School shooting survivors announce national march on Washington - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141566]Republicans have consistently been the ones who've refused to compromise imo.[/QUOTE] The amount of pointless gun regulation on the books right now ought to give you a clue that that's not the case.

We refuse compromise because time and time again it just leads too more bullshit. It's never enough for most anti-gunners, and they will not be satisfied until we give up the 2nd Amendment. In short, no. No compromise, no retreat. If they want "compromise" they'll get rid of GCA 68 and NFA 34, and allow for a complete rewrite of the Militia Act.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53141981]The amount of pointless gun regulation on the books right now ought to give you a clue that that's not the case.[/QUOTE] Maybe we should call it gun reform rather than gun control. If there truly is no purpose to these regulations, swipe em from the books.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53141989]We refuse compromise because time and time again it just leads too more bullshit. It's never enough for most anti-gunners, and they will not be satisfied until we give up the 2nd Amendment. In short, no. No compromise, no retreat. If they want "compromise" they'll get rid of GCA 68 and NFA 34, and allow for a complete rewrite of the Militia Act.[/QUOTE] Oh no, the end of the world /s [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Another low effort post" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53142009]But that would be evidence based lawmaking, and that's not how either party works. One party doesn't care, one party wants to ban everything that looks scary. In the end neither party in the US has a policy that would lead to over all reduced violence rates (which would lead to reduced gun crime).[/QUOTE] I honestly think that may be changing with the demographic changes within the democratic party and the GOP is way way happier with lies and mistruths than the democrats are. [editline]18th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Firecat;53142018]Everyone was quick to politicize the shooting.[/QUOTE] I'm politicizing the Vegas shooting, honestly. [editline]18th February 2018[/editline] [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 Call me when the FBI is doing something besides wondering if Nikolas Cruz translates into some Trump collusion secret phrase, 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, 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] All of these solutions seem indirect as hell.

[QUOTE=Firecat;53142018]Everyone was quick to politicize the shooting. It's been the biggest one in a while. Even now people on the left will make fun of people who say stuff like "it's too early to talk about gun control", because they want to talk about gun control. Which I don't have a problem with. People will always cry for gun control when something gun related happens, because sometimes it's the only solution people want instead of having more guns around them because the concept of guns for self defense is crazy to them.[/QUOTE] Random assholes jumping in to politicize shit is one thing. Elected officials jumping in is another. Trump used this shit to go after public institutions he has a personal beef with and add extra fire to what are already contentious issues. [QUOTE] I know plenty of teachers who carry outside of school and would happily carry while doing their job if it meant having a bit more qualifications. No ones forcing teachers to carry in school just like no ones forcing people to carry out of school, people want to do it for their own safety.[/QUOTE] I don't have a problem with educators or anyone arming themselves for personal protection. I think it's ludicrous that you think I or other educators should have the extra responsibility of fighting off violent individuals on top of our other responsibilities, [I]especially[/I] if you're not going to compensate us for that. [QUOTE] "If we're now expected to stand in harms way we better qualify for PSOB at a minimum." Lmao. Yeah you're not standing in harms way during an active shooter threat [B]without[/B] a gun, right?[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't we be compensated for the risks involved if you're asking us to be responsible for dealing with them? [QUOTE] And yes some places do that. But some places don't. Even in this shooting kid will talk about how Cruz "joked about shooting the school up sometimes". How he posted dead animals and things he shot on his social media. How he was expelled from school. This information is only so useful after you know, 17 people got killed by the result of him. [/QUOTE] What precisely do you think educators should have done? How do you know that info wasn't diverted to local law enforcement? Why didn't they get involved sooner? Why is it you think educators should play the roles of armed guards and therapists on top of our other responsibilities? Why the fuck are you getting mad at teachers at this school when a couple fucking died trying to protect their students instead of Cruz's parents or literally anyone else?

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53141968]That and they've already tarnished their reputation, so any reports they make will be heavily scrutinized. Once you lie about your research, you're not getting your credibility back. Unless they went and fired literally EVERYONE involved, all the way to the top, and all the way to the bottom, they aren't going to convince many people that their work is credible.[/QUOTE] Who was actually responsible for this pro gun control study that happened at least two decades ago? are they still in office? [editline]18th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Firecat;53142044]Things add up. What would you want to do?[/QUOTE] I've already pointed out that more research needs to be done on gun violence.

[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] As far as I understand it, it doesn't even stop them from researching gun violence, only from advocating gun control. Obama even directed them to research gun violence in 2013 and they did, and then all reporting on it just sort of dropped off the face of the earth. All I can find is right-wing or pro-gun publications saying that the report didn't fit the narrative and was silently forgotten. Can't get a left-wing or centralist take on it because the only article I can find is a WaPo article saying "the study was inconclusive so we need to do another" which honestly sounds like kind of a cop-out. It's hard to trust the government with firearms research when the very reason they were stopped was due to political meddling of the scientists in charge.

Also if you think all of the FBI is investigating the russia thing, you're wrong. The special counsel is 36 people out of the 35,000 employees that the FBI has.

What is the end goal here? How would they have prevented this?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53141989]We refuse compromise because time and time again it just leads too more bullshit. It's never enough for most anti-gunners, and they will not be satisfied until we give up the 2nd Amendment. In short, no. No compromise, no retreat. If they want "compromise" they'll get rid of GCA 68 and NFA 34, and allow for a complete rewrite of the Militia Act.[/QUOTE] Your "freedom" to partake in a hobby, your ability to defend yourself against "tyranny" – whatever bullshit you want to concoct – has lead to over [URL="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/"]1.5 [I]million[/I] people[/URL] in the last 50 years losing their freedom to live [I]any[/I] sort of life. Period. The harsh truth is that the American people themselves are the very tyranny that they claim to fear so damn much. Your hobby is dumb, and you're fucking selfish. Grow up. I look forward to your comment about banning kitchen knives, or cars, or whatever stupid false dichotomy you want to draw. Should be fun. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("calm down" - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=sltungle;53142096]Your "freedom" to partake in a hobby, your ability to defend yourself against "tyranny" – whatever bullshit you want to concoct – has lead to over [URL="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/"]1.5 [I]million[/I] people[/URL] in the last 50 years losing their freedom to live [I]any[/I] sort of life. Period. The harsh truth is that the American people themselves are the very tyranny that they claim to fear so damn much. Your hobby is dumb, and you're fucking selfish. Grow up. I look forward to your comment about banning kitchen knives, or cars, or whatever stupid false dichotomy you want to draw. Should be fun.[/QUOTE] I really look towards more whiny crap from you as well, but if you really want to argue the politics, I'm up for it. So where do we begin with gun laws?

Time to devote money to mental health services and ensure that people can earn enough to live a secure life so long as they're willing to work. Oh wait...

[QUOTE=sltungle;53142096]Your "freedom" to partake in a hobby, your ability to defend yourself against "tyranny" – whatever bullshit you want to concoct – has lead to over [URL="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/"]1.5 [I]million[/I] people[/URL] in the last 50 years losing their freedom to live [I]any[/I] sort of life. Period. The harsh truth is that the American people themselves are the very tyranny that they claim to fear so damn much. Your hobby is dumb, and you're fucking selfish. Grow up. I look forward to your comment about banning kitchen knives, or cars, or whatever stupid false dichotomy you want to draw. Should be fun. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("calm down" - Kiwi))[/highlight][/QUOTE] Sweet, so does this mean I can use this post as evidence to reaffirm my status as an internet tough guy with over 300 confirmed kills now? :smug:

[QUOTE=sltungle;53142096]Your hobby is dumb, and you're fucking selfish. Grow up.[/QUOTE] I'll take this 'no hobby is worth lives, you selfish asshole' argument seriously when the people espousing it vocally announce their support for total prohibition of alcohol, a purely recreational substance with a body count that makes guns look insignificant in comparison. Not a false dichotomy. If you're actually serious that hobbies and personal liberty shouldn't ever come at the cost of lives, it should be a no-brainer to ban something that costs more lives and has less public utility. Unless this argument is actually just special pleading because guns. In reality I suspect if someone came up to you and started shouting in your face about how you're such a fucking evil monster for valuing your liquor over the lives of children killed by drunk drivers, you'd probably think they're a lunatic. It's only when you have absolutely no connection to the interest in question that it's easy to start the browbeating and moralizing.

sadly the people with the power to change things won't do squat because gun lobbies have one thing these people don't and that's lots and lots of money

[QUOTE=Firecat;53141918]Oh, and stop letting the media constantly popularize the shooter to the point where they become household names. They want to be known, all you are doing is feeding more encouragement to twisted, sick individuals that are undecided if they want to do something like this also.[/QUOTE] I'm going to be totally honest and I'm prepared to be called an idiot, but I don't understand this. Why shouldn't we know who committed these horrible crimes? I'm not trying to be funny or anything, I genuinely don't know why. I'd appreciate an explanation on this idea.

[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] The US government is already a failed, corrupt democracy and has been one for some time. Why aren't you out on the streets with the rest of the 2nd Amendment people?

[QUOTE=sltungle;53142096]Your hobby is dumb, and you're fucking selfish. Grow up.[/QUOTE] It's people like you that boost republican votes.

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;53142981]I'm going to be totally honest and I'm prepared to be called an idiot, but I don't understand this. Why shouldn't we know who committed these horrible crimes? I'm not trying to be funny or anything, I genuinely don't know why. I'd appreciate an explanation on this idea.[/QUOTE] Extensive media coverage encourages copycats and other mentally unhinged people that they'll go down in infamy. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names now. It's ok to mention the shooters, but highlighting them personally for weeks on end is counterproductive.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53142982]The US government is already a failed, corrupt democracy and has been one for some time. Why aren't you out on the streets with the rest of the 2nd Amendment people?[/QUOTE] Because it isn't a failed state. It may have problems. But so far the system is still chugging along. You are stupid if you think normal people are going to resort to bloodshed first before trying every other non-violent means. The 2nd Amendment is a [b][u]LAST[/u][/b] resort against tyranny. You just want to see everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment as a mad lunatic who would go killing people just because they didn't get their way. Well, fact is, 99.99% of 2nd Amendment supports are not mad lunatics and do not resort to violence unless they are forced into it. [editline]19th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53142995]Extensive media coverage encourages copycats and other mentally unhinged people that they'll go down in infamy. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names now. It's ok to mention the shooters, but highlighting them personally for weeks on end is counterproductive.[/QUOTE] And there, you actually got it on why these mass murders happen. As stated by the American Psychological Association. [url]https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion.aspx[/url]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53141981]The amount of pointless gun regulation on the books right now ought to give you a clue that that's not the case.[/QUOTE] opposing any effective gun control probably doesnt do wonders for stopping ineffective gun control

[QUOTE=elowin;53143637]opposing any effective gun control probably doesnt do wonders for stopping ineffective gun control[/QUOTE] Grenadiac has listed, more times than I can possibly count, multiple effective solutions to curbing these kind of things. Whether or not you are open to changing your mind is up to you, but blanket statements like "effective gun control" is essentially the same thing as saying "common sense". It's completely subjective and meaningless without specific definition.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53143528]Because it isn't a failed state. It may have problems. But so far the system is still chugging along. You are stupid if you think normal people are going to resort to bloodshed first before trying every other non-violent means. The 2nd Amendment is a [b][u]LAST[/u][/b] resort against tyranny. You just want to see everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment as a mad lunatic who would go killing people just because they didn't get their way. Well, fact is, 99.99% of 2nd Amendment supports are not mad lunatics and do not resort to violence unless they are forced into it. [editline]19th February 2018[/editline] And there, you actually got it on why these mass murders happen. As stated by the American Psychological Association. [url]https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion.aspx[/url][/QUOTE] I suppose it's my fault for not being specific. I don't condone violence unless in self defense. What I meant was these people who go on about the tyranny of the government infringing on their rights should already be out protesting. 1st amendment? The president openly says fascist shit like revoking media licenses because they give him negative coverage. And he openly calls for NFL players exercising free expression to be fired. 4th amendment? The NSA is spying on everyone without a warrant. The war on drugs has militarized the police, sewn distrust of them toward the public, and in general has loosened the restrictions on search and seizure. Our elected officials snub the people who they're supposed to represent and do the bidding of multinational corporations and billionaires who finance their campaigns. If these people truly were principled, they wouldn't stand for this constant attack on our other rights and the corruption of our government. But for some reason they only bust out the tyranny rhetoric when it's to do with the 2nd amendment.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53143677]I suppose it's my fault for not being specific. I don't condone violence unless in self defense. What I meant was these people who go on about the tyranny of the government infringing on their rights should already be out protesting. 1st amendment? The president openly says fascist shit like revoking media licenses because they give him negative coverage. And he openly calls for NFL players exercising free expression to be fired. 4th amendment? The NSA is spying on everyone without a warrant. The war on drugs has militarized the police, sewn distrust of them toward the public, and in general has loosened the restrictions on search and seizure. Our elected officials snub the people who they're supposed to represent and do the bidding of multinational corporations and billionaires who finance their campaigns. If these people truly were principled, they wouldn't stand for this constant attack on our other rights and the corruption of our government. But for some reason they only bust out the tyranny rhetoric when it's to do with the 2nd amendment.[/QUOTE] What is it you expect us gun owners to do that you or anyone else here can't?

[QUOTE=elowin;53143637]opposing any effective gun control probably doesnt do wonders for stopping ineffective gun control[/QUOTE] Would you people stop with this "Gotcha!" bullshit already.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53143684]Would you people stop with this "Gotcha!" bullshit already.[/QUOTE] I'm going to start picking who I talk to about these issues and it's not going to be anyone who does that.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;53143655]Grenadiac has listed, more times than I can possibly count, multiple effective solutions to curbing these kind of things. Whether or not you are open to changing your mind is up to you, but blanket statements like "effective gun control" is essentially the same thing as saying "common sense". It's completely subjective and meaningless without specific definition.[/QUOTE] One thing I would say is that you can't expect everyone to be on the same page. You can only really use Grenadiacs list of sensible gun reform (most of which I agree with btw) as a component of your argument in a thread if its already been posted in said thread. Not everyone is reading through every page of every gun control debate thread, especially when they can rack up 20+ pages regularly. There's not really any guarantee that this elowin dude has ever even seen that list in the first place. I think it's more intellectually forgiving to give them the benefit of the doubt and give them the whole "whether or not you are open to changing your mind is up to you" spiel once they've actually had time to respond to that list and its elements in particular.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53143677]I suppose it's my fault for not being specific. I don't condone violence unless in self defense. What I meant was these people who go on about the tyranny of the government infringing on their rights should already be out protesting. 1st amendment? The president openly says fascist shit like revoking media licenses because they give him negative coverage. And he openly calls for NFL players exercising free expression to be fired. 4th amendment? The NSA is spying on everyone without a warrant. The war on drugs has militarized the police, sewn distrust of them toward the public, and in general has loosened the restrictions on search and seizure. Our elected officials snub the people who they're supposed to represent and do the bidding of multinational corporations and billionaires who finance their campaigns. If these people truly were principled, they wouldn't stand for this constant attack on our other rights and the corruption of our government. But for some reason they only bust out the tyranny rhetoric when it's to do with the 2nd amendment.[/QUOTE] Because these things are currently being fought in the legal channels. You do know that 2nd Amendment supports can also be apart of other organizations like the EFF and ACLU right? They aren't mutually exclusive. But of course when fighting for the 4th Amendment or the 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment supports don't have to state that they are 2nd Amendment supporters while doing those activities. I'm personally a strong 2nd Amendment supporter. I also happen to hate the drug war. I don't think Trump should revoke the FCC broadcast license of news organizations he doesn't like (he can't). I support net neutrality. I don't like the NSA having its warrantless wire tapping powers. The FISA courts should be abolished. And yeah, basically I'm a strong supporter of all of the bill of rights. And I think the government should be minimized to do what it needs to do exactly when it needs to do it. These things are not mutually exclusive. But when advocating for things unrelated to the 2nd Amendment I don't need to tell anyone that I support anything other than the issue I'm fighting for at that moment.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53143682]What is it you expect us gun owners to do that you or anyone else here can't?[/QUOTE] i think the point is that the [I]most pressing[/I] threats to your rights can't be fought with guns. guns can't fix the deliberate sabotage of public schools, or the collapse of the coal industry, or some braindead Republican lowering the tone on Twitter - the things that lawmakers actually exploit to erode your freedoms. so it's really two points: when [I]precisely[/I] do you bring out the guns when the slide into authoritarianism is imperceptibly slow and apparently lawful? and who exactly do you shoot when all the problems are vague and multi-faceted and could only be fixed on the federal level?