School shooting survivors announce national march on Washington - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43105701[/url] [quote]Young survivors of Wednesday's school shooting in Florida have announced a national march on Washington to demand political action on gun control. Student organisers told US media that they were determined to make Wednesday's shooting a turning point in the national gun debate. The attack, which left 17 students and staff members dead, was the deadliest US school shooting since 2012. Yesterday protestors chanted "shame on you" to US lawmakers and the president.[/quote] This is amazing. It feels like a real mass pushback against the NRA has finally begun

Their attention would be better served to target the mess K-12 has become, and to do away with this bullshit "zero tolerance" policy that rewards bullying and maltreatment. Also the existing laws are extremely poorly enforced, with loopholes by the dozen, because apparently the system's broken down in a number of places when it comes to acting on the reported dangers as well. It's no secret that both this guy and Dylann Roof, to name but two, fell through the cracks because the warnings were not heeded and investigated appropriately. It's a nice gesture and all, but ultimately in my opinion the effort will just be wasted because both sides arent going to move one step in the gun control debate for now, unless one of them chooses to be reasonable.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53141401]Their attention would be better served to target the mess K-12 has become, and to do away with this bullshit "zero tolerance" policy that rewards bullying and maltreatment. Also the existing laws are extremely poorly enforced, with loopholes by the dozen, because apparently the system's broken down in a number of places when it comes to acting on the reported dangers as well. It's no secret that both this guy and Dylann Roof, to name but two, fell through the cracks because the warnings were not heeded and investigated appropriately. It's a nice gesture and all, but ultimately in my opinion the effort will just be wasted because both sides arent going to move one step in the gun control debate for now, unless one of them chooses to be reasonable.[/QUOTE] Nothing will happen as long as politicians are in the pocket of the NRA.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141433]Nothing will happen as long as politicians are in the pocket of the NRA.[/QUOTE] Nothing will happen because politicians don't care. The Republicans are useless and the Democrats just create a fake class of firearms with a scary name and then ban it so they can look like they've done something.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141433]Nothing will happen as long as politicians [B]refuse to compromise[/B].[/QUOTE] ftfy. I don't blame anyone for fighting against gun control because they have never gained anything from it when it has happened. If you want to change something, negotiate. You're active in the other threads about this at the moment, and you know the arguments that have been presented to you. So you know full well what I mean, but you are continuing with the headstrong charge towards the same path.

A guy I work with was saying that the politicians don't care because it isn't their family and friends in the crosshairs of mass shooters. That once the political elite realize they're just as vulnerable as the rest of us is when something will actually happen.

[QUOTE=Zakkshockv2;53141500]A guy I work with was saying that the politicians don't care because it isn't their family and friends in the crosshairs of mass shooters. That once the political elite realize they're just as vulnerable as the rest of us is when something will actually happen.[/QUOTE] Well Gabrielle Giffords was shot

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53141520]Well Gabrielle Giffords was shot[/QUOTE] And the Softball shooting more recently. Either way, I don't think there is going to be any budging soon.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;53141455]ftfy. I don't blame anyone for fighting against gun control because they have never gained anything from it when it has happened. If you want to change something, negotiate. You're active in the other threads about this at the moment, and you know the arguments that have been presented to you. So you know full well what I mean, but you are continuing with the headstrong charge towards the same path.[/QUOTE] Republicans have consistently been the ones who've refused to compromise imo. one positive change I would hope that everyone would agree with is getting rid of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)]the ban[/url] on studies of gun violence. [editline]18th February 2018[/editline] I think it's also disingenuous to suggest any attempt at gun regulation is an attempt to take away people's guns. I haven't actually been that active in recent gun thread due to being busy with schoolwork but I'm going to assume it was consumed with the same gun law minutiae that has seemly consumed every gun discussion on facepunch.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141566]Republicans have consistently been the ones who've refused to compromise imo. one positive change I would hope that everyone would agree with is getting rid of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)]the ban[/url] on studies of gun violence.[/QUOTE] There's not a ban on studying gun violence, there's a ban on doing research with the intention of advocating for gun control. That's a very fair ban under the circumstances at the time: [I]“We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” “[It is a long term campaign] to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”[/I] - Top CDC Researchers on their study of gun violence The CDC was playing politics, they structured their research to support a conclusion, then used the conclusion to support an agenda. That's not how research is supposed to go.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53141595]There's not a ban on studying gun violence, there's a ban on doing research with the intention of advocating for gun control. That's a very fair ban under the circumstances at the time: [I]“We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” “[It is a long term campaign] to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”[/I] - Top CDC Researchers on their study of gun violence The CDC was playing politics, they structured their research to support a conclusion, then used the conclusion to support an agenda. That's not how research is supposed to go.[/QUOTE] You can't blame mass shootings on the mental ill if you refuse to investigate the relation between gun violence and mentally ill. You can't blame people for being misinformed on guns if you prevent studies on guns from taking place. That amendment might have totally valid at the time but all things have a shelf life.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141433]Nothing will happen as long as politicians are in the pocket of the NRA.[/QUOTE] That’s why we need to get out and vote Republicans out of office. We can do something about this even though Congress won’t, vote Republicans out of office if you want change.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141633]You can't blame mass shootings on the mental ill if you refuse to investigate the relation between gun violence and mentally ill. You can't blame people for being misinformed on guns if you prevent studies on guns from taking place. That amendment might have totally valid at the time but all things have a shelf life.[/QUOTE] Except they’re still able to do studies. Such as in 2013, which even recomended more studies to be done. I think its more down to the fact no one wants to touch it with a 20ft pole.

[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;53141390][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43105701[/url] This is amazing. It feels like a real mass pushback against the NRA has finally begun[/QUOTE] give it time, the NRA will win this because they have a very republican president, a republican congress, and the only republicans coming out for gun control have been lame ducks and nobodies. If this time next week we have 50 senators and 100 house members promising action, with paul ryan and mitch agreeing to action then we're getting somewhere. [editline]18th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=bdd458;53141648]Except they’re still able to do studies. Such as in 2013, which even recomended more studies to be done. I think its more down to the fact no one wants to touch it with a 20ft pole.[/QUOTE] The main bulk of the US's pathology researchers can't touch it with a 20ft pole because it can't be funded thanks to congress banning them from using funds to research this.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141633]You can't blame mass shootings on the mental ill if you refuse to investigate the relation between gun violence and mentally ill. You can't blame people for being misinformed on guns if you prevent studies on guns from taking place.[/quote] No, but I can blame people for trying to skullfuck the rights of tens of millions because a few thousand can't control themselves. [quote] That amendment might have totally valid at the time but all things have a shelf life.[/QUOTE] The second amendment was never intended to promote the hobby of plinking. The second amendment is one final check-and-balance against tyranny, a way to guarantee the American public would be able to rise up against an oppressor in the same way the Founding Fathers had just finished doing when they sat down to write it. It's our 'oh shit' handle in the unlikely scenario that every other check and balance in the American government fails. It has also guaranteed that nobody would ever dream of invading the lower 48, because the same weapons the Second Amendment guarantees us a right to have in order to overthrow tyranny also means the line between 'militant' and 'civlian' gets [I]real fucking blurry[/I] the instant hostile troops land on American soil. People need to realize why we have the second amendment. It isn't to protect my right to plink at oil filters with a bolt action rifle. It's to protect my right, and indeed every other American's right, to resist a tyrannical government, to protect our ability to fight for freedom. Being able to poke holes in oil filters from 250 yards away is just a side perk.

[QUOTE=bdd458;53141648]Except they’re still able to do studies. Such as in 2013, which even recomended more studies to be done. I think its more down to the fact no one wants to touch it with a 20ft pole.[/QUOTE] Only in the context of other things from the [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/dickey-amendment-gun-violence-research-ban_us_56606201e4b072e9d1c4eaaa]story[/url] that wikipedia page links.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53141595]There's not a ban on studying gun violence, there's a ban on doing research with the intention of advocating for gun control. That's a very fair ban under the circumstances at the time: [I]“We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.” “[It is a long term campaign] to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”[/I] - Top CDC Researchers on their study of gun violence The CDC was playing politics, they structured their research to support a conclusion, then used the conclusion to support an agenda. That's not how research is supposed to go.[/QUOTE] Because if there's one thing the CDC isn't supposed to do, it's study threats to the public health with the intention of finding solutions to those threats.

[QUOTE=TestECull;53141667]No, but I can blame people for trying to skullfuck the rights of tens of millions because a few thousand can't control themselves. [/QUOTE] If there was more research available on guns and gun violence I'm sure people who write policy would be more able to focus those who can't control themselves.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53141401]this bullshit "zero tolerance" policy that rewards bullying and maltreatment.[/QUOTE] The what?

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53141675]Because if there's one thing the CDC isn't supposed to do, it's study threats to the public health with the intention of finding solutions to those threats.[/QUOTE] Typically you do the research, come to a conclusion based on the research, then propose solutions. What the CDC did was come to a conclusion, then do research to support the conclusion. Completely backwards, not to mention dishonest. I respect that some people don't like guns, and I can see why when people are misusing them to harm others. What I don't respect is using dirty tactics and misinformation to further your goals.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53141700]Typically you do the research, come to a conclusion based on the research, then propose solutions. What the CDC did was come to a conclusion, then do research to support the conclusion. Completely backwards, not to mention dishonest.[/QUOTE] iirc people found a lot of holes in their methodology in that period as a result of their dishonest methods. it was bad research, through and through.

[QUOTE=TestECull;53141667]No, but I can blame people for trying to skullfuck the rights of tens of millions because a few thousand can't control themselves. The second amendment was never intended to promote the hobby of plinking. The second amendment is one final check-and-balance against tyranny, a way to guarantee the American public would be able to rise up against an oppressor in the same way the Founding Fathers had just finished doing when they sat down to write it. It's our 'oh shit' handle in the unlikely scenario that every other check and balance in the American government fails. It has also guaranteed that nobody would ever dream of invading the lower 48, because the same weapons the Second Amendment guarantees us a right to have in order to overthrow tyranny also means the line between 'militant' and 'civlian' gets [I]real fucking blurry[/I] the instant hostile troops land on American soil. People need to realize why we have the second amendment. It isn't to protect my right to plink at oil filters with a bolt action rifle. It's to protect my right, and indeed every other American's right, to resist a tyrannical government, to protect our ability to fight for freedom. Being able to poke holes in oil filters from 250 yards away is just a side perk.[/QUOTE] Disagree entirely with your assertation of what the second amendment was written for Your interpretation is actually based on a perversion of the language and the amendment that the NRA pushed when gun legislation started becoming a thing, chiefly around the time of the Heller case. Pick up any history book and you’ll notice that firearms have hardly been the bulwark against tyranny that millions of firearm loving Americans and staunch Second Amendment supporters like to fantasize them as. You must understand how “tyranny” comes about in democratic systems in the first place, true if a foreign nation imposed themselves on America you might have an argument for the case; in the real world the threat of a foreign power invading and conquering America is entirely non existent thanks to its military and geographical location. So what about a tyrannical american government? Tyrannical governments don’t just appear out of thin air, typically they are the result of a revolution or political change supported in part by the population.. So this fantasy about armed patriots rising up against the evil federal government would most likely be a Civil war, rather than a romantic French Revolution style thing. So what did the founding fathers intend? You need to place yourself in the mind of someone living during the age. The continental army was disbanded after the revolutionary war, during the time, “standing armies” were often considered the tools of imperialistic or oppressive powers such as the British Empire. Despite this, the young nation and states would need resources to muster in case of invasion or to protect their sovereignty. The result of this was the 2nd amendment being written in to allow the resources and ability for States to muster militiamen with the ability to equip themselves. You’ll also find that the “militia” during the revolutionary war were hardly the well trained guerilla fighters that people like to imagine, they were often poorly equipped, poorly trained, and sometimes were a detriment to victory on the battlefield for colonial forces. You can reasonably assume this is where the “well trained” bit comes from. Anyways, to summarize everything, the whole “it’s the final check against tyranny!” bit is bullshit and bastardizes the original meaning, and is purely an NRA invention as of the later 20th century. You can also look to other nations and recognize that firearm ownership has often contributed to tyranny rather than protect against it. If you’re interested, I highly recommend reading this link to understand the reality about the “anti tyranny myth” [URL]https://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53141675]Because if there's one thing the CDC isn't supposed to do, it's study threats to the public health with the intention of finding solutions to those threats.[/QUOTE] If the only effective solution it can find is gun control, then it's obviously not qualified enough to study gun violence.

[QUOTE=Colliseemoe;53141691]The what?[/QUOTE] Basically if you dare do something to defend yourself from a bully you get punished just as harshly.

[QUOTE=Durrsly;53141824]Basically if you dare do something to defend yourself from a bully you get punished just as harshly.[/QUOTE] Ha yep pretty much this. Had my fair share of screwball scenarios with this in middle school which all ended up with me getting fucked over just as hard as the other guy. Why go through the effort of investigating things when you can just remove the problem with an administrative sledge hammer?

Nice, i hope a lot of people turn up

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53141819]Disagree entirely with your assertation of what the second amendment was written for Your interpretation is actually based on a perversion of the language and the amendment that the NRA pushed when gun legislation started becoming a thing, chiefly around the time of the Heller case. Pick up any history book and you’ll notice that firearms have hardly been the bulwark against tyranny that millions of firearm loving Americans and staunch Second Amendment supporters like to fantasize them as. You must understand how “tyranny” comes about in democratic systems in the first place, true if a foreign nation imposed themselves on America you might have an argument for the case; in the real world the threat of a foreign power invading and conquering America is entirely non existent thanks to its military and geographical location. So what about a tyrannical american government? Tyrannical governments don’t just appear out of thin air, typically they are the result of a revolution or political change supported in part by the population.. So this fantasy about armed patriots rising up against the evil federal government would most likely be a Civil war, rather than a romantic French Revolution style thing. So what did the founding fathers intend? You need to place yourself in the mind of someone living during the age. The continental army was disbanded after the revolutionary war, during the time, “standing armies” were often considered the tools of imperialistic or oppressive powers such as the British Empire. Despite this, the young nation and states would need resources to muster in case of invasion or to protect their sovereignty. The result of this was the 2nd amendment being written in to allow the resources and ability for States to muster militiamen with the ability to equip themselves. You’ll also find that the “militia” during the revolutionary war were hardly the well trained guerilla fighters that people like to imagine, they were often poorly equipped, poorly trained, and sometimes were a detriment to victory on the battlefield for colonial forces. You can reasonably assume this is where the “well trained” bit comes from. Anyways, to summarize everything, the whole “it’s the final check against tyranny!” bit is bullshit and bastardizes the original meaning, and is purely an NRA invention as of the later 20th century. You can also look to other nations and recognize that firearm ownership has often contributed to tyranny rather than protect against it. If you’re interested, I highly recommend reading this link to understand the reality about the “anti tyranny myth” [URL]https://www.armedwithreason.com/militia-myths-why-armed-populations-dont-prevent-tyranny-but-often-lead-to-it/[/URL][/QUOTE] My interpretation has fuck all to do with the NRA's propagandist bullshit and everything to do with the frame of mind they had back then. The framers had no clue where technology would lead, that the tyranny wouldn't come in the form of another power putting its troops in people's living rooms, but the idea's still there. I fucking hate the NRA, by the by. They're a greater threat to the 2nd Amendment than the left ever has been.

[QUOTE=TestECull;53141907]My interpretation has fuck all to do with the NRA's propagandist bullshit and everything to do with the frame of mind they had back then. The framers had no clue where technology would lead, that the tyranny wouldn't come in the form of another power putting its troops in people's living rooms, but the idea's still there. I fucking hate the NRA, by the by. They're a greater threat to the 2nd Amendment than the left ever has been.[/QUOTE] Yeah they’re a greater threat in the sense that they’ve convinced millions of Americans of the “Founding fathers wrote it as a final check against the government myth.”

IIRC the CDC isn't banned anymore but getting funding for research into this sort of thing is pretty hard.

[QUOTE=Firecat;53141912]Yeah its all nice and wholesome to get together and feel like you're doing something that fits your point of view but any achievable gun control right now is just going to be useless when it comes to these kind of events[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter whether gun control is going to help prevent situations like these. Trump and Republicans were quick to politicize this shooting, and that pissed off the people directly affected by it. If you don't want people coming for your guns you better do everything you can to stop the assholes that chose to politicize this. [QUOTE] Call me when the FBI is doing something besides wondering if Nikolas Cruz translates into some Trump collusion secret phrase,[/QUOTE] This is bullshit and you know it. [QUOTE]broken kids that give obvious signs are more tended to, stop pretending that advertising "gun-free zones" does something besides encourage twisted individuals to fantasize about committing their crimes there, let specifically trained teachers have the right to concealed carry on campus in areas of the US that already have concealed carry laws, focus harder on making sure the staff of these schools is dedicated to making a socially safe space for kid to get education,[/QUOTE] If you want educators to function as public safety officers you better compensate us thusly. If we're now expected to stand in harms way we better qualify for PSOB at a minimum. [QUOTE]and speaking up to their higher ups and designated counselors/help for them, instead of wondering why little Johnny displays very obvious signs of being a problem child repeatedly and only caring about it after the unthinkable has been done by one of these children.[/QUOTE] The bulk of us do exactly that. Some places have shitty administrative policies, but most educators are pretty invested in their students.