America's Gun Violence

Meltdown99

Just saw an ad for the NRA on my Facebook page...is Facebook that hard up for cash that they need NRA money?  And why I am getting an NRA  ad is puzzling?

mattsl1983

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

rgambs said:

mattsl1983 said:

riotgrl said:

riley540 said:

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.
 

I’m really not sure what your point here is in context of what I said.  You come across as a sensationalist.  I don’t have any problem with it, but it makes it hard to have a grown up discussion.  Ask the other 97% of the family victims if it was worth it to them by going after assault riffles would be my response on your level.  

You’re dismissive of 3%. 3% of just 5 mass shootings since 2012 is 5 people that might still be alive. 3% of the hundreds injured in just the Vegas shooting is double digits. But go ahead and dismiss it. It’s only 3%.

Really?  I don’t think you understand statistics at all.  If your argument is that the 3 percent matter more than the 97 percent, then fight that fight.  By all means go after what you think is right.  I’m just simply pointing out this fallacy of an idea that gun violence is directly tied into assult rifles.  It’s only the other 97 percent. 

Halifax2TheMax

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

rgambs said:

mattsl1983 said:

riotgrl said:

riley540 said:

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.
 

I’m really not sure what your point here is in context of what I said.  You come across as a sensationalist.  I don’t have any problem with it, but it makes it hard to have a grown up discussion.  Ask the other 97% of the family victims if it was worth it to them by going after assault riffles would be my response on your level.  

You’re dismissive of 3%. 3% of just 5 mass shootings since 2012 is 5 people that might still be alive. 3% of the hundreds injured in just the Vegas shooting is double digits. But go ahead and dismiss it. It’s only 3%.

Really?  I don’t think you understand statistics at all.  If your argument is that the 3 percent matter more than the 97 percent, then fight that fight.  By all means go after what you think is right.  I’m just simply pointing out this fallacy of an idea that gun violence is directly tied into assult rifles.  It’s only the other 97 percent. 

Yes, 3% of dead people matter more than the 97% that you think want to cling to guns. You claimed 97% of the victims’ family and friends would say that. Sure, keep clinging.

mattsl1983

It’s way to hard to follow every response that debates this or that.

Can we not agree on better background checks?

Statistically can we not agree that the ban didn’t change anything.  You can’t argue statistics. 

Can you not agree that parading children out by pushing an ideology on them is wrong?

can we not agree that something needs to change?

i guess I don’t understand this idea that if you aren’t for banning guns then you don’t care.

Im all for this “common sense” reform, just what exactly is it?

oftenreading

mattsl1983 said:

It’s way to hard to follow every response that debates this or that.

Can we not agree on better background checks?

Statistically can we not agree that the ban didn’t change anything.  You can’t argue statistics. 

Can you not agree that parading children out by pushing an ideology on them is wrong?

can we not agree that something needs to change?

i guess I don’t understand this idea that if you aren’t for banning guns then you don’t care.

Im all for this “common sense” reform, just what exactly is it?

No, I for one am not going to agree to your false and misleading statements. “Parading children out by pushing an ideology on them” .... you think teens can’t think for themselves and decide whether they are interested in gun control or not? You think that gun control is by definition a false ideology? And finally, you think that the republicans and even the NRA don’t “parade children” when it suits them?

And also I disagree with your characterization that the ban achieved nothing. 

brianlux

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I get it finally. Adults, who you think would just understand things like an adult might, simply cannot because they were indoctrinated at a very early age:

https://twitter.com/roshtweets_/status/966019470148939776

FUCKED

UP. 

brianlux

mattsl1983 said:

It’s way to hard to follow every response that debates this or that.

Can we not agree on better background checks?

Statistically can we not agree that the ban didn’t change anything.  You can’t argue statistics. 

Can you not agree that parading children out by pushing an ideology on them is wrong?

can we not agree that something needs to change?

i guess I don’t understand this idea that if you aren’t for banning guns then you don’t care.

Im all for this “common sense” reform, just what exactly is it?

I think almost, if not all, of us here agree on better background checks. (we match)

Ban on what?  (Not a match)

Parading children to push ideology.  What oftenreading said, everybody does it.  (Not a match)

Yes, something needs to change.  (we match)

"If you aren’t for banning guns    automatic weapons, then  you don’t care."  No, I don't think people that are against banning automatics weapons give a rat's ass.  (We sort of match because, yes, some gun owners do care.)

I'm for using common sense for just about everything except, under certain circumstances, soloing on a musical instrument,  and falling in love.  Who uses common sense when they fall in love?  (I don't know if we match)

So I guess I only scored about 50/50 here.  Could be worse.

mattsl1983

oftenreading said:

mattsl1983 said:

It’s way to hard to follow every response that debates this or that.

Can we not agree on better background checks?

Statistically can we not agree that the ban didn’t change anything.  You can’t argue statistics. 

Can you not agree that parading children out by pushing an ideology on them is wrong?

can we not agree that something needs to change?

i guess I don’t understand this idea that if you aren’t for banning guns then you don’t care.

Im all for this “common sense” reform, just what exactly is it?

No, I for one am not going to agree to your false and misleading statements. “Parading children out by pushing an ideology on them” .... you think teens can’t think for themselves and decide whether they are interested in gun control or not? You think that gun control is by definition a false ideology? And finally, you think that the republicans and even the NRA don’t “parade children” when it suits them?

And also I disagree with your characterization that the ban achieved nothing. 

You are exactly the type of person that you can’t have a conversation  about gun control with.  Just read your response and put it in context with your reply.  You create a huge huh?  What? 

And yes, I firmly believe that at the age of 14 to almost mid to late 20’s, a person is so directly influenced by ideas they think that they think work, that they haven’t realized the different between reality and ideology.  And if you want to pretend that a 17 year old has it all figured out for themselves, then you are, well I’m not going to name call but yea...

It’s east to target laws, the infamous NRA.  These are all things that you, and this is a very important word, that “you” feel like you can control.  So I just say keep fighting your fight.  But eventually you will rub out of ideas that that you think you can control and the world will probably be worse off. 

mattsl1983

brianlux said:

mattsl1983 said:

It’s way to hard to follow every response that debates this or that.

Can we not agree on better background checks?

Statistically can we not agree that the ban didn’t change anything.  You can’t argue statistics. 

Can you not agree that parading children out by pushing an ideology on them is wrong?

can we not agree that something needs to change?

i guess I don’t understand this idea that if you aren’t for banning guns then you don’t care.

Im all for this “common sense” reform, just what exactly is it?

I think almost, if not all, of us here agree on better background checks. (we match)

Ban on what?  (Not a match)

Parading children to push ideology.  What oftenreading said, everybody does it.  (Not a match)

Yes, something needs to change.  (we match)

"If you aren’t for banning guns    automatic weapons, then  you don’t care."  No, I don't think people that are against banning automatics weapons give a rat's ass.  (We sort of match because, yes, some gun owners do care.)

I'm for using common sense for just about everything except, under certain circumstances, soloing on a musical instrument,  and falling in love.  Who uses common sense when they fall in love?  (I don't know if we match)

So I guess I only scored about 50/50 here.  Could be worse.

Brianlux,

thats why you are awesome.  We can talk about guitars in one forum but disagree in another.

from your response is I threw out a couple of things. You threw out a couple of things as a response.

You out the tally at about 50/50.

if we could all step back, and really appreciate it.  The idea of starting around 50/50 on fundamental ideas that we agree to disagree with is amazing.  50/5 can be built on!  

Brianlux, we’ve disagreed here, agreed there, politics this, amps that; you are one of the reasons I do chime in here from time to time.  You are self honest and put it out there.  I hope you got Wrigley tickets, cause I’ve got your drinks and or food all night!

vaggar99

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Watching these politicians trip all over their dicks talking to these kids in Florida is pathetic. Rubio is really trying not to answer questions that compromise his NRA buddies.

Two weeks ago those kids had to be told not to eat Tide pods.

  

josevolution

riley540 said:

josevolution said:

riley540 said:

dignin said:

riley540 said:

dignin said:

riley540 said:

Social media, news, ect. I think it’s all contributing. The major difference between now and the 1980s is the full time access to media. It’s in our hands all day 

Any evidence to back that up? Because there is a lot of evidence to show that there are a lot more guns out there today, and a lot more assault style weapons.

This isn't complicated, as much as some try and make it complicated.

What i beileive is important is determining the error is some people that motivate them to do heinous acts. 

If you could determine the "error" in some people, then what?

Figure out a way to prevent it. Make it so people can notices these issues in certain people. Once you determine the problem, figure out what causes the problem, and work on a solution. 
I have no interest in owning an AR15, I’m not s gun person. I’m just looking at evidence, and there’s no evidence that says school shooting would stop or be reduced if we ban that gun. If that gun is banned, I’m sure they will just use another gun or weapon. 

So you want all citizens to be trained to look out for crazy people who might go on a shooting spree ok yeah that’s easier than to pass an actual law banning this particular weapon ...you see you’ve already given up unlike the Kids who actually survived this massacre and are determined to get their point across ..

There’s thousands of AR15s in circulation and over 300,000 guns in the US. If you think banning a gun will prevent school shootings, you aren’t making an evidence based argument. The evidence doesn’t say people shoot school because they can buy AR15s. 
Also, if it’s against the law, why would a person who’s gearing up to MURDER people follow the law that he can’t use an AR15? 

Its a deeper problem than the AR15

There are currently anywhere from 5 million to 10 mi

ConorKavanagh

  

josevolution

5 to 10million AR15’s currently in circulation I’d say we have a problem..

my2hands

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Watching these politicians trip all over their dicks talking to these kids in Florida is pathetic. Rubio is really trying not to answer questions that compromise his NRA buddies.

Two weeks ago those kids had to be told not to eat Tide pods.

Still picking on children that were victims of a violent crime I see

what a loser and a pathetic man

Typical fake tough guy, you would fold like a lawn chair if you went through what those kids did, and I know it

I have a feeling you are a very lonely man

ConorKavanagh

https://youtu.be/zXMzzA3TVYA

rgambs

I think unsung is among the huge swath of population that hates these kids because the kids are better able to articulate a position than they themselves are.

rgambs

Tide Pods, ha!
Coming from the guy who eats falsified memes from Stormfront for breakfast.

ConorKavanagh

I had to google what tide pods were just there. I don't think we have those in Ireland, but I can't imagine forcing myself to actually consume one. However, if young people do stupid challenges, it doesn't nullify their stance on other issues. Everyone does stupid shit like that as a youth.

my2hands

ConorKavanagh said:

https://youtu.be/zXMzzA3TVYA

Keep cashing those checks, Marco

It's not about the right to BEAR arms, it's about the right to SELL arms

ConorKavanagh

I don't feel as qualified to discuss this stuff as some of you guys, given that I've never even set foot in the United States. But it really captivates everyone over here. As I saw another parent say, it should have only ever happened once and then the problem should've been fixed.