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.
Well, hope the voting and politics works out. In the mean time, I’m going to send my child to a school with armed staff and maybe even donate to their security funds. I never said to stop the good fight, just suggested immediate measures to protect our children NOW. As a parent, that is my focus.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
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.
It's fucking amazing how brainwashed people have become. 30, 40 years ago, the NRA was not scaring people into believing they needed guns to protect themselves from the government like they are now.
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.
Texas tower massacre and McDonalds San Ysidro, CA.
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
So what actionable solution do you see as less laughable in a country ruled by Trump that can't even put together a budget. What amazing feat of bi-partisan legislation are you expecting to go through at any moment?
Imagine America without guns? WTF is the purpose of that? There's hundreds of millions of them out there, that's our fucked up reality. Dreaming of living in America without guns is just that, dreaming. We need actions, not dreams.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
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.
Okay. The one in Stockton Cali killed like 30 kids in 1990ish...Luby's in Texas was a big one a few years later...and there was another big one in Cali 1993 that lead to the '94 bill just one year later.
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.
Well, hope the voting and politics works out. In the mean time, I’m going to send my child to a school with armed staff and maybe even donate to their security funds. I never said to stop the good fight, just suggested immediate measures to protect our children NOW. As a parent, that is my focus.
I'm not a parent. If I were, I don't know how safe I'd feel with a bunch of little kids in a room with a loaded gun.
But, best of luck to you.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
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
So what actionable solution do you see as less laughable in a country ruled by Trump that can't even put together a budget. What amazing feat of bi-partisan legislation are you expecting to go through at any moment?
Imagine America without guns? WTF is the purpose of that? There's hundreds of millions of them out there, that's our fucked up reality. Dreaming of living in America without guns is just that, dreaming. We need actions, not dreams.
I don't want an America without guns. I'm not opposed to obtaining one in the future. I do want an America without assault style guns though.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,757
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything
Really? I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans. Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work? And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work? I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion?
We have background checks in place. Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check. We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year. Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass. The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution. The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next. I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective. Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.
The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information. Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.
People don’t need any gun. It is not about a need, it is about a right.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
Exactly, it doesn’t have to be an “either/or” kind of thing. Sometimes I wonder if people against any means of addressing the issue other than banning this or that do not want other methods implemented because fewer successful school shootings would result in less focus on banning those things. I hope I’m wrong there.
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
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 ?
I don't care if they protest as long as they aren't destructive. How does that impression even get made?
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything
Really? I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans. Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work? And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work? I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion?
We have background checks in place. Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check. We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year. Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass. The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution. The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next. I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective. Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.
The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information. Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.
People don’t need any gun. It is not about a need, it is about a right.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
Why can't we have more stringent background checks and ban weapons that are designed to kill mass amounts of people?
Hand guns kill more people, but you can make a case for why a law abiding citizen should own one for protection. Can you do the same for a gun like the AR-15? I answered your question earlier about mass shootings prior to the ban in the 90's. Nothing is perfect, but it did curb mass shootings and then they sky rocketed after it expired. Reinstate it and put forth stricter, universal background checks, and also make it mandatory to have a license that needs to be renewed every 5 years in order to own a gun.
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.
I'm for more security at schools and continued efforts at whatever gun control we can manage. More security at schools includes metal detectors and lockdown systems, security personnel, and volunteer teachers/admin who pass certification processes to have firearm options.
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.
I'm for more security at schools and continued efforts at whatever gun control we can manage. More security at schools includes metal detectors and lockdown systems, security personnel, and volunteer teachers/admin who pass certification processes to have firearm options.
There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything
Really? I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans. Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work? And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work? I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion?
We have background checks in place. Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check. We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year. Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass. The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution. The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next. I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective. Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.
The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information. Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.
People don’t need any gun. It is not about a need, it is about a right.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
If it isn't needed, it's got no business being a right.
Handguns should be very hard to get. Assault rifles should be next to impossible to get.
Yes, put everyone in a file that has mental health issues, make it part of a background check. If you have a history and want to buy a firearm, you'd then need a series of assessments and mandatory permanent therapy sessions.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,315
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.
I'm for more security at schools and continued efforts at whatever gun control we can manage. More security at schools includes metal detectors and lockdown systems, security personnel, and volunteer teachers/admin who pass certification processes to have firearm options.
With you on all that except the teacher stuff. Something about a bunch of little kids being in a room with a loaded gun doesn't sound like the best idea.
But this is good. There can be common ground. This stuff makes sense, while still pushing for a massive overhaul of our gun laws. I think gun control will finally be a major issue for most Americans, not just NRA members in November...
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
So what actionable solution do you see as less laughable in a country ruled by Trump that can't even put together a budget. What amazing feat of bi-partisan legislation are you expecting to go through at any moment?
Imagine America without guns? WTF is the purpose of that? There's hundreds of millions of them out there, that's our fucked up reality. Dreaming of living in America without guns is just that, dreaming. We need actions, not dreams.
That wasn't the point of my comment... my point was what do you think America would look like without any guns? Would it be a better place, or a worse place? I think it would be MUCH better, you? The point is to show that guns bring NO VALUE to society as a whole, just negative. Once people realize that, maybe some will stop looking at guns like they are awesome, a necessity, and equal to a cure for cancer
Your argument that it's too late and we just need to arm soft targets to the teeth doesn't fly with me. If it takes 100 years to form a better and safer society I'm ok with that, it has to start somewhere.
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.
I'm for more security at schools and continued efforts at whatever gun control we can manage. More security at schools includes metal detectors and lockdown systems, security personnel, and volunteer teachers/admin who pass certification processes to have firearm options.
With you on all that except the teacher stuff. Something about a bunch of little kids being in a room with a loaded gun doesn't sound like the best idea.
But this is good. There can be common ground. This stuff makes sense, while still pushing for a massive overhaul of our gun laws. I think gun control will finally be a major issue for most Americans, not just NRA members in November...
Well, it isn't the best idea, it's a terrible idea. But that's where we are right now, unfortunately.
If November doesn't go well I'm going to have to move to Canada lol
There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything
Really? I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans. Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work? And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work? I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion?
We have background checks in place. Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check. We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year. Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass. The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution. The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next. I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue. Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective. Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.
The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information. Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.
People don’t need any gun. It is not about a need, it is about a right.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
3% of the victims of Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Texas and both Florida massacres equates to 5 people. Ask any of the victim’s family and friends if they think that your “3%” would be worth it.
The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.
I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.
The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.
I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.
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.
I don't know- when those in favor of guns continue to suggest that everyone should arm themselves and want more guns, I think some sarcastic replies like "yee haw, more guns for everyone!" is reasonable response. Are we supposed to argue for the millionth time that countries with few guns have a lower percentage of gun related deaths? We get tired of making the same logical arguments that fall on deaf ears.
But from the other side, are they supposed to point out, for the millionth time, that our country already has a bazillion guns that can't be eradicated any time soon?
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.
I'm for more security at schools and continued efforts at whatever gun control we can manage. More security at schools includes metal detectors and lockdown systems, security personnel, and volunteer teachers/admin who pass certification processes to have firearm options.
Sounds like a prison to me. Such an awesome future for our children
The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.
I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.
I don't think that's true. It's everywhere.
I hear more security, maybe increase the number of campus police. But I only hear a few say give teachers guns. I hear that teachers should have the right to protect themselves by carrying a gun if they chose more often, but I just haven't hear any politician or anyone outside of a few maybe on facebook or here suggest that giving teachers guns is going to solve it. I just never saw that as an option anyone has taken seriously.
The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.
I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.
I don't think that's true. It's everywhere.
thanks to a powerful propaganda campaign by the gun lobby and the republican establishment that they have bought and own
it's not about the right to BEAR arms, it's about the right to SELL arms
Maybe I'm wrong, I just always saw the number who support arming teachers is very small compared to the number who are gun owners. I'm a republican gun owner, I would not want teachers carrying guns. I dont think I am in the minority.
The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.
I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.
I don't think that's true. It's everywhere.
I hear more security, maybe increase the number of campus police. But I only hear a few say give teachers guns. I hear that teachers should have the right to protect themselves by carrying a gun if they chose more often, but I just haven't hear any politician or anyone outside of a few maybe on facebook or here suggest that giving teachers guns is going to solve it. I just never saw that as an option anyone has taken seriously.
I don’t think anyone is advocating “giving” them to the teachers or forcing/requiring them to be armed...I would not be supportive of this. Allowing them to voluntarily arm themselves- yes (with mandatory strict training and certification).
Comments
As a parent, that is my focus.
It's fucking amazing how brainwashed people have become. 30, 40 years ago, the NRA was not scaring people into believing they needed guns to protect themselves from the government like they are now.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
What amazing feat of bi-partisan legislation are you expecting to go through at any moment?
Imagine America without guns? WTF is the purpose of that? There's hundreds of millions of them out there, that's our fucked up reality. Dreaming of living in America without guns is just that, dreaming.
We need actions, not dreams.
Okay. The one in Stockton Cali killed like 30 kids in 1990ish...Luby's in Texas was a big one a few years later...and there was another big one in Cali 1993 that lead to the '94 bill just one year later.
I'm not a parent. If I were, I don't know how safe I'd feel with a bunch of little kids in a room with a loaded gun.
But, best of luck to you.
I don't want an America without guns. I'm not opposed to obtaining one in the future. I do want an America without assault style guns though.
The new generation of peoples way of thinking is soooo much different than the status quo that huge changes/shifts in power will be happening.
Gun legislation is going to be a hot button and change will be coming soon. It has to.
If huge change does come I would like to be able to keep and sell what I own. I don't want to see the US do what California has done.
I think there IS a middle ground in this issue, and it involves protecting yourself and our children as safely as you can while continuing to work hard to stop the production and proliferation and limit access.
Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting? The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15. But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting. Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence. You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.
I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent. I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better. I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it? Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file? What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?
These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot). But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.
I think we are on the same page unless you are advocating for teachers to all arm themselves? No problem with people owning guns to hunt and protect their families....and having more security at schools.
Why can't we have more stringent background checks and ban weapons that are designed to kill mass amounts of people?
Hand guns kill more people, but you can make a case for why a law abiding citizen should own one for protection. Can you do the same for a gun like the AR-15? I answered your question earlier about mass shootings prior to the ban in the 90's. Nothing is perfect, but it did curb mass shootings and then they sky rocketed after it expired. Reinstate it and put forth stricter, universal background checks, and also make it mandatory to have a license that needs to be renewed every 5 years in order to own a gun.
Also, the constitution is a living document....
More security at schools includes metal detectors and lockdown systems, security personnel, and volunteer teachers/admin who pass certification processes to have firearm options.
Handguns should be very hard to get. Assault rifles should be next to impossible to get.
Yes, put everyone in a file that has mental health issues, make it part of a background check. If you have a history and want to buy a firearm, you'd then need a series of assessments and mandatory permanent therapy sessions.
With you on all that except the teacher stuff. Something about a bunch of little kids being in a room with a loaded gun doesn't sound like the best idea.
But this is good. There can be common ground. This stuff makes sense, while still pushing for a massive overhaul of our gun laws. I think gun control will finally be a major issue for most Americans, not just NRA members in November...
Your argument that it's too late and we just need to arm soft targets to the teeth doesn't fly with me. If it takes 100 years to form a better and safer society I'm ok with that, it has to start somewhere.
But that's where we are right now, unfortunately.
If November doesn't go well I'm going to have to move to Canada lol
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Best country in the world, my ass
I hear that teachers should have the right to protect themselves by carrying a gun if they chose more often, but I just haven't hear any politician or anyone outside of a few maybe on facebook or here suggest that giving teachers guns is going to solve it.
I just never saw that as an option anyone has taken seriously.
it's not about the right to BEAR arms, it's about the right to SELL arms
I'm a republican gun owner, I would not want teachers carrying guns. I dont think I am in the minority.