Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.
This is a slippery slope.
We will move forward with more school shootings, etc. At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police. I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.
Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.
This is a slippery slope.
We will move forward with more school shootings, etc. At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police. I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.
That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement. You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t... Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing. In my opinion, these people need deterrents. There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws. They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...
No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.
They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...
Arming teachers is the dumbest idea in the world. Why don't we just arm the kids! Let's arm everyone! Wooooo!
Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.
This is a slippery slope.
We will move forward with more school shootings, etc. At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police. I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.
Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.
This is a slippery slope.
We will move forward with more school shootings, etc. At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police. I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.
That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement. You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t... Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing. In my opinion, these people need deterrents. There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws. They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...
No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.
They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...
Arming teachers is the dumbest idea in the world. Why don't we just arm the kids! Let's arm everyone! Wooooo!
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
Plenty of them already armed...cannot think of any of these incidents happening in those schools...Lots of colleges actually now allow concealed carriers to exercise that right on campus.
Post edited by PJPOWER on
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution? you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?
I didn't suggest that it was. I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.
Have you never heard of a controlled burn? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.
I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.
But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle? no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired? Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.
Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...
I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”. I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.
Second Request:
Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?
Please be very specific in your response.
What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change? And realistically how long would that take? 10 years, 20 years, 100 years? Do you have any suggestion that would not take 10 years at a minimum to implement? I, for one, will plan on sending my child to an elementary school where there is some sort of armed security to hopefully protect him if someone wanted to come in guns a blazin. We can keep having the other debate, though, but I am currently focused on the NOW...not 10 years from now.
Will this school also have armed guards all around the perimeter? If not, what's going to stop someone from shooting kids on the playground (happened in my state) or shooting as they are waiting on the bus or parents to pick them up? I think about this all the time with my niece. All of the kids gather in one place after school. There are measures in place for the parents/guardians to be the ones who pick them up but who's to stop someone riding up on school grounds and shooting into the crowd of kids?
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution? you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?
I didn't suggest that it was. I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.
Have you never heard of a controlled burn? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.
I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.
But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle? no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired? Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.
Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...
I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.
Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994. And to say it “worked” is not necessarily the whole truth. https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
Post edited by PJPOWER on
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.
This is a slippery slope.
We will move forward with more school shootings, etc. At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police. I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.
Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.
This is a slippery slope.
We will move forward with more school shootings, etc. At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police. I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.
That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement. You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t... Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing. In my opinion, these people need deterrents. There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws. They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...
No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.
They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...
Arming teachers is the dumbest idea in the world. Why don't we just arm the kids! Let's arm everyone! Wooooo!
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
Plenty of them already armed...cannot think of any of these incidents happening in those schools...Lots of colleges actually now allow concealed carriers to exercise that right on campus.
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution? you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?
I didn't suggest that it was. I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.
Have you never heard of a controlled burn? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.
I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.
But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle? no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired? Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.
Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...
I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.
Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.
The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?
I wanted to see how easily I could walk into a local gun show and purchase a AR15 in PA. $8 door fee and within a half hour, I had a AR15, 2 clips and 500 rounds of ammo for less than $600! I opted for a very low budget version instead of the more expensive more reputable models. There were six at the show from $429 to more than $1400. I filled out two separate forms and provided my ID, handed over the cash and walked out a Glorified G
God bless America
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
And by the way---for those who claimed to be so concerned about "draining the swamp," with $31,000,000 from the NRA, Trump is up to his eye balls in the swamp.
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”. I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.
Second Request:
Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?
Please be very specific in your response.
What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change? And realistically how long would that take? 10 years, 20 years, 100 years? Do you have any suggestion that would not take 10 years at a minimum to implement? I, for one, will plan on sending my child to an elementary school where there is some sort of armed security to hopefully protect him if someone wanted to come in guns a blazin. We can keep having the other debate, though, but I am currently focused on the NOW...not 10 years from now.
Will this school also have armed guards all around the perimeter? If not, what's going to stop someone from shooting kids on the playground (happened in my state) or shooting as they are waiting on the bus or parents to pick them up? I think about this all the time with my niece. All of the kids gather in one place after school. There are measures in place for the parents/guardians to be the ones who pick them up but who's to stop someone riding up on school grounds and shooting into the crowd of kids?
Yeah, that would be a difficult thing to stop. There have also been issues with sexual predators having easy access to children on these playgrounds too. I do know that a lot of new schools being built place the playgrounds in a central courtyard now for this very reason. There is no way of stopping every single scenario, but can reduce the odds of a few. The most prevalent seem to happen within the school buildings.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
Exactly...no one says “1000s of armed guards” or “guard towers”. I believe it would only take a couple (depending on the size of the school) of armed individuals within the schools to thwart some of these things.
Second Request:
Why do you think mass shootings only happen with this kind of frequency in the United States?
Please be very specific in your response.
What does it matter what I think, how are you going to disband the lobbying groups and politicians that control the laws you want to change? And realistically how long would that take? 10 years, 20 years, 100 years? Do you have any suggestion that would not take 10 years at a minimum to implement? I, for one, will plan on sending my child to an elementary school where there is some sort of armed security to hopefully protect him if someone wanted to come in guns a blazin. We can keep having the other debate, though, but I am currently focused on the NOW...not 10 years from now.
Will this school also have armed guards all around the perimeter? If not, what's going to stop someone from shooting kids on the playground (happened in my state) or shooting as they are waiting on the bus or parents to pick them up? I think about this all the time with my niece. All of the kids gather in one place after school. There are measures in place for the parents/guardians to be the ones who pick them up but who's to stop someone riding up on school grounds and shooting into the crowd of kids?
Yeah, that would be a difficult thing to stop. There have also been issues with sexual predators having easy access to children on these playgrounds too. I do know that a lot of new schools being built place the playgrounds in a central courtyard now for this very reason. There is no way of stopping every single scenario, but can reduce the odds of a few. The most prevalent seem to happen within the school buildings.
...perhaps we could also try to eliminate that kind of gun as well.......yah? Or nah---that's too hard for us Americans! Let's just arm everybody! Woo!
Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.
This is a slippery slope.
We will move forward with more school shootings, etc. At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police. I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.
Working the GOP more gun theory further forward....at some point the police will not be able to determine who is good and who is bad.
This is a slippery slope.
We will move forward with more school shootings, etc. At some point though there will be a "good guy" that gets killed either by another "good guy" or police. I'm sure it's happened already but the GOP drones need real life examples before they even begin to understand a problem.
That’s why the schools that have implemented this work closely with law enforcement. You know, I could come up with plenty of anecdotal scenarios where this would work to meet all of yours that you keep throwing out arguing why it wouldn’t... Hell, putting a sign up saying all teachers are armed and not actually having anyone armed would be better than nothing. In my opinion, these people need deterrents. There are plenty of deterrents that do not require politically unrealistic changed laws. They would probably require a lot less funds than legislation as well...
No. Since we’re talking about school shootings, which are different than other mass shootings, you need to consider that virtually all school shooters are current or former students. They know the school, they know who is armed and who isn’t, they would know the schedule and break times of the security guards, they would probably know how to get into the school to avoid detection, and they would plan around that. School shootings are not random and they are not a matter of someone just “looking for a soft target”.
They also know if NO ONE is armed what so ever...
Yeah. So? Having an armed guard at the Florida school didn’t help. The shooter knew exactly when and how to get in that circumvented the available security measures.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Mass shootings don't just happen at schools, in case anybody hasn't noticed... but anyway
teams of armed guards at every school in America? Metal detectors at every entrance? Every doorway to every school secured and guarded?
Great solution LOL... wtf is wrong with this country? It's fucking absurd
How about when they get off the bus? Get let out for the day? The friday night football game? The Tuesday afternoon soccer practice? It's so easy to poke holes in this shirt sighted bullshit it's fucking laughable, if it wasn't so sad
Imagine, just for a second, if America had no guns... what's that look like? Think about that for a second before you swallow down more NRA propaganda convincing you to cling to your AR-15
People should be asking that kids not be placed amongst the fish in a barrel.
Or maybe you all would prefer to get on that airplane now without any security checks?
When the next white cop shoots an unarmed black man will you be blaming the gun?
Let me know when the outrage gets to be enough to march on some inner city streets.
So now kids are not allowed to show their displeasure by marching or calling for marches across the country , to try to get something done about this giant fucking massacre problem we have , leave it to your or my generation to just sit on our hands and go absolutely nothing .... let me guess you have no kids in any schools ?
America has a way of blasting the shooters name in every outlet. They become famous. I bet there’s some crooked person in their house somewhere watching the response to this shooting, gearing up to perform their mass shooting. This day and age, I say just protect yourself.
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution? you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?
I didn't suggest that it was. I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.
Have you never heard of a controlled burn? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.
I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.
But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle? no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired? Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.
Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...
I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.
Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.
The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?
Must you be so condescending in every post? Of course it could change in one voting cycle. Look at the way it changed in the last. I do not see the country becoming more bipartisan right now though, do you? I still see hardcore republicans and hardcore democrats being bound by lobbying groups. Again, how are you going to sway the minds of hardcore voting republicans who do not support gun control? I guess you could try calling them deplorables and shaming them, but is that really going to work? Maybe a trade, abortion for gun control? I, currently, have no realistic political strategies in mind that will result in the banning of “assault weapons” over at least the next 2 years...You cannot just tell people “don’t vote for gun nuts” and see that as a failsafe strategy...or do you?
I think we really need to look at why humans want to do these things. I could just as easily make a nail bomb at home as I could purchase a gun. I’m in a class right now and realized how easy it would be to commit a mass murder.
But I’m a normal, sane person. So I am not going to do that. 99% of gun owners are not going to commit mass murder. Since columbine, there’s been a massive upswing. It takes a super fucked up induvidual to pull the trigger. I’m not much of a gun person, only been shooting a few times and found it boring, but I just don’t see banning guns solving the current problem.
If AR15s are banned, I can just as easily buy a high capacity hand gun, or a normal rifle. It’s not a solution at all.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution? you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?
I didn't suggest that it was. I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.
Have you never heard of a controlled burn? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.
I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.
But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle? no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired? Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.
Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...
I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.
Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.
The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?
Must you be so condescending in every post? Of course it could change in one voting cycle. Look at the way it changed in the last. I do not see the country becoming more bipartisan right now though, do you? I still see hardcore republicans and hardcore democrats being bound by lobbying groups. Again, how are you going to sway the minds of hardcore voting republicans who do not support gun control? I guess you could try calling them deplorables and shaming them, but is that really going to work? Maybe a trade, abortion for gun control? I, currently, have no realistic political strategies in mind that will result in the banning of “assault weapons” over at least the next 2 years...You cannot just tell people “don’t vote for gun nuts” and see that as a failsafe strategy...or do you?
Dude....your solution is "more guns." Which sounds more logical: voting in responsible people who realize we need more gun control....or, MORE GUNS!!? Think about your argument here. What if back in the 60's, instead of working hard and galvanizing support for the Civil Rights Act, people just threw their hands up in the air and said "Fuck this shit! This is too hard! We're never gonna convince rural, southern Americans that this makes sense---let's just not let black people vote again!"
Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight. It starts by accepting that there is a problem and actively advocating for change like these kids in Florida are doing right now. And then enough people have to make their voices heard in voting booths. And again, gun owners who don't want to change gun laws are in the MINORITY. They are a loud and vociferous minority but they still are in the MINORITY.
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution? you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?
I didn't suggest that it was. I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.
Have you never heard of a controlled burn? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.
I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.
But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle? no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired? Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.
Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...
Correct.
There is no short term solution, but for the Middle Valley High (or whatever school is destined for a slaughter in 10-20 years)... they'll be thrilled!
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution? you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?
I didn't suggest that it was. I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.
Have you never heard of a controlled burn? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.
I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.
But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle? no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired? Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.
Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...
I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.
Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.
The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?
Must you be so condescending in every post? Of course it could change in one voting cycle. Look at the way it changed in the last. I do not see the country becoming more bipartisan right now though, do you? I still see hardcore republicans and hardcore democrats being bound by lobbying groups. Again, how are you going to sway the minds of hardcore voting republicans who do not support gun control? I guess you could try calling them deplorables and shaming them, but is that really going to work? Maybe a trade, abortion for gun control? I, currently, have no realistic political strategies in mind that will result in the banning of “assault weapons” over at least the next 2 years...You cannot just tell people “don’t vote for gun nuts” and see that as a failsafe strategy...or do you?
I’m glad the kids are organizing marches across the country at least they are Trying unlike our generations that have done zero but just keep watching the death toll rise ..
Okay, I have not read this whole discussion, but have read most of the last few weeks pages, so forgive me if I've missed something that has already been discussed. As an outsider from Australia, I am certainly not 100% all over the specifics of the laws etc for gun ownership and purchasing, but do have some knowledge. I have been to the USA one multiple occasions for work and also worked alongside many Americans on deployments. I served 13 years in the Australian Airforce and have deployed to many locations and environments for months at a time with multiple of our Allied countries. So I have been around and handled weapons and also fully aware of the damage they can cause.
I really struggle to see why any person requires any semi automatic weapon. I have no issue with people wanting to hunt, target shoot etc, but why does anyone need a semi automatic???
Why can't the government put a ban on all of these weapons and put a buy back scheme in place for the ones already in use? Yes, there will still be ones in existence and the criminals will always find ways around things. But it hasn't been a criminal shooting up schools. And yes, it may cost the Gov a lot of money in the buy back scheme, so what? How much money is wasted by any government on other bullshit. I know from reading forums and Fbook, that this will be massively unpopular with some, who will quote rights etc, but when does children's lives start to outweigh their outdated rights? Government's are in place to make these decisions for the betterment of it's people and sometimes tough decisions need to be made
Commentators point to multiple other countries (including mine) that have changed laws or simply have never allowed this sort of weapon's access to civillians, but people still want to say that it won't work in the USA or that we are different in the USA. Yes, it is different, your schools are getting shot up a lot more regularly than ANYWHERE else in the Western world
I know the Government (and not just this current one) has been owned by the NRA for a LONG time, so this will most likely never happen, but hopefully these children that are not standing up and saying NOW is the time to talk and take action will be heard. It may take time, but that doesn't mean you don't start NOW
The use of “need” and specifically always going after the horrible “ar15” are not very good talking points when it comes to gun control.
I have never once heard anyone say they need an ar15.
If your argument is for stricter gun control, you should look at the statistics and go after handguns because more people are killed by handguns a year than any other gun. Riffles, including the AR15, account for 3 percent of murders by firearms. To me, always specifically saying the AR15 comes across as a knee jerk reaction.
I think most people are in favor of better regulations, the issue is how. I hear the phrase “common sense” thrown out a lot. What is common sense regulation though?
I personally think there are more issues that tend to be ignored than just gun regulation. We’ve had guns since the start. Why all of a sudden does it appear that we are having more and more of these types of shootings? Instead of just focusing on guns and trying to control what we think we can control, we need to put some focus and energy into looking at ourselves and our culture and ask why now. What’s different? Why does it seem more and more people just don’t value life anymore? We can pass laws and ban all guns. But just like drugs, they won’t magically disappear once they are illegal.
Lets just say the AR15 becomes illegal, what’s the solution once a shooting happens involving one? Because I’m pretty sure if someone has it in their mind that they are going to kill a group of people, they won’t say “well damn, I was going to use this AR15, but I don’t want to break any laws.”
Jeez. It's almost like people forget we had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. Other than Columbine, can you think of any other mass shootings in that time frame of the top of your head? Neither can I. Now....can you think of any since that expired and can you name what most of them have in common?
NOBODY who wants these guns banned are not ONLY looking to ban these guns and do NOTHING else. OF COURSE we need to change our culture. OF COURSE our schools need better security. OF COURSE we need universal and more stringent background checks.
But it's COMMON SENSE to also try to restrict the kinds of guns that make shootings like these easier for people.
The rest of the world is laughing at us. Thank God for these kids...
You use the phrase common sense. Please explain this simple common sense idea that is going to work so well.
Can you name any mass shootings off the top of your head before 1994? The point you tried to make works both for you and against you.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,757
If more guns was the answer America would be the safest place in the world
It's shocking how well years of propaganda works, they have people actually believing this shit.
Exactly. The "more guns" argument completely lacks any logic. All it takes is to compare gun death (by percentage of population) in America with gun death in other countries where guns are either illegal or not prevalent. Strange how so many people seem to have a problem with logic.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns. it really is an absurd premise.
Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts? Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?
Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in. You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts. and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once. What's next guard towers on the top of schools? on every block in every city? get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.
That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.
how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution? you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?
I didn't suggest that it was. I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.
Have you never heard of a controlled burn? Have you ever been in a fist fight? Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.
I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.
But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle? no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired? Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.
Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...
I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.
Which expired...The political landscape and technology is completely different than when Clinton implemented this. It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994.
The political landscape can change in ONE voting cycle. What are you not picking up here?
Yeah, it just did. We lost the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to a fucking orange clown and his posse. 2018 we have a CHANCE to take back one half of the legislative branch.
Clinton as the candidate aside, the lines are drawn on this issue, we aren't picking up millions of voters to the Dem side using this issue. Which is fucked up, but it's reality.
I think I saw America gas 4% of the world's population, and 40% of the world's guns... seems reasonable! lol
The sooner people realize it's NOT about the right to bear arms, it's about the right to SELL arms, this country might be able to save itself. #suckers
I understand that many of us are all het up on this issue, but I have to say, from my perspective, the gun control crowd is not presenting their argument well here. I'm seeing a majority of the comments arguing against straw men and using slippery slope sloppiness.
Comments
Arming teachers is the dumbest idea in the world. Why don't we just arm the kids! Let's arm everyone! Wooooo!
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
It may happen, but not as easily as it did in 1994. And to say it “worked” is not necessarily the whole truth.
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
The world is laughing their asses off at us.
And by the way---for those who claimed to be so concerned about "draining the swamp," with $31,000,000 from the NRA, Trump is up to his eye balls in the swamp.
...perhaps we could also try to eliminate that kind of gun as well.......yah? Or nah---that's too hard for us Americans! Let's just arm everybody! Woo!
teams of armed guards at every school in America? Metal detectors at every entrance? Every doorway to every school secured and guarded?
Great solution LOL... wtf is wrong with this country? It's fucking absurd
How about when they get off the bus? Get let out for the day? The friday night football game? The Tuesday afternoon soccer practice? It's so easy to poke holes in this shirt sighted bullshit it's fucking laughable, if it wasn't so sad
Imagine, just for a second, if America had no guns... what's that look like? Think about that for a second before you swallow down more NRA propaganda convincing you to cling to your AR-15
let me guess you have no kids in any schools ?
But I’m a normal, sane person. So I am not going to do that. 99% of gun owners are not going to commit mass murder. Since columbine, there’s been a massive upswing. It takes a super fucked up induvidual to pull the trigger. I’m not much of a gun person, only been shooting a few times and found it boring, but I just don’t see banning guns solving the current problem.
If AR15s are banned, I can just as easily buy a high capacity hand gun, or a normal rifle. It’s not a solution at all.
Dude....your solution is "more guns." Which sounds more logical: voting in responsible people who realize we need more gun control....or, MORE GUNS!!? Think about your argument here. What if back in the 60's, instead of working hard and galvanizing support for the Civil Rights Act, people just threw their hands up in the air and said "Fuck this shit! This is too hard! We're never gonna convince rural, southern Americans that this makes sense---let's just not let black people vote again!"
Obviously this isn't going to happen overnight. It starts by accepting that there is a problem and actively advocating for change like these kids in Florida are doing right now. And then enough people have to make their voices heard in voting booths. And again, gun owners who don't want to change gun laws are in the MINORITY. They are a loud and vociferous minority but they still are in the MINORITY.
There is no short term solution, but for the Middle Valley High (or whatever school is destined for a slaughter in 10-20 years)... they'll be thrilled!
It's shocking how well years of propaganda works, they have people actually believing this shit.
Can you name any mass shootings off the top of your head before 1994? The point you tried to make works both for you and against you.
We lost the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to a fucking orange clown and his posse.
2018 we have a CHANCE to take back one half of the legislative branch.
Clinton as the candidate aside, the lines are drawn on this issue, we aren't picking up millions of voters to the Dem side using this issue. Which is fucked up, but it's reality.
A winner. Debate is over.
The sooner people realize it's NOT about the right to bear arms, it's about the right to SELL arms, this country might be able to save itself. #suckers