# Once again how far s too far?



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Ok so I was talking to some friends at school today. We normally agree on just about everything or have similar views, but today how ever was very different. We started talking about the local pool. Well I said how I didn't think it was right that they searched peoples bags before they go into the pool. Well both of my friends disagreed completely. They said it was for the kids and peoples safety. Now I understand that, but I have a very serious problem anything that's unconstitutional. I asked why it was right. She said because they have it posted. I said ok if the police made it a law or posted that it was illegal to own a firearm would she let them search her house? She said I know were to hide a gun. I said ya but your braking the law. She said ya but it's my right to own a gun. I said ya and it's your right to not have your stuff or you searched. She sad ya but it's for the safety of kids. After talking in circles for about 30 minutes I gave up and "admitted" I was wrong. Sooooo once again how far is too far? At what point is it ok to give up your rights for the safety of the others and not give them up. Or should you not give them up at all? (me personally I don't think anyone should ever have to give up their rights. For he who gives an ounce of liberty for an ounce of security will get neither and deserves neither.)


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

I don't consent to searches. If the building is pre-empted my state law,I don't consent. Let me in,I don't consent. I'm not creating a disturbance,I'm following State Law. I do not consent to a search. Repeat as neccesary


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Find another pool.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

it's a private pool, on private property. They have the right to ask to search you before allowing you entrance. 

You, however, have the right to take your patronage to a pool that doesn't require you to be searched before entrance. 

If the search bothered enough people, and if enough people took their business to a pool that didn't search them, the pool would have to re-think their policy.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Most people do not get it until the hammer comes down on them. It sounds harmless but once the camels nose is under the tent then you have what is called a legal president. Now this is the standard to eat away at what should be your fourth amendment rights in any given situation. Now those entering public property or someone else's property have a choice: enter and consent to search or do not go in. In your case go to school and be searched or home schooling. Its not for or about kids. That is a liberal "feels good trick" to get people to abandon the real issue or appear to be against helping the downtrodden and helpless.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

When given the choice between regulations and liberty, the sheeple continue to choose regulation over liberty every time.


----------



## alterego (Jan 27, 2013)

I am proud of you. That you have the knowledge and understanding to even debate the topic. You will do well.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

jmo, it is not just an issue of if it is an infringment of your privacy that matters,it is also a question of whether it is a justifiable infringement.

if the bag check prevents frequent problems then it may in fact be justifiable

but when a bag check only has a theoretical benefit, then it is merely a BS infringement of your rights for the sake of a possible benefit that hasn't been proven.

am i making any sense here? this is an issue that we may have to discuss with other preppers when we form a community.ie what is justifiable and what is not? rights are not absolute and unconditional otherwise some arsshole comes along and abuses them.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

Searched before entering the pool area? That's totally wrong.
I don;t even let them search my bag when I leave a store. They can see my reciept, but once I pay for the stuff it is my property. They can call the cops if they want, but otherwise piss off. Usually the manager or some clerk says that if I don;t comply I'll be banned from the store...which is stupid because I'm already not coming back to any store that tries to search me (or bans firearms.)

Firefighter, you were right to tell your friends they are crazy. The stupid thing about what they are doing is that they have essentially created a gun free zone. When some punk decides to commit a mass murder, they'll just shoot the asshole at the gate, promptly followed by everyone else.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

tinkerhell said:


> ............ rights are not absolute and unconditional otherwise some arsshole comes along and abuses them.


Resptecfully, . . . but absolutely 100% firm, . . . I very passionately disagree with that statement.

They are either rights, . . . or permissions. There is no grey area, . . . no "yeah, but's", . . . or "what if's".

The single problem, . . . no one is willing to take a club to the arsshole you spoke of and bust his fat head when he yells fire in the theater just to see people panic. Inducing panic should be against the law, . . . and have serious consequences, . . . as well as abuse of any other right.

You have a right to breathe, . . . take a breath of air, . . . inalienable, unviolable, total, absolute, . . . a right, . . . if it were a privilege, . . . politicians would have long ago taxed it.

Abuse of the right will always be in the mind of a slim minority, . . . trouble is usually he is the judge's kid, . . . the pricinpal's niece, . . . and therefore exceptions are made.

There should never be any exception to the rights granted to mankind by our creator, . . . at any time, . . . for any reason, . . . and if I may, . . . to use your term, . . . any arsshole who wants to infringe upon the God given rights a man, . . . should just suffer the consequences.

OK, . . . rant off, . . . BP meds on order.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

dwight55 said:


> Resptecfully, . . . but absolutely 100% firm, . . . I very passionately disagree with that statement.
> 
> They are either rights, . . . or permissions. There is no grey area, . . . no "yeah, but's", . . . or "what if's".
> 
> ...


Dwight, thanks. You hit the nail square on the head.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

dwight55 said:


> Resptecfully, . . . but absolutely 100% firm, . . . I very passionately disagree with that statement.
> 
> They are either rights, . . . or permissions. There is no grey area, . . . no "yeah, but's", . . . or "what if's".
> 
> ...


I understand and appreciate what you are saying and might even say the same thing but that is not the point that I'm making.....

even in a SHTF situation, we as preppers have got to realize that the groups that we form will need to be prepared for the idea that there WILL be rules, and many of these rules WILL infringe on someone's rights. Security can and will be a priority over privacy at times. If and when things get proportionally safer for civilization, we will have the luxury to return to the privacy that we enjoy now.

In the more general sense, law enforcement is about taking away the rights and freedoms of some scumbag who doesn't cooperate with us. There are too many bleeding heart liberals out there worrying about them. When we are in charge, don't be screwing things up by thinking that human rights becomes a shield for deviant scumbags.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

dwight55 said:


> Resptecfully, . . . but absolutely 100% firm, . . . I very passionately disagree with that statement.
> 
> *They are either rights, . . . or permissions. There is no grey area*


I think in the context of what you are thinking about, you are 100% correct.

But in the context of what I am thinking about, I have to write a somewhat contradicting statement.

I say "Freedom and liberty are unconditional rights...........but don't be mistaking them for absolute rights that Murderers get to keep." We will have rules, and the rules will involve taking away rights.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

tinkerhell said:


> I think in the context of what you are thinking about, you are 100% correct.
> 
> But in the context of what I am thinking about, I have to write a somewhat contradicting statement.
> 
> I say "Freedom and liberty are unconditional rights...........but don't be mistaking them for absolute rights that Murderers get to keep." We will have rules, and the rules will involve taking away rights.


If you are involved in an organization or a gathering that begins on the premise that you can take away rights on some whim, . . . regardless of how you spin it, . . . it is still nothing more than a repressive government form that gives privileges and rights to some but not to others based upon the particular whim of the one(s) writing the rules.

Given enough time, . . . one despotic rule will lead to another, . . . and it will devolve into chaos, and absolute tyranny.

That is not freedom, it is not liberty, and it will lead to some similar state as the USSR or Nazi Germany.

Freedom starts out with the word "free" and has to stay that way, . . . period, . . . end of sentence, . . . forever.

You use the analogy of freedom and murderers, . . . there is no inherent right to "kill" in a murderous way, . . . but there is an absolute guaranteed, God given right to express one's thoughts and/or opinions. The murderer must be dealt with as a threat to society, . . . the person who disagrees with your idea of government must be heard in an open forum, . . . and determined by those present, . . . which they want to follow.

Much as I used to like watching the old Westerns, . . . the idea of riding into Dodge city and having to check my guns with the sheriff is to me preposterous, . . . deal with the drunk who shoots up the saloon, . . . but don't take away everyone's right to self defense because one drunk cowboy decides to shoot the chandelier.

I don't know how familiar you are with the exact wording of the Bill of Rights, . . . but let me encourage you to go and look at them, . . . study them, . . . and ask yourself which ones can be abriged in a free society.

I couldn't find any.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Slippy said:


> When given the choice between regulations and liberty, the sheeple continue to choose regulation over liberty every time.


That's a sad fact. The sheeple are quite willing to allow their freedoms to be slowly eroded. Eventually, they'll realize they have no freedoms left and they'll be clueless as to how it happened.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

tinkerhell said:


> even in a SHTF situation, we as preppers have got to realize that the groups that we form will need to be prepared for the idea that there WILL be rules, and many of these rules WILL infringe on someone's rights. Security can and will be a priority over privacy at times. If and when things get proportionally safer for civilization, we will have the luxury to return to the privacy that we enjoy now.


What right to privacy do you think we have now?


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

tinkerhell said:


> even in a SHTF situation, we as preppers have got to realize that the groups that we form will need to be prepared for the idea that there WILL be rules, and many of these rules WILL infringe on someone's rights. Security can and will be a priority over privacy at times. If and when things get proportionally safer for civilization, we will have the luxury to return to the privacy that we enjoy now.


What right to privacy do you think we have now?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

We have any right that we choose to exercise. We also bear the responsibility to allow all others the same rights.
In a public or public access area the two statements above stand without error or modification.
On private property that is not public access, like my homestead, your rights are under the control of my right as a landowner. If you say something I don't like, If i don't want you to bring a gun onto my property, if I want to search you before you enter my property, if you don't want to answer a question I put to you, or any combination of the above situations you have the need to get off my property. I have the absolute right to govern my property in any way that I want. You each have the same right.

All our rights are absolute - BUT - you lose your rights when you infringe on the rights of others. That is the only way you can lose your rights.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Your communications are all monitored. You can be photographed or even searched almost anywhere. You have no right to privacy today.


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

tinkerhell said:


> jmo, it is not just an issue of if it is an infringment of your privacy that matters,it is also a question of whether it is a justifiable infringement.
> 
> if the bag check prevents frequent problems then it may in fact be justifiable
> 
> ...


No the reason they started doing it was because they had a stabbing or someone pulled a gun on someone over some pot. They have or had a bad problem with people selling drugs there. I understand why they do it but I feel like it's still not right.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

firefighter72 said:


> No the reason they started doing it was because they had a stabbing or someone pulled a gun on someone over some pot. They have or had a bad problem with people selling drugs there. I understand why they do it but I feel like it's still not right.


Drugs are just an excuse for getting rid of your right to privacy.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

You have freedom of choice. You have rights, liberties and freedoms which you can exercise or not. You can participate in the degradation of the US or stand apart and exercise your free choice.

The town I live closest to just passed a bill to rebuild the community pool. It was closed a few years back because of drugs and gang violence. That has been forgotten so the good towns people decided to pay to have it reopened. I know that it will be the same platform it was before but happily I won't be paying for it.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Dwight, that is well spoken! There is absolutely nothing here that I want to disagree with. I don't think it fully captures what I was attempting to say, but thats ok. I would like our exchange to end with your words so here they are:



dwight55 said:


> If you are involved in an organization or a gathering that begins on the premise that you can take away rights on some whim, . . . regardless of how you spin it, . . . it is still nothing more than a repressive government form that gives privileges and rights to some but not to others based upon the particular whim of the one(s) writing the rules.
> 
> Given enough time, . . . one despotic rule will lead to another, . . . and it will devolve into chaos, and absolute tyranny.
> 
> ...


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Thanks, Tinkerhell, . . . appreciate the good words.

I guess I'm just old school, . . . grew up out in the boonies, . . . teachers had and used their own "board of education", . . . parents stood together arm in arm against trouble and problems, . . .

We were taught American History, . . . who / when / where / and why, . . . from the revolution all the way up through WW2. Korea was almost too new to be able to really teach about it.

I grew up in central Ohio, . . . with a background in Eastern Ky, . . . and the families were Union all the way, . . . not a Southerner in the bunch. But we understood the other point of view that it was to a large degree a fight also about the rights of one state to determine it's own destiny and it's own rules. 

I fully believe in doing everything we can to see both or all three or however many sides there are to a situation, . . . but I also believe that in the end, . . . there is only one top solution, . . . one best answer, . . . 

Two rules, . . . in the order of importance, . . . govern my life: 1) Joshua, leader of Israel after Moses, summed up his relationship with God saying (paraphrased), "You all do what you want to do, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord", and 2) Patrick Henry's ending words to his speech said, "give me liberty, or give me death".

Everything else in my life is subservient to those two phrases, . . . and I choose not to change, . . . 

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

If you go to a collage football game they will search any bags for glass bottles of booze and I can see their reasoning since the glass bottles can be thrown hurting someone on a lower level, saw it when I was a student.
But if I'm carrying with a permit while I'd allow them to search and confiscate that glass bottle of Vodka unless they had a "no gun" sign posted I would maintain my rights to carry. In a pool situation I can see their concerns about an unattended weapon left in your bag while you are actually in the water. At a pool party it is reasonable for them to assume that the weapon that you are carrying may not be fully under your control while you are swimming. Kids can go through your unattended bag.

While maybe not a popular stance here common sense says that if you're at a pool party your weapon may not always be fully under your control so they may have some reasonable grounds to search. They should post that the pool is a gun and glass bottle free zone.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

FoolAmI said:


> If you go to a collage football game they will search any bags for glass bottles of booze and I can see their reasoning since the glass bottles can be thrown hurting someone on a lower level, saw it when I was a student.
> But if I'm carrying with a permit while I'd allow them to search and confiscate that glass bottle of Vodka unless they had a "no gun" sign posted I would maintain my rights to carry. In a pool situation I can see their concerns about an unattended weapon left in your bag while you are actually in the water. At a pool party it is reasonable for them to assume that the weapon that you are carrying may not be fully under your control while you are swimming. Kids can go through your unattended bag.
> 
> While maybe not a popular stance here common sense says that if you're at a pool party your weapon may not always be fully under your control so they may have some reasonable grounds to search. They should post that the pool is a gun and glass bottle free zone.


seems to me that the no glass bottle measures are a safety and security issue for the football officials(ie they aren't plotting to turn america into a police state....no long term stalinistic plans) that requires a bit of preventative approach because it is impractical to put enough security officers in the stands to catch every SOB that wants to throw a bottle.

am I missing something here, or are there guys here against being searched even when it might prevent that cute little lady in a tank top from catching a glass flask in the back of the head?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I don't believe in submitting to any unwarranted search.

You can't prevent crime without removing people's liberties and rights. Fight crime when it happens and don't mess with individuals rights and liberties.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Football organizers don't want to take away rights and liberties, and they don't want to be crime fighters. They simply want to host a football game that doesn't include fans injured from flying glass.(and more likely they want to sell more booze)

Rights make us free, so go ahead and exercise them daily, but there is something about refusing to support a pragmatic solution to flying glass that has a filthy stench of narcicism to it, don't you think?


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

For a lot of folks its gone too far for a long, long time. Only when the masses feel the pinch instead of the individual will real change happen. jmho. The folks riding in the wagon really don't care, as long as they get their free phones, food, medical, etc.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Jmo, but Rights are not bound to a strictness so harsh and pedantic that its negative affect should not be considered. Where there are irregularities of very slight consequence, our Rights are not intended to stand as an obstruction so inflexibly severe, that pragmatic solutions can not be implimented. If the deviation in Rights were a mere trifle, which, if continued in practice, would weigh little or nothing on the public interest, it might properly be overlooked.

Searching your bag at a football game can happen millions of times without the public interest being compromised? 

My advice? Suck it up buttercup. Leave the bag at home, go have a good time at the game, and get over it.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

If a place needs searches for security, then I figure it isn't a safe place, so I'll pass.


----------



## eferred (Mar 15, 2015)

few rights are knowing given up. they are stolen at gun point. Rights have to be asserted (and maintained) at gunpoint, cause there's always plenty of people eager to enslave, rob, rape, beat down or kill you.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

eferred said:


> few rights are knowing given up. they are stolen at gun point. Rights have to be asserted (and maintained) at gunpoint, cause there's always plenty of people eager to enslave, rob, rape, beat down or kill you.


Sadly, the American people have been giving up rights for the last 50+ years; trading them for regulation and "security".


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

You really think we should always be reactive? I don't personally have a problem with being proactive if it can prevent a crime or situation before it actually happens. In fact, I would suggest that your right to bare arms can atleast partially described as a proactive measure towards fighting crime.

jmo, checking bags is proactive. Yes, proactive. Sure there is a real chance for abuse here. I doubt there are many people the government could not rationalize as a "potential criminal" if they really wanted to.

But let's be real here people, the security officers at a football game are not clandestine undercover government operatives whose sole mission in life is to hijack your rights until this country becomes another Russia or worse. Please keep your imagination for shtf scenarios.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

tinkerhell said:


> You really think we should always be reactive? I don't personally have a problem with being proactive if it can prevent a crime or situation before it actually happens. In fact, I would suggest that your right to bare arms can atleast partially described as a proactive measure towards fighting crime.
> 
> jmo, checking bags is proactive. Yes, proactive. Sure there is a real chance for abuse here. I doubt there are many people the government could not rationalize as a "potential criminal" if they really wanted to.
> 
> But let's be real here people, the security officers at a football game are not clandestine undercover government operatives whose sole mission in life is to hijack your rights until this country becomes another Russia or worse. Please keep your imagination for shtf scenarios.


We've been around this before. The Bill of Rights is based on the belief that free men can be trusted. When you cease to respect those rights you are saying that you do not trust the citizenry.

You do not have a right to bear arms in much of the country right now. The right to be free from searches is routinely violated. You cannot publicly practice your religion. Your speech is proscribed. You are no longer truly free and neither am I.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

sorry to burst your bubble, but this entire prepper culture is about free men can not be trusted. First sign of trouble and we believe that the streets will turn to hell.

but lets get back to that bag at a football game, are your feelings hurt so bad from the lack of trust that you refuse to admit that the idea of prevent glass bottles hitting other fans is a good idea?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

Tinkerbell, it sounds a lot like you are endorsing these searches. In fact you seem to reassert the point over and over.

The searches are BS, and I betcha they aren't even being conducted by law enforcement, just some fat security guards or pool staff who wouldn;t know what to do if they found a gun anyhow. 

I do not cator to businesses that support gun control, and I do not like random searches. I don;t even like passing thru those @#$!!!! Border Patrol checkpoints.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

tinkerhell said:


> sorry to burst your bubble, but this entire prepper culture is about free men can not be trusted. First sign of trouble and we believe that the streets will turn to hell.
> 
> but lets get back to that bag at a football game, are your feelings hurt so bad from the lack of trust that you refuse to admit that the idea of prevent glass bottles hitting other fans is a good idea?


If they don't trust me not to throw glass bottles, then I don't trust them to protect me from others throwing glass bottles. Trust is always a two way street. If you don't trust me, why should I trust you?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

We have to keep in mind that our right against search and seizure has a small caveat.
We are protected against "unreasonable" search and seizure.
The fun legal game that comes into play then is, who gets to determine what is reasonable? Society has accepted that an arrested drunk driver has given enough reason to perform a search of their vehicle by breaking the law in said vehicle. There are many others similar to this.

If you're linguistic skills are up to the task, perhaps you can persuade them to let you into the pool without a search, but it isn't likely.
In the end, a court will decide.

Two possible outcomes from this would result in a court case to determine legality.
A.) You do not consent to a search and file suit against the business.
B.) You do not consent to a search, but conceded that it is the only way to enter the establishment, and later file suit for a rights violation.
There is a third, but it would involve you barging through the search line, effectively trespassing, and getting carted off the the klink. You could still file suit, but you would also have to fight a criminal charge. Let's avoid that one, shall we?


----------



## firefighter72 (Apr 18, 2014)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Tinkerbell, it sounds a lot like you are endorsing these searches. In fact you seem to reassert the point over and over.
> 
> The searches are BS, and I betcha they aren't even being conducted by law enforcement, just some fat security guards or pool staff who wouldn;t know what to do if they found a gun anyhow.
> 
> I do not cator to businesses that support gun control, and I do not like random searches. I don;t even like passing thru those @#$!!!! Border Patrol checkpoints.


Don't bet too much on it because you will lose.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Tinkerbell, it sounds a lot like you are endorsing these searches. In fact you seem to reassert the point over and over.


Well, it is not that I don't appreciate your love of rights, and your strong opinion that rights must not be compromised. Because even if this thread polarizes, and I'm left looking like a damned liberal, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I love and revere rights,too.

Please be assured that I am not bothered by the general rhetoric in favor of rights, it would be easy and sincere if I just agreed with you all.

However, I really do want to explore the ideas around proportionality. The logic of proportionality says that any infringement on a right must be as minimal as possible, and it must be proportional to the perceived benefit. This means you can't take away every lawfully owned firearm just to save 1 life. Not only is that an extreme infringement, it is also not proportional to the perceived benefit.

But this logic has a flip side to it that I'm not sure many of you want to talk about or admit. Especially when the only time it might come up is when you are talking to someone that wants to take away your guns ( btw, I'm pro gun rights. Just wanted to say that to be clear lol). The flip side to this is: when the infringement is trivial, and the benefit is proportionately greater than the infringement, if you want to see things as they are, you are going to have to accept inconvenient truths that don't match your overall beliefs system. You might want to say "I'm not happy with that bag check but accept it as a reasonable choice"


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

This is the mantra from the left, no majority rules here. This means you can't take away every lawfully owned firearm just to save 1 life.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jun 25, 2014)

Tink; I'm not trying to hassle you for saying something less than popular on the forum (that'd be the pot calling the kettle). I was just trying to clarify for sake of discussion. It takes some sand to come into a forum like this and take a contrary stance. 

But I still don't agree with you about searches.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

I grew up in a country where no one ever got searched. If you were picking up someone at the airport, you just walked to the gate and met them there, no searches required. The country? USA. I want that country back.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Searched before entering the pool area? That's totally wrong.
> I don;t even let them search my bag when I leave a store. They can see my receipt, but once I pay for the stuff it is my property. They can call the cops if they want, but otherwise piss off. Usually the manager or some clerk says that if I don;t comply I'll be banned from the store...which is stupid because I'm already not coming back to any store that tries to search me (or bans firearms.)
> 
> Firefighter, you were right to tell your friends they are crazy. The stupid thing about what they are doing is that they have essentially created a gun free zone. When some punk decides to commit a mass murder, they'll just shoot the asshole at the gate, promptly followed by everyone else.


Well, I like to be proactive. I'd much prefer to be able to protect the children from a gunman, but that is a little hard to do when I'm on the diving board and not packing. So I guess I'm already disarmed even if there isn't a bag search and a no gun policy.

So now you want to take away the bag search, making it easier for a wacko gunman to start his shooting spree with the children in the pool instead of the clerical people in the front office. Can you explain how that is part of a solution?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

tinkerhell said:


> Well, I like to be proactive. I'm much prefer to be able to protect the children from a gunman, but that is a little hard to do when I'm on the diving board and not packing. So I guess I'm already disarmed even if there isn't a bag search and a no gun policy.
> 
> So now you want to take away the bag search, making it easier for a wacko gunman to start his shooting spree with the children in the pool instead of the clerical people in the front office. Can you explain how that is part of a solution?


Unless armed security is in place, a bag search won't stop the wacko gunman...


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> Unless armed security is in place, a bag search won't stop the wacko gunman...


true, but as twisted as it sounds, it will act as an early warning mechanism for the children that you are trying to protect, giving them more time to run and hide, escape, etc.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

tinkerhell said:


> true, but as twisted as it sounds, it will act as an early warning mechanism for the children that you are trying to protect, giving them more time to run and hide, escape, etc.


Most community pools are fenced in to maintain only one entrance to track who comes and goes.
Normally there aren't many options when it comes to escaping or hiding.
Duck behind a lounger?
Run into a single-entry locker room?
Try to climb a fence?
If the wacko is coming anyway, I'd prefer to be able to get to my bag and retrieve my gun than hide behind a towel.
It is the gun owner's responsibility to restrict access to their weapon.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Is that the case with your local swimming pool? I'm spoiled with modern leisure centers where there are fire exits everywhere, and they are wired to an alarm. 

I wouldn't advise that you head for the locker room, that would be running in the general direction of the wacko gunman. 

Besides, why would you want to store your firearm in a locker room where the admin is worried about people stealing firearms? That is almost like providing the perfect conditions where a wacko can enter the building unarmed,waltz past security(armed or unarmed) and still go on a shooting spree, targeting children first.

Your best bet is to stop the firearms at the door, so the wacko has to carry in his own firearm. Then install a corridor with magnetically sealed doors to trap the gunman while security is stationed at murder holes.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

tinkerhell said:


> Is that the case with your local swimming pool? I'm spoiled with modern leisure centers where there are fire exits everywhere, and they are wired to an alarm.
> 
> I wouldn't advise that you head for the locker room, that would be running in the general direction of the wacko gunman.
> 
> ...


My firearm would be in my bag... next to my chair, poolside.
I would never leave an unsecured firearm outside of my supervision.

It sounds like your community pool is indoors. We have a recreation center that is members-only that has an indoor pool.
For the rest of us scrubs, it is outdoors and fenced in. One way in, one way out.
Your solution for trapping the gunman wouldn't be all that effective given my situation. I don't know the OP's situation, but your scenario still allows an armed gunman to come to the property with zero expectation of resistance from patrons.
Most large-scale attacks with firearms happen in "Gun Free Zones".


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

The likelihood of having to deal with a wacko at a swimming pool is low enough that searching everyone coming in is unwarranted. Your biggest risk is drowning (and that risk is low).

This is security theater. Find another pool.


----------

