• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Backpacks, just say no?

Should backpacks be banned from public events

  • yes

    Votes: 5 9.3%

  • no

    Votes: 49 90.7%
  • Total voters
    54
sawyerloggingon said:
Security has become complacent on backpacks as the quote in the OP points out. Hard to tell by your post what your opinion is on backpacks.
Click to expand...
I guess my opinion is the same as it was for banning hoodies. It's a dumb idea.

Sanga's suggestion on page one seems to make the sense, imo.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Sawed off shotguns are banned because they are easily concealed and can do tremendous damage. People still use pistols to create havoc but the sawed off is illegal to own. Banning backpacks from public events would at least take one weapon away from terrorist and just like the sawed off vs the pistol you at least take the bigger deadlier weapon out of the equation. The backpack ban would be very easy to enforce, they are kind of obvious.
Click to expand...

Backpacks aren't weapons. They have a myriad of useful, harmless purposes. Bombs, like sawed off shotguns, are already illegal, not that that's made a bit if difference, people still make both.

A backpack ban would be completely and utterly useless. That's my point. If your goal is to "do something" even though its a completely useless gesture that wont save a single life go ahead and ban stuff. If on the other hand your goal is actually do something meaningful then you need to look elsewhere.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
In this recent bombing everyone was fixated on the finish line waiting for their friend or loved one to cross it. Discretely setting down your backpack and walking just far enough to get away from the blast means it sits unattended for maybe one minute. Not enough time to be noticed much less reacted to.
Click to expand...

We don't know when that backpack was placed there. But I agree with you . . . it probably wouldn't make any difference.
 
It is. I'm being gently sarcastic and tossing in a little Sci-Fi. But I still have a point. Over-reaction leads to giving victory to the bad guys.



sawyerloggingon said:
Sounds complicated and expensive.
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
How oh how did my generation ever get along without backpacks?:lol:
Click to expand...
What generation would that be that didn't use bags they slung across there backs?
 
Please tell me you're not trying to resurrect the fanny pack.
 
Why just not ban the public from public events and be done with it...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
This Boston bombing could not have taken place if people were not allowed to carry backpacks to events like this. Why does anyone really need a backpack anyway? IMO it would not be asking to much to leave your backpack home. The only time I ever wear one is you know, when I'm going backpacking.

"You have people that have their backpacks with them, a runner may have a hydration pack on them, another person may be coming to watch the race and they may have a backpack," Penza said. "You see them so much, you stop thinking that any of those bags might have explosives."

Marathon Security Practices Scrutinized in Wake of Boston Marathon Explosions - ABC News
Click to expand...

HOLY SHEEP **** BATMAN!! THIS IS WHY I GO ON RANTS!!! :ranton:

ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING !?!?!? BANNING BACKPACKS!!?!?!?!??!

....Sorry that wasn't necessary.....

But seriously?? banning backpacks??? ..... "Hey Lightning, not only are you not allowed to run naked, and not only are we going to try to take your firearms, or AT LEAST limit them because you're a law abiding citizen.... you can't wear a backpack to a race.." :boom :nukeum:


K... I'm done.

:rantoff: :coffeepap
 
Here is what I find really interesting about this thread. Many of the same people who are vehemently anti gun and want them severely restricted in order to "save lives" are not willing to give up their little backpacks to save lives. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly spelled out in the constitution whereas the right to carry a backpack is never mentioned but the anti gun pro backpack crowd says you can have my backpack when you pry it from my cold dead fingers but please take those damn guns. I am also sick to death of hearing the oft repeated catch phrase, 'if we give up XYZ the terrorist win". BS, the terrorist win when they kill and maim Americans. Do burglars win when you install a deadbolt to make it harder for them to break into your house? Did Japan win after they bombed Pearl harbor and America changed its way of life to win that war? I am proud to be in the minority on this subject. I refuse to be a sheep and this is why I call myself an independent, I will not engage in this group think crap. GFY. :)
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Here is what I find really interesting about this thread. Many of the same people who are vehemently anti gun and want them severely restricted in order to "save lives" are not willing to give up their little backpacks to save lives. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly spelled out in the constitution whereas the right to carry a backpack is never mentioned but the anti gun pro backpack crowd says you can have my backpack when you pry it from my cold dead fingers but please take those damn guns. I am also sick to death of hearing the oft repeated catch phrase, 'if we give up XYZ the terrorist win". BS, the terrorist win when they kill and maim Americans. Do burglars win when you install a deadbolt to make it harder for them to break into your house? Did Japan win after they bombed Pearl harbor and America changed its way of life to win that war? I am proud to be in the minority on this subject. I refuse to be a sheep and this is why I call myself an independent, I will not engage in this group think crap. GFY. :)
Click to expand...

Gee, I never saw that one coming! :roll:
 
AFF.. Mistakenly pressed Yes..
 
Perhaps a universal check of mental status for backpack ownership might just be a peachy thing to do. Of course a whole lot of college students and their professors would have sore arms and backs as a result, but hey, free workout right?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Here is what I find really interesting about this thread. Many of the same people who are vehemently anti gun and want them severely restricted in order to "save lives" are not willing to give up their little backpacks to save lives. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly spelled out in the constitution whereas the right to carry a backpack is never mentioned but the anti gun pro backpack crowd says you can have my backpack when you pry it from my cold dead fingers but please take those damn guns. I am also sick to death of hearing the oft repeated catch phrase, 'if we give up XYZ the terrorist win". BS, the terrorist win when they kill and maim Americans. Do burglars win when you install a deadbolt to make it harder for them to break into your house? Did Japan win after they bombed Pearl harbor and America changed its way of life to win that war? I am proud to be in the minority on this subject. I refuse to be a sheep and this is why I call myself an independent, I will not engage in this group think crap. GFY. :)
Click to expand...

I voted we should not ban them at public events. It has nothing to do with letting the terrorists win in my mind. It has everything to do with changing our lives detrimentally for statistically insignificant maybes. We run all kinds of risks every day. Don't want to run the risk of being among backpacks and strollers and large purses and sport duffel bags, etc.? Stay out of large public venues.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Because you just can't live without your backpack?
Click to expand...

As a person without a driver's license (and one who plans on walking a lot even when I get one), I use my backpack and other bags a lot. It is much easier to carry a backpack than it is to carry things openly or even in plastic grocery bags. Just because you are paranoid about the nutball who might put a bomb in a backpack, doesn't mean the rest of us should lose freedom over that paranoia.
 
MaggieD said:
I voted we should not ban them at public events. It has nothing to do with letting the terrorists win in my mind. It has everything to do with changing our lives detrimentally for statistically insignificant maybes. We run all kinds of risks every day. Don't want to run the risk of being among backpacks and strollers and large purses and sport duffel bags, etc.? Stay out of large public venues.
Click to expand...

Back wards thinking IMO. Taking away backpacks takes a huge weapon out of the hands of terrorist. Not carrying a backpack to a public event seems like a rather small inconvenience to suffer if it takes this weapon delivery system out of the hands of terrorist. Your logic here would say don't have airline security, just risk the fact that some terrorist just might blow your plane up, if you don't find that risk acceptable don't fly.
 
roguenuke said:
As a person without a driver's license (and one who plans on walking a lot even when I get one), I use my backpack and other bags a lot. It is much easier to carry a backpack than it is to carry things openly or even in plastic grocery bags. Just because you are paranoid about the nutball who might put a bomb in a backpack, doesn't mean the rest of us should lose freedom over that paranoia.
Click to expand...

Right I'm paranoid. This backpack bombing never happened, I f****** dreamed it.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Right I'm paranoid. This backpack bombing never happened, I f****** dreamed it.
Click to expand...

Things happen all the time. You don't ban things to stop attacks. You don't ban knives on planes to stop terrorists from taking over planes, you actually pay attention to what people are doing. You don't ban guns to stop mass shootings. You pay attention to what is going on and have better security measures in place. You don't ban cars to stop traffic accidents. You punish people who do those things that can cause distractions and are most likely to cause accidents. And you don't ban backpacks to stop bombings. You pay attention to what is going on around you.

And most of all we as a people need to start realizing that things do happen. You can only do so much to prevent bad things from happening, even those things that are caused by other people. Banning instruments used by those bad people to perpetrate their crimes is not the answer. It is a knee-jerk reaction that costs people time and money, and the heavier toll of personal freedoms for a small feeling of safety that many of those it affects don't even really feel.
 
roguenuke said:
Things happen all the time. You don't ban things to stop attacks. You don't ban knives on planes to stop terrorists from taking over planes, you actually pay attention to what people are doing. You don't ban guns to stop mass shootings. You pay attention to what is going on and have better security measures in place. You don't ban cars to stop traffic accidents. You punish people who do those things that can cause distractions and are most likely to cause accidents. And you don't ban backpacks to stop bombings. You pay attention to what is going on around you.

And most of all we as a people need to start realizing that things do happen. You can only do so much to prevent bad things from happening, even those things that are caused by other people. Banning instruments used by those bad people to perpetrate their crimes is not the answer. It is a knee-jerk reaction that costs people time and money, and the heavier toll of personal freedoms for a small feeling of safety that many of those it affects don't even really feel.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that after 9-11 when box cutters were banned from planes it was stupid, paranoid even.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So you are saying that after 9-11 when box cutters were banned from planes it was stupid, paranoid even.
Click to expand...

Honestly, yes. I think the event itself made us more safe than any measures taken since then have. What has prevented the other attempts at hijacking a plane in the last 12 years has been vigilance and passenger/staff action.

Now, there really isn't much need for a boxcutter onboard an airplane, so it may not be unreasonable to at least question someone who is taking one in their carryons, but it is unreasonable to ban many of the other things that are being banned in the name of plane security, such as liquids and sharp, pointy objects.
 
roguenuke said:
Honestly, yes. I think the event itself made us more safe than any measures taken since then have. What has prevented the other attempts at hijacking a plane in the last 12 years has been vigilance and passenger/staff action.

Now, there really isn't much need for a boxcutter onboard an airplane, so it may not be unreasonable to at least question someone who is taking one in their carryons, but it is unreasonable to ban many of the other things that are being banned in the name of plane security, such as liquids and sharp, pointy objects.
Click to expand...

Well I guess we could go back and forth all night on this but I'm really not in the mood. All I can say is if more people are killed because people like you refuse to give up the convenience of a backpack at a public event you are the one that has to sleep at night. I just don't know how I have lived my entire life without once carrying a backpack except when I actually go backpacking, you know that thing they were made for where you carry a sleeping bag, a tent, food, clothes a fishing poll,:roll:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Well I guess we could go back and forth all night on this but I'm really not in the mood. All I can say is if more people are killed because people like you refuse to give up the convenience of a backpack at a public event you are the one that has to sleep at night. I just don't know how I have lived my entire life without once carrying a backpack except when I actually go backpacking, you know that thing they were made for where you carry a sleeping bag, a tent, food, clothes a fishing poll,:roll:
Click to expand...

I'll sleep just fine because I had nothing to do with it. The blame rests solely on the shoulders of those who perpetrated the act, not those who have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's called logic. Logically I had nothing to do with a person deciding that they should use a backpack to carry around their instruments of destruction and them being allowed to do so because backpacks are not lethal by themselves.

To me, what you are suggesting is no different than telling someone they should feel ashamed for not believing in massive gun control because some psycho decides to use a gun to kill people.

Just because you only use your backpack in a very limited manner, doesn't mean the rest of us should be held to that same standard.
 
roguenuke said:
I'll sleep just fine because I had nothing to do with it. The blame rests solely on the shoulders of those who perpetrated the act, not those who have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's called logic. Logically I had nothing to do with a person deciding that they should use a backpack to carry around their instruments of destruction and them being allowed to do so because backpacks are not lethal by themselves.

To me, what you are suggesting is no different than telling someone they should feel ashamed for not believing in massive gun control because some psycho decides to use a gun to kill people.

Just because you only use your backpack in a very limited manner, doesn't mean the rest of us should be held to that same standard.
Click to expand...

I have made my position clear and will give you the last word. Goodnight :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom