• Columbine survivor introduces bill to expand concealed-carry in schools
    129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145432]You are 100% correct.[/QUOTE] Because introducing legislation 19 years after a shooting is totally comparable to protesting mere [I]DAYS[/I]​ after one. Yeah, you sure showed him! Totally crushed his argument with that epic zinger bro.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53145450]Because introducing legislation 19 years after a shooting is totally comparable to protesting mere [I]DAYS[/I]​ after one. Yeah, you sure showed him! Totally crushed his argument with that epic zinger bro.[/QUOTE] His comment has nothing to do with the amount of time that's passed, so that's irrelevant. And I do actually agree with him on this one.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145432]You are 100% correct.[/QUOTE] And that march, while well meaning, only serves to mitigate the deaths from a school shooting, but at the very real costs of normalizing it as an event that could happen at a school, ehich is utter shite. The goal is fucking zero deaths, not less deaths. That happens when you stop the potential shooter at step one : being driven to pick up a gun. It's honestly deeply upsetting to see how far people as a whole will jam their fingers in their ears to absolve themselves of the fact that they had a part to play in this boy murdering all those people that they're willing to pillory the weapon itself than even attempt to fix the brains behind the trigger finger. It's worse because this fucking cyclical argument successfully manages to derail any sort of public conversation and the events will continue to happen.The fellow was reported multiple times and thr cops and the FBI that has gone ofter people for less, ignored your shit. How about you go on a march down to their headquarters for all the good they did to protect and serve?
[QUOTE=phygon;53145259]Can you provide compelling evidence that such concealed weapons actually help these situations? [URL="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/right-to-carry-gun-violence/531297/"]All the articles that I have been able to find have suggested otherwise.[/URL] This is an honest question. I am personally extremely uncomfortable with the concept of concealed weapons being carried inside schools, as I have seen nothing that suggests that it would improve the situation statistically, [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opinion/concealed-carrys-body-count.html"]seeing mostly things that suggest the opposite[/URL]. For every school shooting scenario, there are much less dire emergencies, threats, fights, etc- I think that adding more guns into the mix would have a higher chance of undue escalation more than anything. [/QUOTE] You have it backwards. You need compelling evidence to support banning them in the first place. I made it pretty clear that I don't really care if they stop shootings one way or the other. That isn't the point. The first piece is written by lawyers and an economist where they make a fake state and then predict some stupid shit that they have no business working on. Criminologists are who do these things. Lawyers are not research scientists and economists are...like what the fuck is he even doing on this paper. Wait, they are all weird economist lawyer hybrids. What the hell. Yeah no, seriously, criminologists. They are, you know, the scientists who study crime. You wouldn't take a physics paper written by a biologist seriously, so don't fall for this stupid shit. Anyhow. The second article is an opinion piece. Lets not even go there. Anyhow, a bunch of economist weirdos got together and shot holes in the first article you linked. Again with the economists because they apparently don't know what field they are supposed to be researching in. This is a weird trend. [url]http://www.bapress.ca/ref/v4-1/1923-7529-2014-04-33-11.pdf[/url] You need a compelling reason to restrict something. If you wish to take the stance that it is okay to abridge someone's rights, then you need a reason. You do not, however, need a reason to NOT infringe on rights.
Oh a quick note on the CCW arguments. I always see people going [QUOTE=GunFox]concealed carry holders are law abiding citizens.[/QUOTE] ...Well yeah? So is everyone else. So was the school shooter last week by all likelyhood. Everyone is a law-abiding citizen until they break the law. It's such a fucking non-argument. Holding a CC-license does not magically ensure you'll never commit a crime. Now yes, you can ask "Well if you're going to commit a crime anyway, why waste time with a permit?" and you'd be right. Most don't. I'd almost bet none have gotten a permit with the intention of committing a crime using it. I would also be absolutely shocked if a violent crime has never been committed by someone with a CC-permit. Now imagine how fuckin' easy it'd be for someone who has acquired a CC-permit for personal protection to become radicalised or otherwise frustrated with life, people and society enough to commit a major shooting like this. If you allow CCW in places like schools and wherever else they're currently banned, you are just enabling this to happen in spite of any other security measures you might take. CC in schools is an awful idea. Every bit as terrible as classroom-guns.
To effectively stop the madness of school shootings and public massacres, you need to go for the source, ergo limit/stop access to guns (or at least assault weapons) nationwide. You can argue about all the other issues that justify either the cause of mass shootings, or the reasons why the access to weapons is justified. I can promise you, if all privately owned functional weapons were to disappear overnight, the amount of victims killed yearly would decrease by several orders of magnitude outright. [QUOTE=GunFox;53145505]You have it backwards. You need compelling evidence to support banning them in the first place. I made it pretty clear that I don't really care if they stop shootings one way or the other. That isn't the point. The first piece is written by lawyers and an economist where they make a fake state and then predict some stupid shit that they have no business working on. Criminologists are who do these things. Lawyers are not research scientists and economists are...like what the fuck is he even doing on this paper. Wait, they are all weird economist lawyer hybrids. What the hell. Yeah no, seriously, criminologists. They are, you know, the scientists who study crime. You wouldn't take a physics paper written by a biologist seriously, so don't fall for this stupid shit. Anyhow. The second article is an opinion piece. Lets not even go there. Anyhow, a bunch of economist weirdos got together and shot holes in the first article you linked. Again with the economists because they apparently don't know what field they are supposed to be researching in. This is a weird trend. [url]http://www.bapress.ca/ref/v4-1/1923-7529-2014-04-33-11.pdf[/url] You need a compelling reason to restrict something. If you wish to take the stance that it is okay to abridge someone's rights, then you need a reason. You do not, however, need a reason to NOT infringe on rights.[/QUOTE] We can argue who has the burden of proof. But I wouldn't even say that criminologists can be a reliable source, seeing as the [url=http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html]NRA has effectively lobbied the banning of research into gun related crime.[/url] [url=http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html](Additional source)[/url] So how can the pro-control side actually hold any gravitas if their research is banned? [B]RESEARCH![/B]
Riller- precisely what magic barrier do you think currently exists to stop a deranged teacher from bringing a gun in? "Well gee I'd like to shoot up this school but it's a gun free zone!" Like, surely you can see that only people who follow the rules are going to respect the "no guns" rule? It's not like they are allowing AR-15s on campus. The point of a CCW is that nobody can see it, so if someone plans to do ill, it doesn't matter if they have a license or not...
And just to clarify my general position before y'all go calling me a gun-grabbing commie; I'm not anti-gun. I just think guns have no place in schools. At all. I'm for a complete revision of American gun-laws. Much, [I]much[/I] tighter registration, tracking and checking on guns. Complete stop to private-to-private sales. Every transfer of any sort registered in a central database. At the same time, remove the fuckin' ridiculous restrictions that make no sense. No more $200 permit for short-barreled rifles, shotguns or suppressors. Reversal of the 1986-ban on newly produced automatics. An end to 922r or whatever it's called; the law that states any kit-built gun must contain 9 or so American-made parts. End to magazine restrictions, feature-bans and all that shit. End to import-bans from some countries such as China and Russia and the 'sporting feature' law. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53145545]Riller- precisely what magic barrier do you think currently exists to stop a deranged teacher from bringing a gun in? "Well gee I'd like to shoot up this school but it's a gun free zone!" Like, surely you can see that only people who follow the rules are going to respect the "no guns" rule? It's not like they are allowing AR-15s on campus. The point of a CCW is that nobody can see it, so if someone plans to do ill, it doesn't matter if they have a license or not...[/QUOTE] None. There's no barrier. But that's not a reason to make it [I]okay[/I] to bring a gun in.
[QUOTE=Kazumi;53145538]We can argue who has the burden of proof. But I wouldn't even say that criminologists can be a reliable source, seeing as the [url=http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html]NRA has effectively lobbied the banning of research into gun related crime.[/url] [url=http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html](Additional source)[/url] So how can the pro-control side actually hold any gravitas if their research is banned? [B]RESEARCH![/B][/QUOTE] This has been de-bunked so many times, but let me quote out he important part from your own source here: [QUOTE][B]The Dickey Amendment didn't technically ban any federally funded gun violence research.[/B] The real blow was delivered by a succession of pusillanimous CDC directors, who decided that the safest course bureaucratically was simply to zero out the whole field.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The statutory language, which remains in appropriations legislation for the Department of Health and Human Services to this day, is that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, [B]to advocate or promote gun control[/B].”[/QUOTE] Stop pretending that legitimate research into gun violence is banned. Propaganda disguised as "research" is banned.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145432]You are 100% correct.[/QUOTE] Correct, neither should be used as a base for political change. Change should be enacted after looking at the numbers and facts.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53145566]Correct, neither should be used as a base for political change. Change should be enacted after looking at the numbers and facts.[/QUOTE] Hot damn, I think we may just have found something we absolutely agree on! 'Tis a happy day!
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145565]This has been de-bunked so many times, but let me quote out he important part from your own source here: Stop pretending that legitimate research into gun violence is banned. Propaganda disguised as "research" is banned.[/QUOTE] The point is that the CDC has been significantly defunded and it receives serious backlash from lobbyists for doing any form of research on guns. I do also like how you literally cut off her quote in the middle. Let's add a percentage of honesty to your post: [QUOTE]The statutory language, which remains in appropriations legislation for the Department of Health and Human Services to this day, is that “none of the funds made available in this title may be used, in whole or in part, to advocate or promote gun control.” [B][I]I think it’s fair to say that this language has been interpreted at times to mean that none of the funds could be used to support research that, depending on its findings, might be used in support of efforts to alter current firearm policy.[/I][/B][/QUOTE] AKA the point being that despite it not being illegal, it's practically discouraged and anyone doing it is playing a dangerous political and bureaucratic game.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53145575]The point is that the CDC has been significantly defunded and it receives serious backlash from lobbyists for doing any form of research on guns. I do also like how you literally cut off her quote in the middle. Let's add a percentage of honesty to your post: AKA the point being that despite it not being illegal, it's practically discouraged and anyone doing it is playing a dangerous political and bureaucratic game.[/QUOTE] It should not have been defunded, and it should never be. I'll agree with that. But everyone with two brain cells to rub together understands that the bill's intentions is to prevent people in the CDC from abusing their positions for political gain or agenda pushing, not to prevent legitimate research.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145432]You are 100% correct. (unrelated topic)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145572]Hot damn, I think we may just have found something we absolutely agree on! 'Tis a happy day![/QUOTE] if you want a genuine debate about guns, posting like this isn't a good way to go about it just fyi
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145586]It should not have been defunded, and it should never be. I'll agree with that. But everyone with two brain cells to rub together understands that the bill's intentions is to prevent people in the CDC from abusing their positions for political gain or agenda pushing, not to prevent legitimate research.[/QUOTE] Intentions does not equate effect. The effect has been that no one dares do research on it because it's a thin line to something someone might declare illegal agenda-pushing, despite being objective, scientific facts.
[QUOTE=Riller;53145593]Intentions does not equate effect. The effect has been that no one dares do research on it because it's a thin line to something someone might declare illegal agenda-pushing, despite being objective, scientific facts.[/QUOTE] The effect is overblown out of proportion. The intentions are clear. If they truly wanted to do research, they very well could, and they know it.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145606]The effect is overblown out of proportion. The intentions are clear. If they truly wanted to do research, they very well could, and they know it.[/QUOTE] They could. They could also get in problems if someone later took their research and used it to push an anti-gun agenda. Ain't nobody with a lick of sense and self-preservation runs that risk if they want to keep their job or any of their possessions. It's an absolute shit piece of legislation, and the thought that it was ever needed in the first place shows how fragile and corrupt the gun-lobby is.
[QUOTE=Riller;53145610]They could. They could also get in problems if someone later took their research and used it to push an anti-gun agenda. Ain't nobody with a lick of sense and self-preservation runs that risk if they want to keep their job or any of their possessions. It's an absolute shit piece of legislation, and the thought that it was ever needed in the first place shows how fragile and corrupt the gun-lobby is.[/QUOTE] No, they literally can't. As long as they are not advocating for it, they literally cannot have any problems. I guess you wouldn't have a problem with the CDC saying "more guns will make everyone safer, and here is the data to prove it.", would you? You wouldn't have a problem with them choosing their conclusion then making the research fit in order to push an agenda? Because that's what the Dickey amendment does.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145586]It should not have been defunded, and it should never be. I'll agree with that. But everyone with two brain cells to rub together understands that the bill's intentions is to prevent people in the CDC from abusing their positions for political gain or agenda pushing, not to prevent legitimate research.[/QUOTE] And so what about the interview with the person who works in the CDC who said that gun violence research has become an exceedingly difficult subject due to the entire defunding and political hounding issue? You can chew on the legalism and words as much as you want, the fact that the legislation doesn't say "Gun research shall be a federal offense" is completely irrelevant. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145606]The effect is overblown out of proportion. The intentions are clear. If they truly wanted to do research, they very well could, and they know it.[/QUOTE] "The effect is awful and ruins our chances to do research" - professional researcher "The effect is overblown out of proportion" - guy on internet forum
[QUOTE=EcksDee;53145621]And so what about the interview with the person who works in the CDC who said that gun violence research has become an exceedingly difficult subject due to the entire defunding and political hounding issue? You can chew on the legalism and words as much as you want, the fact that the legislation doesn't say "Gun research shall be a federal offense" is completely irrelevant. [/quote] I think it SHOULD be funded. I've said that before. But the fact that it doesn't say that it's an offense IS completely relevant, because that's what people are pretending it says, and are acting accordingly. [quote]"The effect is awful and ruins our chances to do research" - professional researcher "The effect is overblown out of proportion" - guy on internet forum[/QUOTE] It's overblown and out of proportion because they can still research a lot, including links to gun violence and poverty, mental health, income, etc. They choose not to because they can't push gun control as a solution.
[QUOTE=Riller;53145557]None. There's no barrier. But that's not a reason to make it [I]okay[/I] to bring a gun in.[/QUOTE] OK, so we don't want to allow teachers with valid CHLs to carry their legally owned weapons to their workplace in case they decide to shoot someone, even though if they wanted to shoot someone, they could do so whether they had a license or not? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Concerns like "what if a student gets their hands on it" are valid, but "what if a teacher decides to go on a killing spree" really are not... because if there's one group of people who could easily bring whatever kind of weapon they wanted into a school, it's already the teachers. I should note that my personal opinion on this is that I think CHL holders should be able to carry their CCWs anywhere they go, not explicitly that teachers ought to be carrying guns around in school.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53145644]OK, so we don't want to allow teachers with valid CHLs to carry their legally owned weapons to their workplace in case they decide to shoot someone, even though if they wanted to shoot someone, they could do so whether they had a license or not? I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Concerns like "what if a student gets their hands on it" are valid, but "what if a teacher decides to go on a killing spree" really are not... because if there's one group of people who could easily bring whatever kind of weapon they wanted into a school, it's already the teachers. I should note that my personal opinion on this is that I think CHL holders should be able to carry their CCWs anywhere they go, not explicitly that teachers ought to be carrying guns around in school.[/QUOTE] Bunch of schools have various levels of security checks, far as I recall. Being able to stroll past these with a gun no problem is clearly not a good idea. I have in previous posts discussed with concrete examples why arming staff won't help shit and what ton of problems it might bring up, so not gonna go over that again (at least, not unless someone bothers to argue with that). It's simply easier to maintain security if guns are always not allowed in schools at all, instead of them maybe being allowed by some people in certain circumstances.
Will training then be mandatory? Coz a worried teacher with a gun and little training in a room full of children is... worrying. Will the guns be carried on person or kept in a safe on site?
[QUOTE=Riller;53145654]Bunch of schools have various levels of security checks, far as I recall. Being able to stroll past these with a gun no problem is clearly not a good idea. I have in previous posts discussed with concrete examples why arming staff won't help shit and what ton of problems it might bring up, so not gonna go over that again (at least, not unless someone bothers to argue with that). It's simply easier to maintain security if guns are always not allowed in schools at all, instead of them maybe being allowed by some people in certain circumstances.[/QUOTE] A lot of schools don't have any security at all, especially older/poorer schools. Newer schools are usually built with metal detectors and stuff but it's not a guarantee, especially in safe areas like small towns that have never been exposed to that kind of violence. Armed staff are definitely a wildcard, I'm not going to argue with you about that. It's a philosophical question of whether or not the risk is worth it and I'm personally split on it myself. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53145699]Will training then be mandatory? Coz a worried teacher with a gun and little training in a room full of children is... worrying. Will the guns be carried on person or kept in a safe on site?[/QUOTE] Yes, training is mandatory for CHLs, and it'd be safer kept on their person than anywhere else. I haven't got mine yet because the class is pretty long and I can't find the time to dedicate to it.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;53145699]Will training then be mandatory? Coz a worried teacher with a gun and little training in a room full of children is... worrying. Will the guns be carried on person or kept in a safe on site?[/QUOTE] I think you misinterpreted. This isn't to put guns into the hands of teachers willy-nilly. It's to allow people who [I]already[/I] have a CHL to carry their guns while in the school.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145432]You are 100% correct.[/QUOTE] I feel like if anyone has the right to push for gun control it's people who just survived a mass shooting. How is this any different from MADD [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=EcksDee;53145566]Correct, neither should be used as a base for political change. Change should be enacted after looking at the numbers and facts.[/QUOTE] Of course high school students aren't the ones writing the laws.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53145716] Yes, training is mandatory for CHLs, and it'd be safer kept on their person than anywhere else. I haven't got mine yet because the class is pretty long and I can't find the time to dedicate to it.[/QUOTE] A single 4 - 6 hr session? For accurate, restrained, well judged shooting in a crowded, stressful, confusing environment, often with thin walls surrounded by kids? Then when the cops come, you got a panicky armed untrained teacher and you got cops who have been known to shoot people even without guns - ye. [quote=kingofbeast]I think you misinterpreted. This isn't to put guns into the hands of teachers willy-nilly. It's to allow people who already have a CHL to carry their guns while in the school.[/quote] Nope I meant that. I think a license alone isn't sufficient. I still question whether the teacher has the gun on their person in the classroom. With mandatory special training for those teachers who wish to carry and for their guns kept in safe in the staff room then, given America's gun culture/gun problem, then possibly yeah.
Simply proposing the fact that teachers should carry around guns in order to protect pupils is absolutely ludicrious. The thought alone makes me cringe so hard.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53145834]I feel like if anyone has the right to push for gun control it's people who just survived a mass shooting. How is this any different from MADD [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] Of course high school students aren't the ones writing the laws.[/QUOTE] Then people who survive school shootings have the right to push for teachers to be able to conceal carry as well, right?
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145916]Then people who survive school shootings have the right to push for teachers to be able to conceal carry as well, right?[/QUOTE] Yes? [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53145933]I don't think Lambeth is anti-gun.[/QUOTE] less so than I used to be anyway
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.