Every single educator I know, and there are lots from pre-school up through college professors, think arming teachers is stupid.
Many of us think banning guns is stupid.
Banning all guns could never happen. Most are talking about assault weapons . Do you think that's stupid and please explain why, if yes.
I don’t think banning the AR15 would change anything. There are many similar guns. Also, a valid argument from friends is that they want to own a gun similar to what the government has possession of. Many people don’t like that argument, but many people don’t want to end up like Rome, Cuba, China, German/Poland, ect. I think it’s a valid argument personally, but purely my opinion.
That is why it is pointless to ban a gun by name. Ban features of a gun. i don’t think assault rifles should be banned, in beleieve fixed magazines with a limit will have a more greater inpact
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,661
Every single educator I know, and there are lots from pre-school up through college professors, think arming teachers is stupid.
Many of us think banning guns is stupid.
Banning all guns could never happen. Most are talking about assault weapons . Do you think that's stupid and please explain why, if yes.
I don’t think banning the AR15 would change anything. There are many similar guns. Also, a valid argument from friends is that they want to own a gun similar to what the government has possession of. Many people don’t like that argument, but many people don’t want to end up like Rome, Cuba, China, German/Poland, ect. I think it’s a valid argument personally, but purely my opinion.
That is why it is pointless to ban a gun by name. Ban features of a gun. i don’t think assault rifles should be banned, in beleieve fixed magazines with a limit will have a more greater inpact
I think that's what most of us mean when we call for banning automatic weapons or AR-15 type weapons.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Every single educator I know, and there are lots from pre-school up through college professors, think arming teachers is stupid.
Many of us think banning guns is stupid.
Banning all guns could never happen. Most are talking about assault weapons . Do you think that's stupid and please explain why, if yes.
I don’t think banning the AR15 would change anything. There are many similar guns. Also, a valid argument from friends is that they want to own a gun similar to what the government has possession of. Many people don’t like that argument, but many people don’t want to end up like Rome, Cuba, China, German/Poland, ect. I think it’s a valid argument personally, but purely my opinion.
That is why it is pointless to ban a gun by name. Ban features of a gun. i don’t think assault rifles should be banned, in beleieve fixed magazines with a limit will have a more greater inpact
I think that's what most of us mean when we call for banning automatic weapons or AR-15 type weapons.
Exactly. Rubio tried that crap last night. Everyone saw through it.
I want to clarify that I don’t know where I stand on a ban on assault rifles. I’m just trying to state aruguments that have been brought up by people close to me.
I believe people have a right to be upset, it’s terrible what has happened. But this wouldn’t be a debate if there weren’t two sides. I believe nobody wants school shooting, but I believe everyone has different ideas on how to stop them.
In a thread that is left of center ( fair to say? ) I just want to offer a more right leaning view point, because that’s what I was around growing up.
I do do not know where I stand on an assault rifle ban.
I want to clarify that I don’t know where I stand on a ban on assault rifles. I’m just trying to state aruguments that have been brought up by people close to me.
I believe people have a right to be upset, it’s terrible what has happened. But this wouldn’t be a debate if there weren’t two sides. I believe nobody wants school shooting, but I believe everyone has different ideas on how to stop them.
In a thread that is left of center ( fair to say? ) I just want to offer a more right leaning view point, because that’s what I was around growing up.
I do do not know where I stand on an assault rifle ban.
Fair enough. I think most of us find it hard to understand how adding more guns or armed security is going to be the answer to the overall gun violence problem. Does adding more police stop crime or violence? No.
We've mainly been discussing mass shootings and banning/restricting/limiting the weapon style of choice being used. That alone will not end gun violence, but it will have an affect if the next shooter can't purchase it any where legally. If overall gun violence is to change then handguns need to be addressed and how they can be obtained.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Every single educator I know, and there are lots from pre-school up through college professors, think arming teachers is stupid.
Many of us think banning guns is stupid.
Banning all guns could never happen. Most are talking about assault weapons . Do you think that's stupid and please explain why, if yes.
I don’t think banning the AR15 would change anything. There are many similar guns. Also, a valid argument from friends is that they want to own a gun similar to what the government has possession of. Many people don’t like that argument, but many people don’t want to end up like Rome, Cuba, China, German/Poland, ect. I think it’s a valid argument personally, but purely my opinion.
That is why it is pointless to ban a gun by name. Ban features of a gun. i don’t think assault rifles should be banned, in beleieve fixed magazines with a limit will have a more greater inpact
This is reasonable.
How do you feel about a pistol grip rifle? My feel is that style of stock allows for easier shooting from many different positions: a trade off where shooting rapidly with versatility is enhanced (killing many things in close contact).
I guess I'm saying I don't like it given its purpose by design. I think Power spoke to the assault rifle and its usefulness against wild pigs. Is the pistol grip stock an invaluable feature for hunters?
To your point about the AR15 rifle: it has many undesirable and dangerous features that make it something people should concern themselves over.
So these teachers we’re gonna arm...do they have to spend their free time at movie theaters, concerts, malls, and all the other places people go on shooting sprees?
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
So these teachers we’re gonna arm...do they have to spend their free time at movie theaters, concerts, malls, and all the other places people go on shooting sprees?
Another fallacy in that thinking, but when you bring it up it's a straw man theory. Yeah, sure, whatever makes adding guns seem like the best idea.
It's a hopeless situation...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,661
Saw this on FB. IT's a bit long but the arguments sure make sense to me:
“Completely agree with the sentiment here, Mom. However, in order to
make educated arguments for gun control, it's important to actually
know what you're proposing and use the right language. Otherwise, you'll
just get completely shut down as "not knowing anything about guns" to
people you're trying to convince. And if you don't know anything about
guns, you can't really advocate for responsible gun policy.
AR15s
are not the problem alone. Yes, it's the most popular military-style
rifle, and it is designed to kill people effectively. But banning one
model of weapon will just make people switch to other, equally effective
killing machines. If you banned the Toyota Camry, would people stop
buying midsize sedans? No, you'd just end up with more Honda Accords on
the road. If you want to fix the problem, you have to ban all
semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic means the weapon is loaded with a
magazine (or belt in some cases) with multiple rounds; and for every
trigger squeeze, one bullet is discharged. There is no real need for
these weapons in civilian use. They aren't necessary for hunting, where
the point is to kill the animal with one shot. It is only useful for
killing a lot of things in a short amount of time or having fun at a gun
range. I think our children's lives are more important than a fraction
of the population's fun shooting a bunch of rounds quickly at a range.
They'll cope.
Handguns are far more responsible for gun deaths in
America than semi-auto rifles. You mentioned the kid who brought a gun
to school as only having a "handgun, not a semi-automatic." Well, almost
all handguns are semi-automatic. They have magazines and one bullet per
trigger squeeze. Though most handgun rounds aren't as deadly as rifle
rounds, it's inconsequential at short range. And handguns are far easier
to conceal than a rifle. With the exception of maybe revolvers (which
have 5-6 round max before reloading), I believe handguns should be
outlawed. The Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in
American history, was accomplished with handguns only. Don't
underestimate their lethality. I think military style rifles only
account for about 2% of gun deaths each year. If you want to solve the
problem, semi-auto handguns have to go, as well.
If we really
want to make a difference in gun deaths, we need to do WAY more than
universal background checks and better mental health screening. Banning
all semi-automatic weapons would make that difference. Keeping shotguns,
revolvers, and bolt-action rifles legal accomplish all the typical,
common uses of guns. (Bolt-action rifles are typical hunting rifles that
you have to reload between shots.) With these types of firearms legal,
you can still hunt, defend your home, and compete in sport shooting.
Combine the following with the semi-auto ban.
Government buy-back program of all semi-automatic weapons. Once a grace
period for turn-ins ends, possession will be a felony without a special
(and rare) license for Federally approved dealers and collectors.
Gun licenses for all who want to continue to own approved firearms.
Licenses will be granted by completing a comprehensive background check,
psych evaluation, safety training, marksmanship training, and meeting
strict storage requirements. Storage requirements would include safes,
weapons unloaded, with ammo stored separately. Licenses expire after a
certain number of years and all the requirements must be completed again
for license renewal. Registration of all firearms. Insurance
for all firearms. If your gun is used in a crime or if there's a
accident with your gun, your insurance company is liable for damages.
Let the insurance market set rates based on their analysis of risk.
Then, people can decide if it's financially worth it to own a gun.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,661
continued:
Finally, here's your counterarguments for the most common pro-gun arguments: Pro-gun argument - assault weapons aren't an actual thing. Banning them won't make a difference.
Counterargument - none. This is true. Classifying a gun as an "assault
weapon" is something people who know nothing about guns do. Having a
bayonet stud (a place to mount a bayonet) used to be one way to classify
a gun as an assault weapon. Last I checked, we don't have a bayonet
problem in this country. Talk about banning semi-auto guns instead of
made-up things like "assault weapons." Pro-gun argument - 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms!
Counterargument - sure, it does, but there can be limitations. And in
case anyone needs a history lesson, the individual right to bear arms
has only existed since 2008. From the adoption of the Constitution until
the DC v. Heller decision in 2008, the 2nd Amendment had never been
interpreted to mean private citizens have a right to own guns. (Thanks,
Scalia.) But that decision is now the law of the land and precedent for
future court decisions. Nevertheless, even in Scalia's majority opinion,
he asserts that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Weapons
allowed should be those in common use at the time. And limitations
should be made on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, per previous
precedent in United States v. Miller. I argue that semi-auto firearms
should now be considered "dangerous and unusual," given their lethality.
Pro-gun argument - if law-abiding citizens get rid of their guns, criminals won't follow the law, and we'll be in more danger.
Counterargument - this is an argument against having laws. Since
criminals don't follow the law, there should be no limits on anything.
Also, when we do outlaw things, it can work. Purchases of large
quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was restricted after the
Oklahoma City bombing, and there hasn't been a similar bombing since. We
outlawed fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. in
the 20th century, and what has happened? We don't see violence with
those types of weapons. Most weapons used to commit crimes are purchased
lawfully. If we change the laws, it will work to reduce gun deaths. Pro-gun argument - if we ban guns, people will just use knives or baseball bats
Counterargument - there are plenty of incidents around the world of
mass stabbings or clubbings, etc. Show me one that is as lethal as a
mass shooting. Pro-gun argument - we need armed security guards in every school
Counterargument - do you trust the security guard won't become a mass
shooter? The Texas church shooter was an Air Force veteran. The Pulse
nightclub shooter was a security guard. Further, it's relatively easy to
get the drop on a security guard. Shoot him first when he's not
expecting, then keep going. That's what the Pulse nightclub shooter did.
It's not difficult if you draw first. Columbine had armed security,
too. Adding more guns to schools adds more risk, it doesn't reduce it. Pro-gun argument - it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue *or* guns don't kill people, people kill people
Counterargument - The United States has the same rates of mental
illness as other developed Western countries, but we're the only ones
with this type of violence. The mentally ill are actually less likely to
commit crime than those who aren't mentally ill, which many find
surprising. Also, those who are mentally ill are more likely to become
the victim of a crime than those who don't have mental illness. It's a
common refrain to hear "anyone who would do that must be crazy." That's
not true. Being a murderer doesn't actually mean you are mentally ill,
which is why you hardly ever see successful insanity defenses in trials.
And if "people kill people," then we really should stop giving all
these people guns, right? We don't allow private F-22s or nuclear
weapons, do we? Why? Because people would use them to kill other people.
People use people-killing machines to kill people. Go figure.
Pro-gun argument - We, as a society, have turned our backs on God. This
is why crime is getting worse. We need God/Jesus to heal people's
hearts, not get rid of law-abiding citizens' guns. Counterargument -
Crime has actually decreased overall in recent decades. Things are
getting better, not worse. Murder rates and violent crime overall have
trended down as we've advanced as a society. Mass shootings have
remained steady, though, because angry people have easy access to guns. Pro-gun argument - we need guns to fight against the government in case it becomes tyrannical.
Counterargument - I doubt semi-automatic weapons will defeat a
tyrannical government with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery,
drones, advanced cyber capabilities, and nuclear weapons. Pro-gun argument - gun registrations will make it easier for the government to disarm us
Counterargument - The registration is necessary to keep track of deadly
weapons in case they are used in a crime, or in case a law-abiding
citizen commits a crime that revokes their right to guns. There's over
300 million privately owned guns in America. If the government wanted to
take everyone's guns, they'd do it the same way they would if there
wasn't a registry: by going door to door and searching everyone. I
truly believe we need to do far more than anything advocated by most
mainstream gun control organizations like Everytown and Moms Demand
Action. We need to follow the lead of countries like the UK, Australia,
and Canada. They've figured it out. Why can't we?”
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Can we summarize the suggested actions (for either handling the gun problem in schools or public areas)? Not the reasons behind them, just strictly the actions themselves. At this point, I think I’ve heard:
1. Arm teachers with tasers 2. Arm teachers with guns 3. Deploy armed guards in schools 4. Deploy armed guards in public facilities 5. Ban guns 6. Ban assault type weapons 7. Increase gun control
Have I missed any?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Can we summarize the suggested actions (for either handling the gun problem in schools or public areas)? Not the reasons behind them, just strictly the actions themselves. At this point, I think I’ve heard:
1. Arm teachers with tasers 2. Arm teachers with guns 3. Deploy armed guards in schools 4. Deploy armed guards in public facilities 5. Ban guns 6. Ban assault type weapons 7. Increase gun control
As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.
In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.
I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?
The deadliest bullet in the world is a .22 bullet. When you see it up close it doesn't look like much but it's a killer. Most people don't know or don't really care.
Add .003 to that bullet and you have the .223 bullet. The same bullet that is used in an AR-15. Now everyone seems to care.
I don’t think that is accurate. And you can’t compare a .22 to .223, the .223 has far more power behind it, which makes it deadly. while .22 can easily be deadly, they don’t compare to many other calibers. id take my chances against a .22 over a .357 any day.
.357 is nasty but is often a cleaner wound. .22 has a nasty habit of bouncing inside the ribcage and leaving erratic bleeding patterns.
So these teachers we’re gonna arm...do they have to spend their free time at movie theaters, concerts, malls, and all the other places people go on shooting sprees?
Another fallacy in that thinking, but when you bring it up it's a straw man theory. Yeah, sure, whatever makes adding guns seem like the best idea.
It's straw man, plus I don't know what other logical fallacies, probably several. Not an expert. What happens in public on personal, private time isn't really relevant to what happens when you send your kids to a government institution every day.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with people looking at history, saying “that was aweful. I don’t want that to happen”. So they take necessary caution just Incase. These guns are stowed, hidden, just Incase something happens.
Also, what’s wrong with storing canned foods Incase of natural disaster? I always buy extra canned foods when on sale to store in the pantry.
I promise that rhe responsible fire fire arm owners that I know will not murder your kids at school.
How about people looking at recent history and saying “that was awful. We don’t want that to happen again”? Recent as in last week? A repeat of that is far more likely than the scenario your friends fear.
I want to clarify that I don’t know where I stand on a ban on assault rifles. I’m just trying to state aruguments that have been brought up by people close to me.
I believe people have a right to be upset, it’s terrible what has happened. But this wouldn’t be a debate if there weren’t two sides. I believe nobody wants school shooting, but I believe everyone has different ideas on how to stop them.
In a thread that is left of center ( fair to say? ) I just want to offer a more right leaning view point, because that’s what I was around growing up.
I do do not know where I stand on an assault rifle ban.
Guns to protect from a tyrannical US goverment/military is horse shit. Literally a big steaming pile of horseshit that a 5 year old should realize is ridiculous
If anyone has guns to protect them from the US government, I'm sorry, but that's just flat out dumb
0
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,214
Yep saw this what a damn shame , he lost his courage when he needed it most ...
Proves the point that you not only need better security at schools and better background checks, you need to limit the tool used to carry out such horrific events just in case...
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,214
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
I want to clarify that I don’t know where I stand on a ban on assault rifles. I’m just trying to state aruguments that have been brought up by people close to me.
I believe people have a right to be upset, it’s terrible what has happened. But this wouldn’t be a debate if there weren’t two sides. I believe nobody wants school shooting, but I believe everyone has different ideas on how to stop them.
In a thread that is left of center ( fair to say? ) I just want to offer a more right leaning view point, because that’s what I was around growing up.
I do do not know where I stand on an assault rifle ban.
Guns to protect from a tyrannical US goverment/military is horse shit. Literally a big steaming pile of horseshit that a 5 year old should realize is ridiculous
If anyone has guns to protect them from the US government, I'm sorry, but that's just flat out dumb
It's not just the "tyrannical" U.S. government that the conspiracy theorists are afraid of. They firmly believe that President Obama will be sending in his U.N. troops to take their guns.
0
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,214
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Finally, here's your counterarguments for the most common pro-gun arguments: Pro-gun argument - assault weapons aren't an actual thing. Banning them won't make a difference.
Counterargument - none. This is true. Classifying a gun as an "assault
weapon" is something people who know nothing about guns do. Having a
bayonet stud (a place to mount a bayonet) used to be one way to classify
a gun as an assault weapon. Last I checked, we don't have a bayonet
problem in this country. Talk about banning semi-auto guns instead of
made-up things like "assault weapons." Pro-gun argument - 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms!
Counterargument - sure, it does, but there can be limitations. And in
case anyone needs a history lesson, the individual right to bear arms
has only existed since 2008. From the adoption of the Constitution until
the DC v. Heller decision in 2008, the 2nd Amendment had never been
interpreted to mean private citizens have a right to own guns. (Thanks,
Scalia.) But that decision is now the law of the land and precedent for
future court decisions. Nevertheless, even in Scalia's majority opinion,
he asserts that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Weapons
allowed should be those in common use at the time. And limitations
should be made on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, per previous
precedent in United States v. Miller. I argue that semi-auto firearms
should now be considered "dangerous and unusual," given their lethality.
Pro-gun argument - if law-abiding citizens get rid of their guns, criminals won't follow the law, and we'll be in more danger.
Counterargument - this is an argument against having laws. Since
criminals don't follow the law, there should be no limits on anything.
Also, when we do outlaw things, it can work. Purchases of large
quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was restricted after the
Oklahoma City bombing, and there hasn't been a similar bombing since. We
outlawed fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. in
the 20th century, and what has happened? We don't see violence with
those types of weapons. Most weapons used to commit crimes are purchased
lawfully. If we change the laws, it will work to reduce gun deaths. Pro-gun argument - if we ban guns, people will just use knives or baseball bats
Counterargument - there are plenty of incidents around the world of
mass stabbings or clubbings, etc. Show me one that is as lethal as a
mass shooting. Pro-gun argument - we need armed security guards in every school
Counterargument - do you trust the security guard won't become a mass
shooter? The Texas church shooter was an Air Force veteran. The Pulse
nightclub shooter was a security guard. Further, it's relatively easy to
get the drop on a security guard. Shoot him first when he's not
expecting, then keep going. That's what the Pulse nightclub shooter did.
It's not difficult if you draw first. Columbine had armed security,
too. Adding more guns to schools adds more risk, it doesn't reduce it. Pro-gun argument - it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue *or* guns don't kill people, people kill people
Counterargument - The United States has the same rates of mental
illness as other developed Western countries, but we're the only ones
with this type of violence. The mentally ill are actually less likely to
commit crime than those who aren't mentally ill, which many find
surprising. Also, those who are mentally ill are more likely to become
the victim of a crime than those who don't have mental illness. It's a
common refrain to hear "anyone who would do that must be crazy." That's
not true. Being a murderer doesn't actually mean you are mentally ill,
which is why you hardly ever see successful insanity defenses in trials.
And if "people kill people," then we really should stop giving all
these people guns, right? We don't allow private F-22s or nuclear
weapons, do we? Why? Because people would use them to kill other people.
People use people-killing machines to kill people. Go figure.
Pro-gun argument - We, as a society, have turned our backs on God. This
is why crime is getting worse. We need God/Jesus to heal people's
hearts, not get rid of law-abiding citizens' guns. Counterargument -
Crime has actually decreased overall in recent decades. Things are
getting better, not worse. Murder rates and violent crime overall have
trended down as we've advanced as a society. Mass shootings have
remained steady, though, because angry people have easy access to guns. Pro-gun argument - we need guns to fight against the government in case it becomes tyrannical.
Counterargument - I doubt semi-automatic weapons will defeat a
tyrannical government with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery,
drones, advanced cyber capabilities, and nuclear weapons. Pro-gun argument - gun registrations will make it easier for the government to disarm us
Counterargument - The registration is necessary to keep track of deadly
weapons in case they are used in a crime, or in case a law-abiding
citizen commits a crime that revokes their right to guns. There's over
300 million privately owned guns in America. If the government wanted to
take everyone's guns, they'd do it the same way they would if there
wasn't a registry: by going door to door and searching everyone. I
truly believe we need to do far more than anything advocated by most
mainstream gun control organizations like Everytown and Moms Demand
Action. We need to follow the lead of countries like the UK, Australia,
and Canada. They've figured it out. Why can't we?”
This person literally just said earlier that they wanted to ban ALL guns that weren't a revolver or bolt action so basically every semi-auto out there. Setting up the registration puts forth the confiscating of those guns that this person wants banned.
Ok, a teacher sacrifices his life to save students and a security cop cowered outside and the conclusion you draw is ass-backwards. The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh. DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
Is this in response to me? I'm not sure I follow
No, a general response to mruss and my2hands and a few others who are using the cops cowardice to justify their feelings that teachers shouldn't be armed, even though a teacher laid his life on the line, unarmed.
Are you for arming teachers then?
I am for allowing physically fit and emotionally stable teachers to arm themselves voluntarily under strict guidelines and supervision if they have passed a thorough vetting, testing, and training program which would be an abbreviated version of police academy standards.
Comments
i don’t think assault rifles should be banned, in beleieve fixed magazines with a limit will have a more greater inpact
I believe people have a right to be upset, it’s terrible what has happened. But this wouldn’t be a debate if there weren’t two sides. I believe nobody wants school shooting, but I believe everyone has different ideas on how to stop them.
In a thread that is left of center ( fair to say? ) I just want to offer a more right leaning view point, because that’s what I was around growing up.
I do do not know where I stand on an assault rifle ban.
We've mainly been discussing mass shootings and banning/restricting/limiting the weapon style of choice being used. That alone will not end gun violence, but it will have an affect if the next shooter can't purchase it any where legally. If overall gun violence is to change then handguns need to be addressed and how they can be obtained.
There was an armed guard in Florida, paid handsomely
He cowered outside the building while students were slaughtered
'It's devastating': Cop stayed outside during Florida massacre while students died
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/365122002
This is reasonable.
How do you feel about a pistol grip rifle? My feel is that style of stock allows for easier shooting from many different positions: a trade off where shooting rapidly with versatility is enhanced (killing many things in close contact).
I guess I'm saying I don't like it given its purpose by design. I think Power spoke to the assault rifle and its usefulness against wild pigs. Is the pistol grip stock an invaluable feature for hunters?
To your point about the AR15 rifle: it has many undesirable and dangerous features that make it something people should concern themselves over.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
“Completely agree with the sentiment here, Mom. However, in order to make educated arguments for gun control, it's important to actually know what you're proposing and use the right language. Otherwise, you'll just get completely shut down as "not knowing anything about guns" to people you're trying to convince. And if you don't know anything about guns, you can't really advocate for responsible gun policy.
AR15s are not the problem alone. Yes, it's the most popular military-style rifle, and it is designed to kill people effectively. But banning one model of weapon will just make people switch to other, equally effective killing machines. If you banned the Toyota Camry, would people stop buying midsize sedans? No, you'd just end up with more Honda Accords on the road. If you want to fix the problem, you have to ban all semi-automatic rifles. Semi-automatic means the weapon is loaded with a magazine (or belt in some cases) with multiple rounds; and for every trigger squeeze, one bullet is discharged. There is no real need for these weapons in civilian use. They aren't necessary for hunting, where the point is to kill the animal with one shot. It is only useful for killing a lot of things in a short amount of time or having fun at a gun range. I think our children's lives are more important than a fraction of the population's fun shooting a bunch of rounds quickly at a range. They'll cope.
Handguns are far more responsible for gun deaths in America than semi-auto rifles. You mentioned the kid who brought a gun to school as only having a "handgun, not a semi-automatic." Well, almost all handguns are semi-automatic. They have magazines and one bullet per trigger squeeze. Though most handgun rounds aren't as deadly as rifle rounds, it's inconsequential at short range. And handguns are far easier to conceal than a rifle. With the exception of maybe revolvers (which have 5-6 round max before reloading), I believe handguns should be outlawed. The Virginia Tech massacre, the most deadly school shooting in American history, was accomplished with handguns only. Don't underestimate their lethality. I think military style rifles only account for about 2% of gun deaths each year. If you want to solve the problem, semi-auto handguns have to go, as well.
If we really want to make a difference in gun deaths, we need to do WAY more than universal background checks and better mental health screening. Banning all semi-automatic weapons would make that difference. Keeping shotguns, revolvers, and bolt-action rifles legal accomplish all the typical, common uses of guns. (Bolt-action rifles are typical hunting rifles that you have to reload between shots.) With these types of firearms legal, you can still hunt, defend your home, and compete in sport shooting.
Combine the following with the semi-auto ban.
Government buy-back program of all semi-automatic weapons. Once a grace period for turn-ins ends, possession will be a felony without a special (and rare) license for Federally approved dealers and collectors.
Gun licenses for all who want to continue to own approved firearms. Licenses will be granted by completing a comprehensive background check, psych evaluation, safety training, marksmanship training, and meeting strict storage requirements. Storage requirements would include safes, weapons unloaded, with ammo stored separately. Licenses expire after a certain number of years and all the requirements must be completed again for license renewal.
Registration of all firearms.
Insurance for all firearms. If your gun is used in a crime or if there's a accident with your gun, your insurance company is liable for damages. Let the insurance market set rates based on their analysis of risk. Then, people can decide if it's financially worth it to own a gun.
Finally, here's your counterarguments for the most common pro-gun arguments:
Pro-gun argument - assault weapons aren't an actual thing. Banning them won't make a difference.
Counterargument - none. This is true. Classifying a gun as an "assault weapon" is something people who know nothing about guns do. Having a bayonet stud (a place to mount a bayonet) used to be one way to classify a gun as an assault weapon. Last I checked, we don't have a bayonet problem in this country. Talk about banning semi-auto guns instead of made-up things like "assault weapons."
Pro-gun argument - 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms!
Counterargument - sure, it does, but there can be limitations. And in case anyone needs a history lesson, the individual right to bear arms has only existed since 2008. From the adoption of the Constitution until the DC v. Heller decision in 2008, the 2nd Amendment had never been interpreted to mean private citizens have a right to own guns. (Thanks, Scalia.) But that decision is now the law of the land and precedent for future court decisions. Nevertheless, even in Scalia's majority opinion, he asserts that there are limitations to the 2nd Amendment. Weapons allowed should be those in common use at the time. And limitations should be made on "dangerous and unusual" weapons, per previous precedent in United States v. Miller. I argue that semi-auto firearms should now be considered "dangerous and unusual," given their lethality.
Pro-gun argument - if law-abiding citizens get rid of their guns, criminals won't follow the law, and we'll be in more danger.
Counterargument - this is an argument against having laws. Since criminals don't follow the law, there should be no limits on anything. Also, when we do outlaw things, it can work. Purchases of large quantities of ammonium nitrate fertilizer was restricted after the Oklahoma City bombing, and there hasn't been a similar bombing since. We outlawed fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. in the 20th century, and what has happened? We don't see violence with those types of weapons. Most weapons used to commit crimes are purchased lawfully. If we change the laws, it will work to reduce gun deaths.
Pro-gun argument - if we ban guns, people will just use knives or baseball bats
Counterargument - there are plenty of incidents around the world of mass stabbings or clubbings, etc. Show me one that is as lethal as a mass shooting.
Pro-gun argument - we need armed security guards in every school
Counterargument - do you trust the security guard won't become a mass shooter? The Texas church shooter was an Air Force veteran. The Pulse nightclub shooter was a security guard. Further, it's relatively easy to get the drop on a security guard. Shoot him first when he's not expecting, then keep going. That's what the Pulse nightclub shooter did. It's not difficult if you draw first. Columbine had armed security, too. Adding more guns to schools adds more risk, it doesn't reduce it.
Pro-gun argument - it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue *or* guns don't kill people, people kill people
Counterargument - The United States has the same rates of mental illness as other developed Western countries, but we're the only ones with this type of violence. The mentally ill are actually less likely to commit crime than those who aren't mentally ill, which many find surprising. Also, those who are mentally ill are more likely to become the victim of a crime than those who don't have mental illness. It's a common refrain to hear "anyone who would do that must be crazy." That's not true. Being a murderer doesn't actually mean you are mentally ill, which is why you hardly ever see successful insanity defenses in trials. And if "people kill people," then we really should stop giving all these people guns, right? We don't allow private F-22s or nuclear weapons, do we? Why? Because people would use them to kill other people. People use people-killing machines to kill people. Go figure.
Pro-gun argument - We, as a society, have turned our backs on God. This is why crime is getting worse. We need God/Jesus to heal people's hearts, not get rid of law-abiding citizens' guns.
Counterargument - Crime has actually decreased overall in recent decades. Things are getting better, not worse. Murder rates and violent crime overall have trended down as we've advanced as a society. Mass shootings have remained steady, though, because angry people have easy access to guns.
Pro-gun argument - we need guns to fight against the government in case it becomes tyrannical.
Counterargument - I doubt semi-automatic weapons will defeat a tyrannical government with fighter jets, bombers, tanks, artillery, drones, advanced cyber capabilities, and nuclear weapons.
Pro-gun argument - gun registrations will make it easier for the government to disarm us
Counterargument - The registration is necessary to keep track of deadly weapons in case they are used in a crime, or in case a law-abiding citizen commits a crime that revokes their right to guns. There's over 300 million privately owned guns in America. If the government wanted to take everyone's guns, they'd do it the same way they would if there wasn't a registry: by going door to door and searching everyone.
I truly believe we need to do far more than anything advocated by most mainstream gun control organizations like Everytown and Moms Demand Action. We need to follow the lead of countries like the UK, Australia, and Canada. They've figured it out. Why can't we?”
1. Arm teachers with tasers
2. Arm teachers with guns
3. Deploy armed guards in schools
4. Deploy armed guards in public facilities
5. Ban guns
6. Ban assault type weapons
7. Increase gun control
Have I missed any?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
stronger background checks
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
.22 has a nasty habit of bouncing inside the ribcage and leaving erratic bleeding patterns.
What happens in public on personal, private time isn't really relevant to what happens when you send your kids to a government institution every day.
Guns to protect from a tyrannical US goverment/military is horse shit. Literally a big steaming pile of horseshit that a 5 year old should realize is ridiculous
If anyone has guns to protect them from the US government, I'm sorry, but that's just flat out dumb
The lesson I'm hearing is that if the security cop didn't save the day a teacher never could...uh.
DUH! A teacher did!!! How can you ignore such a doublethink??
They firmly believe that President Obama will be sending in his U.N. troops to take their guns.
This is a big no for a lot of people.