America's Gun Violence

PJPOWER

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

dignin said:

PJPOWER said:

unsung said:

Oh my guh, don’t they know that one of them could start going crazy at any second and start shooting the place up.  It would be much more of a safe place if they left their guns locked up and put up a bunch of “gun free zone” signs

Hey, look who figured out what a strawman is. Thanks for providing a perfect example.

Figured it was time to join the party.  This does kind of contradict the “more guns don’t make a place safer” statement constantly thrown around though. Why would the presence of armed security exist at these venues if not for the safety of the individuals there.  Why not just give them rubber bands and place “gun free zone” signs all around?   

The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence.  I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom.  You are basically yelling at the clouds if you think people are against the police being fully armed and present.  

You are kind of missing my point...How does the presence of armed security make a venue a safer place?  Or do they?  There have been plenty around the AMT arguing that “more guns is not the answer”.  Why is it the answer at these venues and not at schools? (Not focusing just on armed teachers either).
Do armed defense teams make a catastrophic event like in Florida more likely or less likely to unfold? 

more guns in the hands of civilians is not the answer.

of course it makes it potentially safer for trained armed security/police at schools (NOT TEACHERS). but the question is, why can't we just fucking get rid of the AR-15's of the world and be done with it? do we want to live in a world where our kids grow up in a nurturing environment with armed guards around like it's fucking North Korea? do we not see the possible negative effects of this?

last year we went to mexico. we went to a tourist trap beach off the resort and there was armed military walking around. that fucking freaked us out. especially our kids. my youngest (8) was terrified. at THE BEACH. I wouldn't want that shit in my SCHOOLS. 

Once AR-15s get banned, then maybe the issue can be readdressed, but that does not seem to be happening (even just got shut down in Florida).  The children would be desensitized to the presence of armed security fairly quickly and seeing them would most not likely freak them out for long (I think the “freak out” factor is being a bit exaggerated, but that’s just my opinion).  Still, point is, why does armed security personnel make places safer if it is not due to the fact that a weapon can greatly help neutralize a “bad guy” with a weapon??  Personally, I still support letting schools covertly (except to law enforcement) arm and train staff.  Over 170 schools around here already doing this.  I know some around here hate TX, though, so I guess itdoesn’t make any difference.

Ah, yes. We must desensitize children to guns and authoritarianism at an early age. That's the ticket! A vibrant future you depict here....

The fuck...

Well, if we’re cool with desensitizing them to blood/gore/porn/etc...Besides, they are already desensitized to guns because 90% of their favorite TV shows and video games have accomplished that goal...From a psychological perspective, regular exposure to those sorts of things in any form or fashion creates a level of desensitization or, at certain ages, can actually result in abnormalities seen in soldiers with PTSD (nightmares, etc). 
And most schools are already pretty authoritarian if you sit down and think about it.  

Did not realize violent video games were only sold in America?  Are we the only country with violence on tv also?

Obviously blood/gore/porn is causing gun violence, since no other countries have blood/gore/porn.

Probably not healthy for people in other countries either, but I do not see gun control similar to some of those countries happening in the US, nor would I support it here.  Comparing the US to other countries is very close to making an “apples and oranges” type comparison.  There is a reason it was so much easier to pass gun bans in other countries...

that's dumb

Exhibit A?

mace1229

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

I think my point was missed.
I just see it as ironic to call an illegal immigrant "law-abiding." The comparison was made that legal gun owners say "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners," I think the proper equivalent would be "don't punish the legal immigrants." Which we don't. Or maybe to say "we should punish the illegal gun owners" which we do. Mixing those two statements together is not a fair comparisson.

Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for many of these families that come. But that doesn't mean I believe in open boarders. If there are no consequences for traveling here illegally, then that is what we have.
And to put it into perspective, there are about 4 times as many people who die crossing the border than die from school shootings. So there is a major safety issue. All this cry for gun control after every school shooting (and I am for more gun control by the way), but then we want to turn our heads to illegal immigration that kills even more.

I just don't get how we are painted as such evil people for wanting to secure our borders. 

400 deal in school shootings in 5 years since Sandy Hook
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/15/us/school-shootings-sandy-hook-parkland.html

300 dead last year alone from boarder crossing. And that numbe rhas to be way low, no telling how many are just missing and never found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico–United_States_border

Pathetic attempt at trying to equate these two issues , 1st of all to me 1 kid getting shot dead at schools is enough for more gun control .

I wasn't equating these two issues, was mostly asking how can you care so much about the safety of one and not the other.
Although I will admit I think my assumptions were wrong. I got the impression  based on a few comments that most here were not for enforcing any immigrations laws and something more like open borders. I think that assumption was wrong, and I would agree that the 6 year old kid brought over by his parents has done nothing wrong.
I even said I was for gun control, so I wasn't trying to relate the two in order to convince anyone to lesson gun control.
My point was that if we don't enforce immigration laws and essentially encourage people to keep breaking them, then more people, many of them children, will die crossing the border than from school shootings.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

josevolution said:

mace1229 said:

I think my point was missed.
I just see it as ironic to call an illegal immigrant "law-abiding." The comparison was made that legal gun owners say "don't punish the law-abiding gun owners," I think the proper equivalent would be "don't punish the legal immigrants." Which we don't. Or maybe to say "we should punish the illegal gun owners" which we do. Mixing those two statements together is not a fair comparisson.

Don't get me wrong, I feel terrible for many of these families that come. But that doesn't mean I believe in open boarders. If there are no consequences for traveling here illegally, then that is what we have.
And to put it into perspective, there are about 4 times as many people who die crossing the border than die from school shootings. So there is a major safety issue. All this cry for gun control after every school shooting (and I am for more gun control by the way), but then we want to turn our heads to illegal immigration that kills even more.

I just don't get how we are painted as such evil people for wanting to secure our borders. 

400 deal in school shootings in 5 years since Sandy Hook
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/15/us/school-shootings-sandy-hook-parkland.html

300 dead last year alone from boarder crossing. And that numbe rhas to be way low, no telling how many are just missing and never found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_deaths_along_the_Mexico–United_States_border

Pathetic attempt at trying to equate these two issues , 1st of all to me 1 kid getting shot dead at schools is enough for more gun control .

I wasn't equating these two issues, was mostly asking how can you care so much about the safety of one and not the other.
Although I will admit I think my assumptions were wrong. I got the impression  based on a few comments that most here were not for enforcing any immigrations laws and something more like open borders. I think that assumption was wrong, and I would agree that the 6 year old kid brought over by his parents has done nothing wrong.
I even said I was for gun control, so I wasn't trying to relate the two in order to convince anyone to lesson gun control.
My point was that if we don't enforce immigration laws and essentially encourage people to keep breaking them, then more people, many of them children, will die crossing the border than from school shootings.

Except the Obama Administration did enforce immigration laws, focusing mainly at violent offenders. He didn’t get the moniker, “deporter-in-chief” for nothing. And he strengthened the border without the chant of “build the wall.”

benjs

HughFreakingDillon said:

october22 said:

josevolution said:

october22 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence.  I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. 

I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.

Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction. 

how is it more radical? 

Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.

So can you answer why these massacres don’t happen in other countries heck even our northern neighbors don’t have to deal with these kinds of issues, so tell us why only in this so called most advanced nation in the world these occurred ..

"Fiction can be fun! But I find the reference section much more enlightening." - Ace Ventura

 https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

I can't answer your question because it makes no goddamn sense.

You might find the above link handy. Admittedly, it's a few years old, but it may clear up some of your ignorance. Be sure to note where our cute neighbors from the north rank on issues that "only" happen in the US. Check out Europe while you're at it. How's that gun control working out? Dive a little deeper into US state-by-state, or county-by-county gun deaths. How's that gun control working out?

We absolutely have a problem with gun violence in the US, but we're certainly not alone. If you would take a moment to do your own research rather than parrot liars and social manipulators like Obama, Vox, CNN or wherever else you get your "information", you'll soon find that you're on the factually incorrect side of the argument.

That said, this will be my last post in this thread. I realize I'm dealing with the same type of ignorance here that I run into in real life. After 340 pages in a thread about gun violence, some of you who'd like to infringe upon the rights of others don't even know what the fuck a semi-automatic firearm even is!

AND YET YOU SEEK TO BAN THEM

Peace

I always love these exit posts. 

Funny thing is that the exit rarely comes after.

PJPOWER

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

CM189191

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

what's your point: "thank god he was *only* able to kill 17 people" ??

slippery slope isn't a legitimate argument, it's a logical fallacy
if you're gonna have a serious debate, at least get your terms right

PJPOWER

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

what's your point: "thank god he was *only* able to kill 17 people" ??

slippery slope isn't a legitimate argument, it's a logical fallacy
if you're gonna have a serious debate, at least get your terms right

That’s why I said I was NOT going to use the slippery slope fallacy...There have been plenty of those used lately from the pro-gun controllers regarding arming school staff though...but I digress...Thanks for the lesson, though, professor.

tbergs

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but this only makes it clearer that limiting the magazine size on these types of semi auto rifles is not going to stop mass killings with them so ban the gun itself or turn it into a 5 round max magazine and accept lots of people will still die. Either way, do something gun rights advocates and/or NRA supporters! 

PJPOWER

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but this only makes it clearer that limiting the magazine size on these types of semi auto rifles is not going to stop mass killings with them so ban the gun itself or turn it into a 5 round max magazine and accept lots of people will still die. Either way, do something gun rights advocates and/or NRA supporters! 

Ooooor, focus on things that you can do...So let’s just pretend that any bans were 100% impossible (they may be).  What else would you bring to the table?

Halifax2TheMax

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

what's your point: "thank god he was *only* able to kill 17 people" ??

slippery slope isn't a legitimate argument, it's a logical fallacy
if you're gonna have a serious debate, at least get your terms right

That’s why I said I was NOT going to use the slippery slope fallacy...There have been plenty of those used lately from the pro-gun controllers regarding arming school staff though...but I digress...Thanks for the lesson, though, professor.

Why? Because statistics show that law enforcement officers, who one would think go through pretty rigerous training regarding firearms efficiency still manage to miss their targets more than half the time? Are you proposing teachers have the same level or more training than law enforcement with regards to firearm proficiency?

Gern Blansten

october22 said:

josevolution said:

october22 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence.  I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. 

I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.

Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction. 

how is it more radical? 

Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.

So can you answer why these massacres don’t happen in other countries heck even our northern neighbors don’t have to deal with these kinds of issues, so tell us why only in this so called most advanced nation in the world these occurred ..

"Fiction can be fun! But I find the reference section much more enlightening." - Ace Ventura

 https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

I can't answer your question because it makes no goddamn sense.

You might find the above link handy. Admittedly, it's a few years old, but it may clear up some of your ignorance. Be sure to note where our cute neighbors from the north rank on issues that "only" happen in the US. Check out Europe while you're at it. How's that gun control working out? Dive a little deeper into US state-by-state, or county-by-county gun deaths. How's that gun control working out?

We absolutely have a problem with gun violence in the US, but we're certainly not alone. If you would take a moment to do your own research rather than parrot liars and social manipulators like Obama, Vox, CNN or wherever else you get your "information", you'll soon find that you're on the factually incorrect side of the argument.

That said, this will be my last post in this thread. I realize I'm dealing with the same type of ignorance here that I run into in real life. After 340 pages in a thread about gun violence, some of you who'd like to infringe upon the rights of others don't even know what the fuck a semi-automatic firearm even is!

AND YET YOU SEEK TO BAN THEM

Peace

Hilarious....as I (and likely others) on here have said before...it's amazing how the pro gun crowd always falls back on "what the fuck a semi-automatic firearm even is"

I can't tell you how many arguments I have seen on facebook where a gun nut will ask "do you even know what the AR in AR-15 stands for?"
As if the answer to that question will result in the USA not having a gun problem.

tbergs

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but this only makes it clearer that limiting the magazine size on these types of semi auto rifles is not going to stop mass killings with them so ban the gun itself or turn it into a 5 round max magazine and accept lots of people will still die. Either way, do something gun rights advocates and/or NRA supporters! 

Ooooor, focus on things that you can do...So let’s just pretend that any bans were 100% impossible (they may be).  What else would you bring to the table?

1. Gun Registry
2. Fund Gun Violence Research
3. Limit magazine capacity and types of ammo
4. Universal Background checks including psych eval upon initial purchase and every 5 years after
5. Raise age of purchase for all firearms to 21 (military and law enforcement exemption)
6. Mandatory 16 hours minimum of firearms proficiency and safety training, which includes presentations on mass shootings with survivors and family interviews, the effects of gun violence and information about seeking help for suicidal ideation as it relates to guns.

Those are a few off the top of my head. I'd really focus on 1, 2 and 6 to start because I don't think those should cause concern among gun advocates. You also won't see much in the lowering of gun violence with those 3. Maybe more murder clearances by police, but the violence won't decrease until the other 3 happen.

CM189191

mandatory gun insurance

PJPOWER

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

what's your point: "thank god he was *only* able to kill 17 people" ??

slippery slope isn't a legitimate argument, it's a logical fallacy
if you're gonna have a serious debate, at least get your terms right

That’s why I said I was NOT going to use the slippery slope fallacy...There have been plenty of those used lately from the pro-gun controllers regarding arming school staff though...but I digress...Thanks for the lesson, though, professor.

Why? Because statistics show that law enforcement officers, who one would think go through pretty rigerous training regarding firearms efficiency still manage to miss their targets more than half the time? Are you proposing teachers have the same level or more training than law enforcement with regards to firearm proficiency?

I would say more.  You would be surprised at how low proficiency standards are for law enforcement in general.  Specialized teams such as SWAT are held to higher standards.  In some places, law enforcement candidates are hard to come by and therefor not all that great...I would not hold them as a pillar of shooting accuracy.
And as CM stated, slippery slopes are argumentative logic fallacies and do not help further debates.  

HughFreakingDillon

benjs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

october22 said:

josevolution said:

october22 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

october22 said:

mrussel1 said:

The strawman is that "liberals" have an issue with police (aka people with real professional training) having weapons and an increased presence.  I can speak for myself only, but it seems to be in line with most, that I have an issue with semi automatic weapons in the hands of John Q. Public and arming teachers in a classroom. 

I am not in favor of arming teachers, so I'm with you there.

Are you in favor of removing or restricting the public's access to all semi-automatic weapons? I only ask because that's a more radical view than we've been discussing so it's important to make the distinction. 

how is it more radical? 

Because it broadens the scope of this recent conversation from rifles to almost all guns. It also affirms pro-second amendment advocates' fears that a rifle ban is really the left's sneaky way of coming after all guns eventually (same with mag capacity). That's often why any talk of a ban on any weapon never gets anywhere.

So can you answer why these massacres don’t happen in other countries heck even our northern neighbors don’t have to deal with these kinds of issues, so tell us why only in this so called most advanced nation in the world these occurred ..

"Fiction can be fun! But I find the reference section much more enlightening." - Ace Ventura

 https://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/

I can't answer your question because it makes no goddamn sense.

You might find the above link handy. Admittedly, it's a few years old, but it may clear up some of your ignorance. Be sure to note where our cute neighbors from the north rank on issues that "only" happen in the US. Check out Europe while you're at it. How's that gun control working out? Dive a little deeper into US state-by-state, or county-by-county gun deaths. How's that gun control working out?

We absolutely have a problem with gun violence in the US, but we're certainly not alone. If you would take a moment to do your own research rather than parrot liars and social manipulators like Obama, Vox, CNN or wherever else you get your "information", you'll soon find that you're on the factually incorrect side of the argument.

That said, this will be my last post in this thread. I realize I'm dealing with the same type of ignorance here that I run into in real life. After 340 pages in a thread about gun violence, some of you who'd like to infringe upon the rights of others don't even know what the fuck a semi-automatic firearm even is!

AND YET YOU SEEK TO BAN THEM

Peace

I always love these exit posts. 

Funny thing is that the exit rarely comes after.

I know all too well. I've been guilty of this myself! 

PJPOWER

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but this only makes it clearer that limiting the magazine size on these types of semi auto rifles is not going to stop mass killings with them so ban the gun itself or turn it into a 5 round max magazine and accept lots of people will still die. Either way, do something gun rights advocates and/or NRA supporters! 

Ooooor, focus on things that you can do...So let’s just pretend that any bans were 100% impossible (they may be).  What else would you bring to the table?

1. Gun Registry
2. Fund Gun Violence Research
3. Limit magazine capacity and types of ammo
4. Universal Background checks including psych eval upon initial purchase and every 5 years after
5. Raise age of purchase for all firearms to 21 (military and law enforcement exemption)
6. Mandatory 16 hours minimum of firearms proficiency and safety training, which includes presentations on mass shootings with survivors and family interviews, the effects of gun violence and information about seeking help for suicidal ideation as it relates to guns.

Those are a few off the top of my head. I'd really focus on 1, 2 and 6 to start because I don't think those should cause concern among gun advocates. You also won't see much in the lowering of gun violence with those 3. Maybe more murder clearances by police, but the violence won't decrease until the other 3 happen.  Limit mag capacity, maybe, types of ammo-no (this has been sensationalized in my opinion)

Great response.  I have mixed emotions about a registry and it’s purpose (again, trying to avoid slippery slopes).  Fund the hell out of research!  I am definitely for universal background checks.  Not sure about mandatory psych evaluations as I can see potential abuses there.  Places that have imposed the age limits are already facing age discrimination lawsuits.  I could get down with the 16 hours of training, but really do not see the need to sit through interviews.  Honestly, if you have kept up with my posts, I always feel that government intervention should be a last resort and I, personally, feel that other avenues should be sought first (on many issues actually).
What are you referring to regarding murder clearances by police?  
Thanks again for the positive/non-bashing response.

PJPOWER

CM189191 said:

mandatory gun insurance

That’s dumb 

HughFreakingDillon

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but this only makes it clearer that limiting the magazine size on these types of semi auto rifles is not going to stop mass killings with them so ban the gun itself or turn it into a 5 round max magazine and accept lots of people will still die. Either way, do something gun rights advocates and/or NRA supporters! 

I read recently that the NRA has only 5 million members. give or take. now, that's a ridiculously small amount of peole when you consider the population of the US. This isn't an NRA issue or their supporters. it is your politicians who take the money and refuse to do the bidding of those they got voted in by. if it is true that 90% of people in the US are FOR more gun control/restrictions, it's time to rise the fuck up and hold these politicians accountable. 

BECOME a one issue voter. make this your one issue. 

problem is, no one will. democats and moderates might, but there are just too many "big ticket" issues for any one to gain any traction. immigration, abortion, gun rights, economy/jobs, foreign relations/fear, terrorism, etc. Republican politicians create enough fear/outrage over these other issues to force you to vote for them instead of gun reform. 

people will ultimately put their own issues first, and if they haven't been personally affected by a mass shooting, then that's not going to be their one issue. 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

tbergs said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but this only makes it clearer that limiting the magazine size on these types of semi auto rifles is not going to stop mass killings with them so ban the gun itself or turn it into a 5 round max magazine and accept lots of people will still die. Either way, do something gun rights advocates and/or NRA supporters! 

I read recently that the NRA has only 5 million members. give or take. now, that's a ridiculously small amount of peole when you consider the population of the US. This isn't an NRA issue or their supporters. it is your politicians who take the money and refuse to do the bidding of those they got voted in by. if it is true that 90% of people in the US are FOR more gun control/restrictions, it's time to rise the fuck up and hold these politicians accountable. 

BECOME a one issue voter. make this your one issue. 

problem is, no one will. democats and moderates might, but there are just too many "big ticket" issues for any one to gain any traction. immigration, abortion, gun rights, economy/jobs, foreign relations/fear, terrorism, etc. Republican politicians create enough fear/outrage over these other issues to force you to vote for them instead of gun reform. 

people will ultimately put their own issues first, and if they haven't been personally affected by a mass shooting, then that's not going to be their one issue. 

What's more surprising is that the majority of NRA members SUPPORT stricter background checks and other methods to keep guns out of the hands of maniacs.  The leaders of the group are the gigantic assholes...not the members

my2hands

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

“Cruz went in with only 10-round magazines because larger clips would not fit in his duffel bag, Book said”

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article202486304.html

I’m going to refrain from jumping into any “slippery slope” arguments at this time...

what's your point: "thank god he was *only* able to kill 17 people" ??

slippery slope isn't a legitimate argument, it's a logical fallacy
if you're gonna have a serious debate, at least get your terms right

That’s why I said I was NOT going to use the slippery slope fallacy...There have been plenty of those used lately from the pro-gun controllers regarding arming school staff though...but I digress...Thanks for the lesson, though, professor.

Why? Because statistics show that law enforcement officers, who one would think go through pretty rigerous training regarding firearms efficiency still manage to miss their targets more than half the time? Are you proposing teachers have the same level or more training than law enforcement with regards to firearm proficiency?

I would say more.  You would be surprised at how low proficiency standards are for law enforcement in general.  Specialized teams such as SWAT are held to higher standards.  In some places, law enforcement candidates are hard to come by and therefor not all that great...I would not hold them as a pillar of shooting accuracy.
And as CM stated, slippery slopes are argumentative logic fallacies and do not help further debates.  

Did you just say teachers have more firearm related training and are more proficient  then police?