‘Students have just had enough:’ Walkouts begin across the nation one month after Florida shooting
198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201487]The thought process behind this baffels me.
Dude. They are pupils protesting gun violence.
The thought behind your kind of "pshaw, doesn't do much, them protesting gun related violcence doesn't change gun violence by gangs" is so goddamn vile, missguided and malicious, I have no words.[/QUOTE]
He's absolutely correct that the focus on AR-15s and assault weapons is misguided. A gun is a gun - handgun or shotgun or hunting rifle, they all massively increase the damage an unhinged, violent person can cause. The focus should be on gun control at large - not "assault weapons." Handguns are always conveniently left out of the debate, when they account for the vast, vast majority of gun deaths in the US.
I don't want AR-15s out of the hands of unstable and violent persons. I want [I]guns[/I] to stay out of their hands - any kind. Emphasizing assault weapons shifts the issue frame away from the empirical reality of gun violence. It's like trying to increase vehicle crash safety by exclusively legislating Hummers and Jeeps, while ignoring the normal sedans and hatchbacks that way more people drive (and crash).
[QUOTE=fredstin22;53201524]What exactly is your solution to this problem then?[/QUOTE]
This line of argument actually annoys me. Why do you expect me to give a solution for this? I'm not a policy maker, but I'm still allowed to criticize the inaction from both sides.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201506]
What?[/QUOTE]
You do realize that assault weapon bans, and background checks are two different things right? Background checks are shown to reduce homicide. Good, people don't have issues with background checks. Weapon Bans were shown to be inconclusive. Child gun safety laws were shown to be inconclusive. Zilla specified weapon bans and age limits.
Background check laws are already on the books. So what are you arguing for here?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53201501]
However, what they are pushing for will not only have little to no effect on the vast majority of gun crimes in the United States, but it will also be an incredibly difficult, uphill battle against the courts.
[/QUOTE]
And what are you insinuating with this?
[QUOTE=joshuadim;53201528]This line of argument actually annoys me. Why do you expect me to give a solution for this? I'm not a policy maker, but I'm still allowed to criticize the inaction from both sides.[/QUOTE]
Because you're screaming and hollering that we need to find a solution and you're perfectly happy to come in here and deride everyone looking for one, but you can't imagine one yourself?
[editline]14th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201531]And what are you insinuating with this?[/QUOTE]
He's not fucking "insinuating" anything? His meaning is crystal clear.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53201533]Because you're screaming and hollering that we need to find a solution and you're perfectly happy to come in here and deride everyone looking for one, but you can't imagine one yourself?[/QUOTE]
When am I deriding people?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53201533]Because you're screaming and hollering that we need to find a solution and you're perfectly happy to come in here and deride everyone looking for one, but you can't imagine one yourself?
[editline]14th March 2018[/editline]
He's not fucking "insinuating" anything? His meaning is crystal clear.[/QUOTE]
Looking for one, or covering your own interests at the expense of real solutions?
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53201540]Looking for one, or covering your own interests at the expense of real solutions?[/QUOTE]
We have, multiple times, expressed our ideas for solutions to gun violence and violent crime within the US as a whole.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53201540]Looking for one, or covering your own interests at the expense of real solutions?[/QUOTE]
It’s perfectly possible to reduce violent crime (and as an extension school shootings and gun homicides) while still allowing people to own guns.
[QUOTE=joshuadim;53201538]When am I deriding people?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=joshuadim;53201351]Currently both sides are fucking braindead when it comes to this issue[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=joshuadim;53201410]Something must be done, just not whatever both sides are proposing currently.[/QUOTE]
Are you going to contribute or just keep saying everyone but you is stupid? What is the solution that's so obvious to you that we're too dumb to come up with?
[editline]14th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53201540]Looking for one, or covering your own interests at the expense of real solutions?[/QUOTE]
The only one pushing for action at the expense of real solutions is you.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53201542]Seriously, it says right there, in plain text "what they are pushing for will have little to no effect on crime rates in the united states, and will more than likely (if precedent is followed) be struck down by the court system".[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is his prediction. I am asking what he is insinuating by stating this prediction in connection to what the students are protesting.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53201548]Are you going to contribute or just keep saying everyone but you is stupid? What is the solution that's so obvious to you that we're too dumb to come up with?[/QUOTE]
What I meant is what the lawmakers in office, not the people in this thread. I never once insinuated that the solution is simple/easy to find and that everyone is stupid. Stop putting words in my mouth man.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53201556]Considering the students are protesting in advocacy of "assault weapons bans and raising the age of purchase to 21", i'd say its pretty crystal clear what's being said.[/QUOTE]
No it's not, it's a prediction supported by zero given evidence. I want to know what his opinion is on what the students are doing, not his prediction on what it might or might not effect, he already postet it, as you and I saw.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201562]No it's not, it's a prediction supported by zero given evidence. I want to know what his opinion is on what the students are doing, not his prediction on what it might or might not effect, he already postet it, as you and I saw.[/QUOTE]
You don't get to just dismiss evidence that supports a conclusion you don't like and then say there's no evidence so that means you're right. That is not how problem solving works.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201562]I want to know what his opinion is on what the students are doing.[/QUOTE]
I thought I had already made this apparent in the prior posts I've made in the thread, but here.
I think that protesting gun violence is a good thing. However, I think their approach to it is coming from a position of ignorance and emotion, and does not seek to actually cause a significant drop in gun crime as a whole. I am glad that they are exercising their rights to protest, but I personally feel their argument would be stronger if they went at it from a different angle.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53201571]You don't get to just dismiss evidence that supports a conclusion you don't like and then say there's no evidence so that means you're right. That is not how problem solving works.[/QUOTE]
What evidence? Did I overlook something?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53201576]I thought I had already made this apparent in the prior posts I've made in the thread, but here.
I think that protesting gun violence is a good thing. However, I think their approach to it is coming from a position of ignorance and emotion, and does not seek to actually cause a significant drop in gun crime as a whole. I am glad that they are exercising their rights to protest, but I personally feel their argument would be stronger if they went at it from a different angle.[/QUOTE]
While I agree with you on basically all points here I also think that most big changes for the bette DO come from a position of emotion.
White papers and statistics don't change people minds and thus te laws. As evident with Trump supporters dismissing any factual evidence and relying on "feels before reals"
Emotions do and using the temporary inertia of the movement is important.
I just think "well maybe you should have protested [I]this and that[/I] instead of your emotional and ignorant points" is not productive.
It just comes across like you are under 21 and want to own an AR15 to me.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201595]
It just comes across like you are under 21 and want to own an AR15 to me.[/QUOTE]
Are we going there? Seriously?
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53201579]It's really not a prediction, that's saying unless some MASSIVE change happens in the SCOTUS, that's GOING to be the outcome. We're talking unless all of SCOTUS somehow magically poofed away, and somehow magically you got 9 left leaning judges, then that's the outcome that's going to happen. Precedent is rarely overturned, and when it is, its done in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence.
As for "why does an assault weapons ban not make sense", the FBI statistics have already been posted numerous times, i'm not going to repeat them.[/QUOTE]
I can also agree with that.
Thanks for writing it down more nuanced and less... heh... [I]emotional [/I]
:wink: <3
[editline]14th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53201596]Are we going there? Seriously?[/QUOTE]
We don't have to if you don't want to. It's an impression I have but we don't need to discuss it.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Terrible arguing courtesy of Killuah" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201597]
We don't have to if you don't want to. It's an impression I have but we don't need to discuss it.[/QUOTE]
The reason I ask is because it's something entirely out of left field and was said only to provoke an emotional response. And if you don't want to discuss it, why bring it up?
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201595]It just comes across like you are under 21 and want to own an AR15 to me.[/QUOTE]
I'm neither under 21 nor do I have any desire to own an AR-15 but I think the approach here is pointless. The reason is simple:
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201595]Emotions do and using the [b]temporary inertia[/b] of the movement is important.[/quote]
Emphasis mine. Inertia is temporary. Political clout is finite. We already went through this song and dance in the 90s, resulting in the passing of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It was acknowledged, at the time, that it was a symbolic measure more than anything else, and further reform would be needed to actually solve the problem.
Do you know what happened? Pushback was massive, Democrats lost control of Congress, [i]nothing productive happened[/i], the ban expired in '04 without renewal, and the DoJ-commissioned study after the expiration found no measurable effect of the ban.
We have emotion, we have inertia, we have a collective political will to do something, and instead of spending it on any of the massive, glaring social problems that are driving gun crime, we want to leap straight to the feel-good solution and call it a day.
Not taking it back since it genuinely is the impression I have but I know what you mean and it is really not meant as some bait or some shit, I've done this dance long enough in these forums. I am really only stating that this is what your posts in general feel like to me.
I am annoyed by that impression just as you are by me posting it but I can not pretend that it is not there and that is why I am stating it not as shitty bait but as a part of being honest about each others position.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53201122]Fox News doesn't recognize a single one of the problems that I presented.
Fox News does not care about crime unless its non-White people, does not care about addicts, does not care about the unemployed, homeless, or students. Fox News takes benefits from the companies and organizations that I've mentioned in that post and in the past.
I know you think that I'm going for whataboutism, but I'm trying to get the point across that going for assault weapons bans and other feel-good legislation will not solve the problems in the short or the long run. The underlying issues of gun violence are still there.[/QUOTE]
If you disagree with their proposed solutions then fair enough. I even agree. It just seems really unfair to say that they can't protest item A before they protest items B through G
[QUOTE=catbarf;53201613]I'm neither under 21 nor do I have any desire to own an AR-15 but I think the approach here is pointless. The reason is simple:
Emphasis mine. Inertia is temporary. Political clout is finite. We already went through this song and dance in the 90s, resulting in the passing of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. It was acknowledged, at the time, that it was a symbolic measure more than anything else, and further reform would be needed to actually solve the problem.
Do you know what happened? Pushback was massive, Democrats lost control of Congress, [i]nothing productive happened[/i], the ban expired in '04 without renewal, and the DoJ-commissioned study after the expiration found no measurable effect of the ban.
We have emotion, we have inertia, we have a collective political will to do something, and instead of spending it on any of the massive, glaring social problems that are driving gun crime, we want to leap straight to the feel-good solution and call it a day.[/QUOTE]
Also agreed. Good point.
[editline]14th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53201626]If you disagree with their proposed solutions then fair enough. I even agree. It just seems really unfair to say that they can't protest item A before they protest items B through G[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
I think I came to the core of my opinion through this discussion and it is that the way thhat Zillamaster phrases his points is not very effective either and ALSO a feel-good solution. Just one of "guys you are doing it wrong I know better"
[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]
That's why he said "rifles," and not "firearms."
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201595]While I agree with you on basically all points here I also think that most big changes for the bette DO come from a position of emotion.
White papers and statistics don't change people minds and thus te laws. As evident with Trump supporters dismissing any factual evidence and relying on "feels before reals"
Emotions do and using the temporary inertia of the movement is important.
I just think "well maybe you should have protested [I]this and that[/I] instead of your emotional and ignorant points" is not productive.
It just comes across like you are under 21 and want to own an AR15 to me.[/QUOTE]
This is the sort of thing that gets you dismissed for being ideologically driven, and not factually driven.
The facts do not support the idea that owning an AR15 is wrong. Handguns are worse than rifles in terms of deaths caused by them. Using the "You just want to own one" as an argument shows your hand in every way.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53201665]This is the sort of thing that gets you dismissed for being ideologically driven, and not factually driven.
The facts do not support the idea that owning an AR15 is wrong. Handguns are worse than rifles in terms of deaths caused by them. Using the "You just want to own one" as an argument shows your hand in every way.[/QUOTE]
It's the impression I have, I want to make a distinction to "you just want to own one" here please
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201595]While I agree with you on basically all points here I also think that most big changes for the bette DO come from a position of emotion.
White papers and statistics don't change people minds and thus te laws. As evident with Trump supporters dismissing any factual evidence and relying on "feels before reals"
Emotions do and using the temporary inertia of the movement is important.
I just think "well maybe you should have protested [I]this and that[/I] instead of your emotional and ignorant points" is not productive.
It just comes across like you are under 21 and want to own an AR15 to me.[/QUOTE]
"Change" isn't inherently a good thing. Change can be good, but it can also be bad. So to say that emotion is a good thing because it causes inertia doesn't give me hope in the slightest. That inertia may very well be for something that isn't good policy, which will in turn make things worse, not better (like putting up barriers to greater freedoms for no real benefit).
I don't have a problem with emotion. I have a problem when an argument is based on emotion as opposed to a good, fact based argument, being fueled by emotion. Those aren't the same thing, and what we're seeing right now is the prior and not the former.
[QUOTE=Killuah;53201688]It's the impression I have, I want to make a distinction to "you just want to own one" here please[/QUOTE]
But what bearing on the conversation does it have
[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]
The blame is on lawmakers on both sides for letting it get this far. Even if you think the AWB or any gun control proposal is stupid policy you can't blame the kids being upset the adults not doing their jobs.
[editline]14th March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53201474]There are no protests in my state, there was no walk out here. School administrators said "leave and get expelled, your choice". And before you say "you can't expel everyone", they could, and would. It'd save them a fuckload of money, and would make the upcoming teacher strike completely moot. So yes, they'd absolutely do it.[/QUOTE]
That is a great civics lesson for your students. Don't peaceably assemble off school grounds in your own free time or you will be expelled. Nice.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.