defenseless is not a "gun zone" issue or a 2nd Amendment issue. That is bullshit pablum the Liberal wants to inject to refocus from their wimpish, lazy-ass, peacenik drivel.

It's about SAFETY AND SECURITY FIRST. Here "we are again"... going ...

"through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding."

It reminds me of the people (we have all seen them) running around in circles looking busy, but not doing a damn thing of a productive nature. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sir, anyone without a weapon is pretty much defenseless when faced with someone with a weapon. Whether child or not. I certainly agree that safety of EVERYONE is of utmost importance. How to accomplish that is the question. Some like JD believe that abolishing ALL gun free zones is one of the answers. I do not.

This is not liberal pablum which is common response from conservatives.

"Screening" ... There you go again. Trying to narrow the discussion in a lame effort to be "correct" ..... And you call anyone else ... "naive"?

"Ignorance is bliss" .. fits you to a "T"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Ahh,, here we go with LL believing his "opinion" is far superior to everyone else's opinion.

Grow a pair, would you.

i think this explains why the media is not covering this story too much. Anyone with half a brain will start asking, "what if it happens here?" or "could it happen here?"

Ahh,, here we go with LL believing his "opinion" is far superior to everyone else's opinion.

Grow a pair, would you. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Who's opinion? Al Gore's ............ John Kerry's ....

Did you vote for them? Instead of George Bush?

Sir, I have a pair of balls. I don't know what you call yours, and don't care.

Pussy whipped?

i think this explains why the media is not covering this story too much. Anyone with half a brain will start asking, "what if it happens here?" or "could it happen here?" Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The "half-brains" are wanting to discuss ...

.... "gun free zones" and the 2nd amendment.

Apparently, speedo hasn't dealt with fire ants in his yard.

Sir, anyone without a weapon is pretty much defenseless when faced with someone with a weapon. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You think Obaminable struts around with a pistol strapped on?

That is what you mean by "weapon" .... a firearm?

[QUOTE=JD Barleycorn;1056159057

Allow the voluntary arming of teachers, employees, students (college) who pass a background check and get the necessary training. The mere idea that someone may be armed and have the power to resist will deter some people (but not all because it takes more than one solution).

Did you know that ALL the doors in schools are designed to open outwards for the ease of the students? Rather than have doors that open inward, into the faces of departing students they open to the outside. So if someone is outside with a gun they can force a door open with brute strength or shoot the person trying to hold the door shut. A door that opens to the inside can be held fast by a simple rubber wedge. You kick it under the door and it would take a gorilla to open that door and no one has to risk their life trying to hold the shut.

Make the walls of a school (or any vulnerable building) strong enough to stop most rifle rounds, ditto the door. What good is a secure door if you can just fire through the wall. Even if you don't want to do the entire wall for sake of money, then just do the lower four feet so people can crouch.

Quit being more afraid of guns than the people who carry them.

This is just for starters. Take these four things, apply them to any or all of the school shootings in this country and I guarantee the body counts would have been much lower.[/QUOTE]

Again, you're assuming that the people who have established gun free zones don't know what they are doing. Example -- guns are not allowed at the University of Texas - Austin in classrooms, dormitories, or offices. The President of the UT system supports this, the President of UT-Austin supports this. The majority of the faculty and administration support this. The majority of the students and parents of the students support this. The Austin police and the UT security support this. Simply put, the decision was no made lightly. Again, I have absolutely no problem with allowing guns in schools if people believe it is in their best interest. So far, very few do think that way. Why have very few schools allowed their staff to carry guns after the killings at Columbine and Newtown? Why have very few colleges allowed guns on campus after the killings at VT? Why has the military not allowed the average soldier to carry guns on military bases after the killings at Ft. Hood and in the Washington Naval yard. I guess it must be that liberals are in charge.

It is spelled phallus and it is not one simple action. It is a mindset and the acceptance of what is unacceptable. Everyday people have to answer the question; what should we do if a earthquake strikes here, how can we stop it or how can we lessen the damage? Add to that hurricanes, floods, riots, fires, airplane crashes, and mass shootings. Nothing is guaranteed and some things can't be stopped but you really need to accept that it could happen. Hell, isn't that the essence of the global warming argument except a mass shooting is far more likely to happen that global warming. How do you stop school shootings or mass shootings in general?

Allow the voluntary arming of teachers, employees, students (college) who pass a background check and get the necessary training. The mere idea that someone may be armed and have the power to resist will deter some people (but not all because it takes more than one solution).

Did you know that ALL the doors in schools are designed to open outwards for the ease of the students? Rather than have doors that open inward, into the faces of departing students they open to the outside. So if someone is outside with a gun they can force a door open with brute strength or shoot the person trying to hold the door shut. A door that opens to the inside can be held fast by a simple rubber wedge. You kick it under the door and it would take a gorilla to open that door and no one has to risk their life trying to hold the shut.

Make the walls of a school (or any vulnerable building) strong enough to stop most rifle rounds, ditto the door. What good is a secure door if you can just fire through the wall. Even if you don't want to do the entire wall for sake of money, then just do the lower four feet so people can crouch.

Quit being more afraid of guns than the people who carry them.

This is just for starters. Take these four things, apply them to any or all of the school shootings in this country and I guarantee the body counts would have been much lower. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I thought doors opening outward was due to fire code...