• ‘Students have just had enough:’ Walkouts begin across the nation one month after Florida shooting
    198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53201287]You're right. If we banned children, it'd be impossible for children to die in shootings.[/QUOTE] Finally someone who gets it.
[QUOTE=The Rifleman;53201061]It blows my mind that in a "first world " country like the US, children are afraid of dying in schools. Good on all of them for marching. Enough is enough.[/QUOTE] That's a result of scaremongering and human's inherently bad sense of statistics. If people are actively afraid of being shot in a school shooting, then they are MASSIVELY hyper-inflating the chances of that happening in their head. It's not a justifiable fear. You should be far more afraid of a serious car accident, yet people aren't.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53201299]That's a result of scaremongering and human's inherently bad sense of statistics. If people are actively afraid of being shot in a school shooting, then they are MASSIVELY hyper-inflating the chances of that happening in their head. It's not a justifiable fear. You should be far more afraid of a serious car accident, yet people aren't.[/QUOTE] More people are killed with bare hands than with rifles in the US per year. This problem being grossly exaggerated does not help anything. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it a fucking epidemic? No.
[QUOTE=Alec W;53201293] I agree with this post heavily, though I do personally advocate for more gun control along the lines of training and registration.[/QUOTE] Training in order to receive a license makes sense. Registries, however, do not. Some countries, like Canada, actually did away with their registries as it was an expensive list to keep track of very quickly just became a hassle. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry]Source[/url]
[QUOTE=NoOneKnowsMe;53201224]It's not a propaganda piece just because you don't agree with it. It doesn't matter that there are other guns that are just as deadly, the end result is the same. They should all only be available to very specific people (e.g. hunters).[/quote] That's not the case at all, and it does matter. They refer to "wounds from military style weapons", then describe how the bullets are faster and tumble, like they are a special case just for guns like the AR15, but they are not special. There are bullets that are faster, and there are more common calibers that have higher energy, and they cause just as much, if not worse damage, even to larger and less squishy animals than humans. It is very much a propaganda piece because it lays it out to make the reader think that "military style weapons" (whatever that means) have special features that make them more deadly than any other gun just for their ammo, and that's not true. Let's check out some muzzle velocities and energy of common calibers, shall we? (Note, the AR15 round is the .223 Rem) [IMG]https://www.ableammo.com/catalog/ammo_charts/fedchart-20a.jpg[/IMG] This is why that article is just a propaganda piece.
[QUOTE=Scot;53201213]I always notice the same people giving agree/star ratings to their posts too, whether or not the post actually made a decent argument or even made any sense. It's like they have a alert set up for any gun thread posted in SH/Politics and then just agree with each other ad nauseam.[/QUOTE] Why are you surprised that people that put forth studies, statistics, and information on the nuances of gun control get agreed with and those that simply appeal to emotion at best don't? Maybe you could post some examples of things that "don't make sense" or try actually debating instead of making offhand remarks like this every single thread?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53201305]That's not the case at all, and it does matter. They refer to "wounds from military style weapons", then describe how the bullets are faster and tumble, like they are a special case just for guns like the AR15, but they are not special. There are bullets that are faster, and there are more common calibers that have higher energy, and they cause just as much, if not worse damage, even to larger and less squishy animals than humans. It is very much a propaganda piece because it lays it out to make the reader think that "military style weapons" (whatever that means) have special features that make them more deadly than any other gun just for their ammo, and that's not true. Let's check out some muzzle velocities and energy of common calibers, shall we? (Note, the AR15 round is the .223 Rem) [IMG]https://www.ableammo.com/catalog/ammo_charts/fedchart-20a.jpg[/IMG] This is why that article is just a propaganda piece.[/QUOTE] Should clarify here that most of those rounds are the civilian hunting rounds everyone says we should be using instead.
[QUOTE=Alec W;53201293]This defeatist attitude does not contribute to any solution at all. [/QUOTE] It isn't defeatist, it's realistic. I'm not saying the problems with american society should just be ignored because there's no hope, I'm saying that while those problems are worked on (which they absolutely should) there's something that can be done right now that could prevent shootings like this from happening.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53201274]I know I'm being baited and you actually have no interest in this so I don't know why I'm walking into it again but this is why: 1) It's been done before multiple times, here and in other places. It has, demonstrably, had no impact on violent crime rates. Not here, not in other countries, nowhere. 2) Countries like Serbia and the Czech Republic and Switzerland show you can have lots of guns AND minimal gun violence. Because again, the defining factor for crime rates isn't banning guns, it's having a stable society. Which we do not have.[/quote] My thinking is that you can at least try to mitigate the damage done when bad stuff happens. That said theres no easy way to reduce the number of guns in circulation in the USA so it's hard to mitigate that damage. A person with a knife might kill a few people (but they can be taken down by a guy with a chair) a person with a gun can kill 100s, from long range and has a decent chance against police. In the UK most armed violent crime is with knives not guns coz we banned guns a while back - we still have gun crime but when it happens its rarer and often with shittier weapons (and I believe it's easier to track fewer weapons) [quote] 3) Even if it was a magic solution you're talking about confiscating an absurd amount of property from legitimate owners, either at enormous cost to the government or to the people. These things are expensive. Not to mention many are irreplaceable historic items. .[/QUOTE] Other countries which banned guns faced the same issue and it ended up ok, you can deactivate rare stuff or put it in museums or get a special license or make exceptions I'm "anti gun" being in the UK but stuff which works here in UK won't work in the USA coz you got so many guns and a totally different culture and land borders with other places
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53201187]So why even post? All it does is cement people further into their camps if posters go around leaving offhand remarks and being generally combative. I have simply presented the underlying issues of gun violence that should be addressed, while criticizing the main motive of the protest. If anything, I fear this protest will be turned on its head by the NRA and the GOP, who will most definitely use it as a propaganda piece against students rights and public demonstration.[/QUOTE] The main motive of the protest is addressing gun violence. You can criticize their policy positions but at the end of the day that's small potatoes. They're high school kids, man. They're not gonna know all the statistics. We have lawmakers to draft effective policy. The problem is our elected representatives are content to sit on their asses playing petty partisan politics while we kill each other. They'll never act unless we force them to with pressure like this. The GOP and the NRA are world class spinners. That was going to happen regardless. It's no reason not to try.
[QUOTE=Alec W;53201293] but that is something more active gun owners / hobbyist should take a look at, as I don't know as much as I should about it.[/QUOTE] (Double dipping, apologies) Illinois has a licensing system, and to my knowledge is one of the only states that does. You fill out a form, giving private information and your criminal/mental health history. If everything checks out, you pay a small fee ($10). After 60 days of review, you are then mailed Firearms Owners Identification (FOID), which has your picture and information similar to a drivers' license. This license allows you to purchase firearms that are legal within the state of Illinois, as well as ammunition. There are waiting periods in place in Illinois, though I cannot remember the current standing of them as they are different for handguns/long guns. If you are 21 or older, you are able to purchase a handgun. However, the FOID does indeed expire after a period of 10 years, and you must re-submit your information for review. The FOID does not grant you the ability to carry a concealed firearm, and any crimes you commit can have your license revoked. Felons and non-residents (IIRC) are unable to apply for a FOID. Long, kinda meaty post but that's how I think licensing should work.
I think the reason why people flock to gun bans is because it seems more achievable to them than the societal/governmental overhaul alternative. As much as I want the US to solve the root causes of gun violence, even I struggle to see how we'd even start. Not saying that justifies the call for gun bans but a lot of what you guys propose is unfortunately much much easier said than done. Where do we get the funding without robbing Peter to pay Paul? How do we handle the opposition when it's undoubtedly going to be fueled by paranoia and disinformation? How do we oust the corruption in our government when no politician has any motivation to run on that angle and where lack of corruption poses a significant barrier to entry? I understand the "what" and the "why" but we need a "how".
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53201319]The main motive of the protest is addressing gun violence. You can criticize their policy positions but at the end of the day that's small potatoes. They're high school kids, man. They're not gonna know all the statistics. We have lawmakers to draft effective policy. The problem is our elected representatives are content to sit on their asses playing petty partisan politics while we kill each other. They'll never act unless we force them to with pressure like this. The GOP and the NRA are world class spinners. That was going to happen regardless. It's no reason not to try.[/QUOTE] Our lawmakers are fucking morons. Here's the latest Democratic solution to gun crime: [url]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text[/url]
I remember walkouts in school. It was always a good cause, but everyone knew why they really wanted it. High schoolers don’t give a shit, at least that’s how it was back then for me.
[QUOTE=Bathacker;53201321]I think the reason why people flock to gun bans is because it seems more achievable to them than the societal/governmental overhaul alternative. As much as I want the US to solve the root causes of gun violence, even I struggle to see how we'd even start. Not saying that justifies the call for gun bans but a lot of what you guys propose is unfortunately much much easier said than done. Where do we get the funding without robbing Peter to pay Paul? How do we handle the opposition when it's undoubtedly going to be fueled by paranoia and disinformation? How do we oust the corruption in our government when no politician has any motivation to run on that angle and where lack of corruption poses a significant barrier to entry? I understand the "what" and the "why" but we need a "how".[/QUOTE] You haven't been paying attention if you think that a gun ban is more achievable than fixing our societal problems. Remember the bundy ranch thing? That was over cattle. Imagine the standoff over someone who won't give up their guns...
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53201157]Because that "one thing" has been debated to death and was shown to be feel-good, and has no real solutions to real problems. Banning assault weapons does not stop mass shootings, and raising the age of getting a firearm does not stop straw purchases, theft, or just someone taking a gun from their parents who didn't store it properly. Assault weapons and magazine bans did not stop Columbine or Virginia Tech.[/QUOTE] I think no matter what you're protesting choosing one thing to focus on over a bunch of things will get you better results.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53201333]I think no matter what you're protesting choosing one thing to focus on over a bunch of things will get you better results.[/QUOTE] Oh definitely, I agree. I just feel the one thing they're focusing on is fairly weak and won't enact much change.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53201319]The main motive of the protest is addressing gun violence. You can criticize their policy positions but at the end of the day that's small potatoes. They're high school kids, man. They're not gonna know all the statistics. We have lawmakers to draft effective policy. The problem is our elected representatives are content to sit on their asses playing petty partisan politics while we kill each other. They'll never act unless we force them to with pressure like this. The GOP and the NRA are world class spinners. That was going to happen regardless. It's no reason not to try.[/QUOTE] Aimless protests don't do anything but fuel emotion filled arguments. I'm certain some democratic policy maker will stand up and say something akin to, "Look at how angry our students are. How can we allow our places of learning to become a place where kids need to fear being killed by gun violence? We NEED to pass sensible gun regulations to prevent further violence," and they then proceed to propose an AWB or some other stupid policy that does nothing, but because of the emotional support of an aimless protest, they get to claim moral superiority.
Something needs to change because what we have currently right now isn't working. Currently both sides are fucking braindead when it comes to this issue as Republicans cover their ears and pretend the issue doesn't exist while Democrats want an all out blanket ban on "assault rifles"(which is moronic). I feel that while some of these students agree with the extreme Democratic point, I feel that most just want SOMETHING done so that they don't have to fear for their lives just for attending school. School should be someplace where students feel safe and can get an education without the ever looming threat of someone snapping and easily being able to buy a gun + ammo from the local Wal-Mart.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53201303]More people are killed with bare hands than with rifles in the US per year. This problem being grossly exaggerated does not help anything. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it a fucking epidemic? No.[/QUOTE] I don't want to get caught up in the torrent of gun control debate but like [QUOTE]All homicides Number of deaths: 17,793 Deaths per 100,000 population: 5.5 Firearm homicides Number of deaths: 12,979 Deaths per 100,000 population: 4.0[/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm[/URL] Firearms homicides are the most common type of homocides in the US by a pretty large margin.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;53201351]Something needs to change because what we have currently right now isn't working. Currently both sides are fucking braindead when it comes to this issue as Republicans cover their ears and pretend the issue doesn't exist while Democrats want an all out blanket ban on "assault rifles"(which is moronic). I feel that while some of these students agree with the extreme Democratic point, I feel that most just want SOMETHING done so that they don't have to fear for their lives just for attending school. School should be someplace where students feel safe and can get an education without the ever looming threat of someone snapping and easily being able to buy a gun + ammo from the local Wal-Mart.[/QUOTE] They already don't have to fear attending school. It's astronomically more likely that they'll get killed by a drunk driver or something instead.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;53201355]I don't want to get caught up in the torrent of gun control debate but like [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm[/URL] Firearms homicides are the most common type of homocides in the US by a pretty large margin.[/QUOTE] We recognize that. The point that Grenadiac was trying to make that, if you look at the FBI data on the previous page, more people are beaten to death than those shot with rifles.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;53201351]Something needs to change because what we have currently right now isn't working. Currently both sides are fucking braindead when it comes to this issue as Republicans cover their ears and pretend the issue doesn't exist while Democrats want an all out blanket ban on "assault rifles"(which is moronic). I feel that while some of these students agree with the extreme Democratic point, I feel that most just want SOMETHING done so that they don't have to fear for their lives just for attending school. School should be someplace where students feel safe and can get an education without the ever looming threat of someone snapping and easily being able to buy a gun + ammo from the local Wal-Mart.[/QUOTE] It's no easier to buy a gun from Wal-Marts that carry than them any other FFL. You still need to have a NICS background check run on you. The Wal-Marts that tend to carry firearms are in more rural areas, and they carry rifles and ammunition for hunting or sport.
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;53201355]I don't want to get caught up in the torrent of gun control debate but like [URL="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm"]https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm[/URL] Firearms homicides are the most common type of homocides in the US by a pretty large margin.[/QUOTE] And an overwhelming majority of those (99%+) are cheap (~$100) or stolen handguns. :thinking: God, I can't figure out what the problem is! Must be those stinky assault rifles.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53201332]You haven't been paying attention if you think that a gun ban is more achievable than fixing our societal problems. Remember the bundy ranch thing? That was over cattle. Imagine the standoff over someone who won't give up their guns...[/QUOTE] That isn't what I said. I said people flock to it because it [b]seems[/b] like it's more achievable because they can envision it more easily than the other option. Either one is a stupidly huge task but one seems bigger because it's more nebulous. My elaboration on the issue was me saying that even though I support these things I don't actually how we'd get there either.
[QUOTE=bdd458;53201364]It's no easier to buy a gun from Wal-Marts that carry than them any other FFL. You still need to have a NICS background check run on you. The Wal-Marts that tend to carry firearms are in more rural areas, and they carry rifles and ammunition for hunting or sport.[/QUOTE] And it also depends on store-to-store. Call it anecdotal, but I haven't seen a Wal-Mart carry firearms of any kind, and few had more than a paltry supply of ammo. Dicks still sells firearms but a majority of it is shotguns or low caliber varmint/plinking guns, all of which are sold at obnoxiously high prices.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53201345]Aimless protests don't do anything but fuel emotion filled arguments. I'm certain some democratic policy maker will stand up and say something akin to, "Look at how angry our students are. How can we allow our places of learning to become a place where kids need to fear being killed by gun violence? We NEED to pass sensible gun regulations to prevent further violence," and they then proceed to propose an AWB or some other stupid policy that does nothing, but because of the emotional support of an aimless protest, they get to claim moral superiority.[/QUOTE] Shocker, there's a lot of emotion involved when kids are being gunned down in school. There's nothing aimless about it. It's very clear. "Do something about the fact that we keep getting shot." Clueless Democrats does not mean this protest shouldn't happen. People are right to be angry.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53201215]Really? Was it school policy or were they threatened with punishments? Either way that's asinine[/QUOTE] I’m not sure. I assume they were just told “you can’t leave” and they just said ok and left
[QUOTE=ShimTaco;53201384]I’m not sure. I assume they were just told “you can’t leave” and they just said ok and left[/QUOTE] Don't know where you're from and what the laws are on the books, but I don't believe action can be taken against students exercising their right to protest. If it is allowed, that's fucking idiotic and should be struck ASAP
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53201368]And an overwhelming majority of those (99%+) are cheap (~$100) or stolen handguns. :thinking: God, I can't figure out what the problem is! Must be those stinky assault rifles.[/QUOTE] Are there any stats for "average number of people killed/injured per single instance of shooting by "weapon type""? Pistol shootings might be more common because its easier for a crim to conceal a pistol "on da streets" and maybe pistol ownership is higher also? Genuine questions btw not tryna do a gotcha, the "assault weapon" thing banning guns based on their aesthetic seemssorta absurd. Tbh the whole sawed off thing seems nuts too, I can't imagine a mutilated gun short barrel thing being that much more dangerous than a pistol. But I've only ever shot shotguns
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.