Gun Control III

Is there any reasonable rational argument against what this child is saying?
He cannot legally buy and drink beer, but he can buy an assault weapon. what fevered mind thinks that is ok?

This should be an absolute no brainer but until the politicians grow a backbone and stop taking bribes from the likes of the NRA nothing will change.

As someone mentioned above if now is "too soon" to talk about gun control, when is the right time?
How many more dead children are required?

Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

This should be an absolute no brainer but until the politicians grow a backbone and stop taking bribes from the likes of the NRA nothing will change.

I know its fighting fire with fire and very legally and moraly wrong, but have you thought about sending one of these nut bags to shoot up a private school for the rich. The laws would change overnight.

Faith writes: I think it's reprehensible that gun control becomes this huge leftist cause every time there is a shooting like this, using an emotional situation to push their politics and drown out the other side.

I think it's disgraceful that each mass shooting is followed by repugnant rightist objections, slanders, conspiracy theories and lies, especially of students who have just witnessed the slaughter of classmates.

I'm actually for more gun control but this is the wrong way to get it,...

There is no right way to convince rightist gun wingnuts that we need gun control.

...and when you have teenagers supporting the standard leftwing position I don't trust it anyway.

And when you have rightist nutcases like Donald Jr. liking slanders of traumatized students expressing their opinions and feelings the right has lost all moral authority.

--Percy

If leftists didn't always immediately try to build their case for gun control after such a shooting, trying to pre-empt other points of view, there wouldn't be this predictable exchange of insults every time. Make the case in a neutral time rather than trying to manipulate public opinion at the most emotional possible time. And calling us wingnuts doesn't help. I'm for more gun control but I'm also a defender of the second amendment and I think having a FEW more armed people at schools and other vulnerable institutions is a reasonable solution.

Faith writes: I want some gun control but I may have to take it back about wanting as much as Israel has.

I'm taking back my "Cheer" of that post.

I'd probably want more strictness about the qualifications for individuals, not just a blanket banning of guns for particular individuals.

We must begin by addressing the most extreme case, mass murder, even though it represents only a small proportion of all murders. That means eliminating the right of Americans to own weapons of war.

Next we must address the gun problem. Owning a gun increases the likelihood that you or your family or friends will be shot or murdered. Gun nuts only advance invented reasons for keeping their guns, such as self defense. If they were truthful they'd just say, "I like guns, don't take my fun away." It wouldn't be a good reason, but it would at least be honest.

--Percy

Actually, what Israel does is make sure the most vulnerable places are protected by allowing more armed people there. That's the same kind of solution as arming teachers in schools, where the shootings always happen. I don't care who is armed, just some people who are charged with protecting the children, and it shouldn't take more than a few. Same wherever there is such a danger.

Faith writes: ... schools, where the shootings always happen. I don't care who is armed....

What about country music concerts in Vegas? Do you want to arm the whole crowd so they can blaze away at the hotel where the shots are coming from?

Faith writes: If leftists didn't always immediately try to build their case for gun control after such a shooting, trying to pre-empt other points of view, there wouldn't be this predictable exchange of insults every time.

"Now is not the right time" has become a blatant rightest tactic to avoid talking about gun control.

Make the case in a neutral time rather than trying to manipulate public opinion at the most emotional possible time.

This is just BS. It has become deadly obvious that this is just a discussion avoidance strategy.

And calling us wingnuts doesn't help.

If the word fits...

Being polite to gun nuts who never return the favor but just take advantage has never proven an effective strategy. Prove I'm wrong by condemning those slandering the Parkland students. Oh, wait, you can't do that because you're slandering them yourself.

Gun nuts who support the NRA, and of course the NRA itself, are complicit in murder, and politicians who accept their money must own the blood on their hands.

I'm for more gun control...

Like what? Likely you're for any ineffective gun control measure. I bet you're in favor of more mental health efforts and against taking away assault weapons.

...but I'm also a defender of the second amendment...

Why? It is responsible for the US having more gun-related deaths per capita by far than any other nation in the civilized world.

...and I think having a FEW more armed people at schools and other vulnerable institutions is a reasonable solution.

Yes, your wingnuttiness, more guns in schools is the reasonable solution. Let's have shootouts in schools while also increasing the likelihood of gun accidents.

--Percy

We have a problem with crazed shooters these days. One could spend some time trying to figure out why, possibly to good purpose, but the point is we have a particular problem that needs addressing, and taking more guns away from the good guys strikes some of us as the least sane solution.. The problem is not guns, it's crazed shooters. If you want to argue for better restrictions that really would keep guns out of the hands of the crazed ones great, I'm all for it, but we all know that isn't really possible. I'm also for better gun control in general, but I think it's really slimy of the leftists who always jump on the crazed shooter cases to try to take guns away from everybody else.

I have no idea how to deal with a situation like the Vegas shooter. Possibly if there had been someone in the crowd or nearby who had a rifle handy he might have been stopped before he did his worst. I don't know. But making sure crowds anywhere are unarmed in this day and age is NOT the sane solution.

Faith writes: Possibly if there had been someone in the crowd or nearby who had a rifle handy he might have been stopped before he did his worst.

That's what I'm saying. If more good guys with guns is your solution, arm all the good guys in the crowd with sniper rifles. "He's in that window! No! He's in that window! No! I mean the one beside the one I shot out!"

The problem is: How do you figure out who the good guys are? By giving guns to good guys, you're also giving guns to bad guys who haven't done anything bad yet. And you're also giving guns to guys who couldn't hit the side of a barn - but they could hit the side of a hotel.

Faith writes: But making sure crowds anywhere are unarmed in this day and age is NOT the sane solution.

It has nothing to do with "this day and age". In this same day and age, most of the countries in the world get by with very few mass shootings.

It's about the insane attitude that Americans have toward guns.

Always characterizing your opponents in such extreme terms doesn't help the discussion. I for one have never advocated arming all people or even most people. All it should take is a few, and preventing those few from being in a position to help by, say, gun free zones, doesn't help the situation. Making a big deal about how to tell who the good guys are is also a red herring.

It certainly IS about "this day and age." We have a NEW unusual problem in this country, and it's the reason for all this talk about gun control NOW. Other countries don't have our particular problems and the comparison is unfair.

From what caffeine said, it seems Israel allows more armed people in areas where there is more known danger. Sounds extremely reasonable to me, but our situation of lone crazed shooters doesn't need more than a very few armed people, and the solution of taking away guns from the most vulnerable areas hits me as crazier than crazy. And again, stop arguing this when there's been a shooting, it makes a wacko emotional issue out of something that needs the most carefujl reasonable thought.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: It certainly IS about "this day and age." We have a NEW unusual problem in this country....

I recently re-read two books by Edwin Tunis that I was fond of when I was a kid: Colonial living and Frontier Living. They portray a gun-obsessed and violence obsessed America going back to the 1600s.

Faith writes: Other countries don't have our particular problems and the comparison is unfair.

They don't have the same problems because they don't have the same attitude - that guns problems can be solved by more guns.

Faith writes: And again, stop arguing this when there's been a shooting....

We have to discuss it soon after the shooting because it's only a few days until the next shooting.

Faith writes: I think it's reprehensible that gun control becomes this huge leftist cause every time there is a shooting like this, using an emotional situation to push their politics and drown out the other side.. I'm actually for more gun control but this is the wrong way to get it, and when you have teenagers supporting the standard leftwing position I don't trust it anyway.

Why do you think calling something "leftist" will automatically disqualify it? Perhaps you could sit back and realize that you aren't the only one that is allowed to have an opinion. Instead of calling something left or right you can start to ask if it is good or bad. Political tribalism hurts us all and it prevents us from bettering society.

Faith writes: We have a problem with crazed shooters these days. One could spend some time trying to figure out why, possibly to good purpose, but the point is we have a particular problem that needs addressing, and taking more guns away from the good guys strikes some of us as the least sane solution.. The problem is not guns, it's crazed shooters. If you want to argue for better restrictions that really would keep guns out of the hands of the crazed ones great, I'm all for it, but we all know that isn't really possible.

You are part of the problem. Any time that sensible gun control is put forward you will go off about how it is some leftist conspiracy. Even something as simple as closing the gun show loopholes causes the NRA to rile up their base and send out conservative politicians to speak out against the law. You appear to be so biased that if a Democratic politician talked about pumping floodwaters out of a neighborhood you would probably call it a leftist conspiracy to rob good people of water.

Faith writes: Actually, what Israel does is make sure the most vulnerable places are protected by allowing more armed people there.

Are you supporting the Israel solution again?

That's the same kind of solution as arming teachers in schools, where the shootings always happen.

No, the shootings don't always happen in schools. They happen all over (more on that later), and boy you've got a short memory. The Las Vegas concert shooting where 56 were killed and 851 injured was just a few months ago.

By "arming teachers in schools" do you include all the requirements and training as in Israel? What if teachers want to teach instead of being turned into armed guards? Who's going to pay for the training and the guns? Who's liable if an armed teacher makes a mistake and shoots the wrong person or mistakes a contraption from metal shop for a gun?

Wouldn't it be much easier to just get rid of all weapons that make it very easy to fill the air with high velocity lead?

Here's an actual hunting rifle, it fires three shots before reloading:

Here's an AR15 assault weapon. It fire 30 shots as quickly as you can pull the trigger before reloading (made easy by the plug-in magazine), and it can be fitted with a bump stock to turn it into a machine gun. There is no legitimate reason for a civilian to be in possession of such a gun:

Hunting rifles? Fine. Assault rifles? No. Hand guns for self defense? These cause the vast majority of gun deaths in the U.S., so no.

I don't care who is armed, just some people who are charged with protecting the children, and it shouldn't take more than a few. Same wherever there is such a danger.

Since a gun is portable, where isn't there danger? The list of places where mass shootings have occurred includes schools, colleges, night clubs, concerts, churches, McDonalds, army bases, navy yards, movie theaters, places of business, Indian reservations, immigration centers, post offices, restaurants, and so forth. The question with a much shorter answer would be, "Where hasn't there been a mass shooting?" Phone booths?

--Percy