• 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
madman said:
A high school full of kids and adults is NOT a large crowd.

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

Not to mention there is a much better chance of doing massive damage and having more casualties on something like a mass transit trolley system in the middle of the afternoon when I have personally seen it full of people. In fact, when the Padres have a game, they fill the trolleys to max capacity, running extras. The people have all sorts of bags with them, because many are going to the game while others are going to work or school or coming home from those places or going shopping. Do we ban the backpacks in these highly crowded instances for hours at a time simply because this is a high population area, with the potential for not only a large amount of casualties on the trolley alone (not even taken into account potential collateral damage if the bomb was detonated in the middle of San Diego) but also the fact that with such crowding, it is highly unlikely that an unattended bag would be noticed as a threat or noticed at all?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You keep changing the subject. This thread is about banning backpacks at crowded events that are terrorist targets not banning them altogether.
Click to expand...

I gave a good example in an above post of a much more crowded potential target than the Boston Marathon here in San Diego that even deals with a sporting event. Every time the Padres play, the trolleys here are packed. You can barely move. This is mainly due to the amount of people going to the games, but there are plenty of people doing other things, like going to school, work, home, or just shopping. The same as was happening at the Boston Marathon. It is impractical to ban all backpacks in that large of an area. Even when we are talking about sporting events in arenas or stadiums, they don't ban bags, just search them, and that is the people who are specifically going to watch the event. People on the street, just going about their daily business should not be forced to be searched just because someone might have a bomb in their bag.
 
roguenuke said:
I gave a good example in an above post of a much more crowded potential target than the Boston Marathon here in San Diego that even deals with a sporting event. Every time the Padres play, the trolleys here are packed. You can barely move. This is mainly due to the amount of people going to the games, but there are plenty of people doing other things, like going to school, work, home, or just shopping. The same as was happening at the Boston Marathon. It is impractical to ban all backpacks in that large of an area. Even when we are talking about sporting events in arenas or stadiums, they don't ban bags, just search them, and that is the people who are specifically going to watch the event. People on the street, just going about their daily business should not be forced to be searched just because someone might have a bomb in their bag.
Click to expand...

Once again I have to wonder how I have managed to live my entire life without ever carrying a backpack unless I was actually backpacking.:lol: The importance people put on these things nowadays borders on obsessive compulsive behavior.It's like trying to convince an alcoholic to give up the bottle and once again I have to say, "you can have my backpack when you pry it from my cold dead fingers". :lol:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Never been more serious in my forum life.
Click to expand...

Ummmmm huh...

sawyerloggingon said:
Once again I have to wonder how I have managed to live my entire life without ever carrying a backpack unless I was actually backpacking.:lol: The importance people put on these things nowadays borders on obsessive compulsive behavior.It's like trying to convince an alcoholic to give up the bottle and once again I have to say, "you can have my backpack when you pry it from my cold dead fingers". :lol:
Click to expand...
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Once again I have to wonder how I have managed to live my entire life without ever carrying a backpack unless I was actually backpacking.:lol: The importance people put on these things nowadays borders on obsessive compulsive behavior.It's like trying to convince an alcoholic to give up the bottle and once again I have to say, "you can have my backpack when you pry it from my cold dead fingers". :lol:
Click to expand...

Now you're just being absurd. My backpack is a highly valuable tool to me when I leave the house because I don't drive. There is very little reason for me to leave the house unless I am doing something such as going to school (need books and other school materials), going to work (need uniforms or change of clothes, plus almost always need paperwork, and lately I have to also carry a binder with CPO training stuff, not to mention any number of other things, sometimes I end up needing a backpack and a sport's bag going to work), or going to the store (where I am environmentally conscience and believe it is a waste to not carry my own bags, which usually go into my backpack when not filled). Plus, I enjoy entertainment. Why should I have to give stuff up just so you feel a little bit safer (which is really only an illusion, since it really isn't making you that much safer if I'm not allowed to carry a backpack around)? Heck, you driving a car puts me at greater risk than my carrying a backpack puts you.
 
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...
When I go to a public event at which I will be for any length of time, I pack lunch, drinks and usually a book in a small back pack for those times I get hungry, thirsty or bored.

Which reminds me of a story about Baader Meinhof in the 70's. The MPs at the IGFarben complex were so intent on examining the under carriage of cars for explosives they overlooked a bicycler who apparently packed all of the metal tubes of his bike with HE and blew up the from of the Officer's Club.

Maybe we should only be allowed in crowds if we are nude?:lamo
 
There should be a none of the above vote.
So - no vote..
Of course, the prohibition of anything never works, does it......??
But the nutsoid extremists will find a way..
Whoever thought of box openers as a terrible - horrific weapon ??
Now , pressure cookers and back-packs.
The problem....., the root cause is being ignored..
Mans hatred , his ignorance and fear...
 
roguenuke said:
Now you're just being absurd. My backpack is a highly valuable tool to me when I leave the house because I don't drive. There is very little reason for me to leave the house unless I am doing something such as going to school (need books and other school materials), going to work (need uniforms or change of clothes, plus almost always need paperwork, and lately I have to also carry a binder with CPO training stuff, not to mention any number of other things, sometimes I end up needing a backpack and a sport's bag going to work), or going to the store (where I am environmentally conscience and believe it is a waste to not carry my own bags, which usually go into my backpack when not filled). Plus, I enjoy entertainment. Why should I have to give stuff up just so you feel a little bit safer (which is really only an illusion, since it really isn't making you that much safer if I'm not allowed to carry a backpack around)? Heck, you driving a car puts me at greater risk than my carrying a backpack puts you.
Click to expand...

Why don't you drive? Those reusable shopping bags have been proven to spread cooties.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Why don't you drive? Those reusable shopping bags have been proven to spread cooties.
Click to expand...

Never got a license. Working on it, especially now that my husband is laid up with a broke knee.

Those only spread cooties if you don't take care of them.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Why does anyone really need a backpack anyway?
Click to expand...

Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg
 
No. I refuse to give up any more liberties because of some asshole with a ****ed up "cause".
 
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.
Click to expand...
Which kills more people, backpacks or guns? My money is on the guns.

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...
The right not to have your backpack searched or confiscated is clearly written in the constitution, too. Funny, how you didn't know that.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
Ban backpacks from public events?

Why not large purses?

Baggie jeans?

Baggie coats?

Motorized wheelchairs?

All these 'things' could conceivably conceal explosives.


Or, we can act reasonable and realize that it is impossible to have 100% safety during public events.

If some nut wants to kill people badly enough and has some resourcefulness - they are probably going to do it.


You can either restrict people's rights and freedoms - or suck it up and live life.

I choose the latter.
 
Moot said:
Which kills more people, backpacks or guns? My money is on the guns.

The right not to have your backpack searched or confiscated is clearly written in the constitution, too. Funny, how you didn't know that.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

If you don't allow them in public events there is no pack to search.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I know you are trying to be cute and sarcastic but really guns don't kill people bullets do. It is very difficult to insert a bullet into your heart manually.
Click to expand...
But I am cute. <bats eyelashes>

Thats right, a bullet needs a gun to kill people. But a bomb doesn't need a backpack. See how that works?
 
Moot said:
Thats right, a bullet needs a gun to kill people.
Click to expand...

Not true. A slingshot will crack a skull. Someone could throw rounds into a fire. Someone could drop one from a tall building and it lands on someone's head. Really, the possibilities are endless.
 
Liberals can't ban bags, they would have no where to carry their weed, rolling papers, and other drugs
 
ecofarm said:
Not true. A slingshot will crack a skull. Someone could throw rounds into a fire. Someone could drop one from a tall building and it lands on someone's head. Really, the possibilities are endless.
Click to expand...
Are you arguing for a bullet ban, now? lol

I've never heard of anyone getting murdered with a backpack. But I have with guns, bullets and bombs. Yet the OP only wants to ban backpacks. LOL Do you see the absurdity of his logic? Given the absurdity of your post above I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't.
 
Moot said:
Are you arguing for a bullet ban, now? lol

I've never heard of anyone getting murdered with a backpack. But I have with guns, bullets and bombs. Yet the OP only wants to ban backpacks. LOL Do you see the absurdity of his logic? Given the absurdity of your post above I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't.
Click to expand...

I think banning backpacks is ridiculous. But so is claiming that bullets can only kill with a gun.

You're both wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom