White House backs off raising age for gun purchases, backs tigher background checks, arming teachers - Polidicks

White House backs off raising age for gun purchases, backs tigher background checks, arming teachers

124 replies, posted
In This Thread

On top of the other concerns listed, who's to say schools won't push for CCWs for all of that fat bonus money? Considering the skeezy shit that happened with Parkland regarding funding, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn some schools found a way to exploit it.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53197442]But they aren't random people, they are people who already concealed carry. And it's not a responsibility they aren't ready to take - no one is forcing them to do this, they are ready and willing, and they know what they are agreeing to when they take on this responsibility voluntarily.[/QUOTE] Okay but this keeps getting forgotten. There will be a monetary incentive to carry, a pittance, but surely for the pittance teachers will get paid, it's something extra to supplement the income. It's incentivizing the protection of the kids via guns, in a way that statistics show is actually a rarity. [url]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/[/url] IIRC correctly, one of the studies this pulls from states that good guys with guns stopping bad guys with guns, and succeeding occurs 3% of the time. That combined with what we see about statistics relating to guns in the hands of the police and their accuracy, we see a literal monetary incentive for some people. This does not sit well with me, and frankly, I'm surprised it sits well with highly logical people. If this was purely talking about the reversal of "gun free zones" that's one, entirely different discussion from "arm the teachers".

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53197800] That combined with what we see about statistics relating to guns in the hands of the police and their accuracy, we see a literal monetary incentive for some people. This does not sit well with me, and frankly, I'm surprised it sits well with highly logical people.[/QUOTE] Which is why I wouldn't want to see any financial incentive for people who choose to carry. It should be an entirely personal decision. Teachers are infamous for being paid lower than we feel they ought to be, and a bonus like Trump proposes might push people who would otherwise not be as careful with their weapon into going through the licensing process just for that incentive alone. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53197800] If this was purely talking about the reversal of "gun free zones" that's one, entirely different discussion from "arm the teachers".[/QUOTE] If we reversed gun free zones then that would allow anyone to carry on school grounds. I feel like letting teachers who have already demonstrated a proficiency in carrying concealed weapons is much less drastic.

I dunno about the US but from my own experience, people become teachers because they care about kids and their education, I doubt they would have the heart to shoot one of their students dead without immediately resigning. All this posturing to preserve the idiotic consensus that everything is completely fine because god forbid taking money away from the brown people exploding department so people can get treatment for their problems before it boils over to make society pay.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53197833]Which is why I wouldn't want to see any financial incentive for people who choose to carry. It should be an entirely personal decision. Teachers are infamous for being paid lower than we feel they ought to be, and a bonus like Trump proposes might push people who would otherwise not be as careful with their weapon into going through the licensing process just for that incentive alone. If we reversed gun free zones then that would allow anyone to carry on school grounds. I feel like letting teachers who have already demonstrated a proficiency in carrying concealed weapons is much less drastic.[/QUOTE] Can you or anyone else actually provide solid evidence that gun free zones are being targeted? There are a wide variety of gun free zones, including a number of libraries, museums, courthouses, zoos, and other public places. Surely we should have some evidence that these places are also higher risk when they are made into gun free zones as well? I agree that expansion of CC for educators in isolation, without half-assed means of compensation should that be pursued isn't necessarily a bad idea. No policy functions in isolation however, and that's not even what's being proposed. Again, gun rights activists could show a lot of good faith by actually engaging with their representatives about maintaining federal programs designed to address the root causes of shootings and other violence that are currently on the chopping block instead of pushing for gun culture bullshit. Focus on CC is absolutely infuriating coming from the perspective of someone that works in public education, especially since [B]that's not even what most educators want in their learning environments and people keep saying they don't think it's a solution to the problem[/B]. I'm tired of my workplace being treated like a political football, and most of the effort to do so seems to be coming from the gun lobby.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53198215]I'm tired of my workplace being treated like a political football, and most of the effort to do so seems to be coming from the gun lobby.[/QUOTE] I'm tired of schools being treated like a political football, but the gun lobby isn't the ones parading around the phrase "children have a right to go to school and not get shot!" in order to push their agenda. The truth is that both sides, anti and pro gun, are using schools as a political football. It's not one sided.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198233]I'm tired of schools being treated like a political football, but the gun lobby isn't the ones parading around the phrase "children have a right to go to school and not get shot!" in order to push their agenda. The truth is that both sides, anti and pro gun, are using schools as a political football. It's not one sided.[/QUOTE] At least people on the anti-gun side are fucking talking about maintaining anti-violence programs, and funding to provide schools with counselors, and funding for schools to provide enrichment and de-stressing programs for students. IF we're supposed to look at shootings as a mental health problem, or a societal shortcoming, or anything other than a gun problem, why the fuck aren't Republicans/pro-gun lobby pushing to maintain these programs? As far as I see, only [B]one[/B] party is actively working to solve the problem. There aren't really two sides when you look at what elected officials are actually [B]doing[/B].

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53198245]At least people on the anti-gun side are fucking talking about maintaining anti-violence programs, and funding to provide schools with counselors, and funding for schools to provide enrichment and de-stressing programs for students. IF we're supposed to look at shootings as a mental health problem, or a societal shortcoming, or anything other than a gun problem, why the fuck aren't Republicans/pro-gun lobby pushing to maintain these programs? As far as I see, only [B]one[/B] party is actively working to solve the problem. There aren't really two sides when you look at what elected officials are actually [B]doing[/B].[/QUOTE] That's not what you said. You said that one side is mainly treating schools as a political football, and that's not true. Both sides do it. To state otherwise is just plain false. Not just a misguided interpretation, actually false. And yes, there are two sides. If you are going to act like only one side exists, then I don't even know why I, or anyone for that matter, should take any of your arguments seriously. [QUOTE=Lambeth;53198249]Most schools have managed just fine for years, decades without encouraging teachers to bring guns? This "both sides" attitude is cynical as hell but also disingenuous.[/QUOTE] It's not disingenuous to say "one side is using but think of the school children to push for gun control, while the other side is using it to expand guns". It's factually correct. The only reason someone would have an issue with this is if they have an issue with the truth. And of course they did. Most schools have also managed just fine for years, decades with students having rifles, shotguns, and pistols in their vehicles without encouraging teachers to bring guns.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198253]That's not what you said. You said that one side is mainly treating schools as a political football, and that's not true. Both sides do it. To state otherwise is just plain false. Not just a misguided interpretation, actually false. And yes, there are two sides. If you are going to act like only one side exists, then I don't even know why I, or anyone for that matter, should take any of your arguments seriously. It's not disingenuous to say "one side is using but think of the school children to push for gun control, while the other side is using it to expand guns". It's factually correct. The only reason someone would have an issue with this is if they have an issue with the truth. And of course they did. Most schools have also managed just fine for years, decades with students having rifles, shotguns, and pistols in their vehicles without encouraging teachers to bring guns.[/QUOTE] The gun rights side isn't actively contributing to the solutions to these problems. I don't give a shit about your guns. I'm ambivalent to, even slightly pro-gun rights. I do not hold a fundamental opposition to someone's possession of firearms. Until republicans/gun rights activists can put up meaningful solutions to the problems and [B]actually fucking follow through[/B], I'll side with people that are at least attempting to address the root cause even if they're going to restrict gun rights. If gun rights have nothing to do with the problems, we shouldn't be focusing the conversation around them. We should be focusing the conversation and directing policy towards fixing the fucking problem. If you're a gun owner you probably ought to call up your representatives and demand that they maintain funding for shit like SERV and the other programs designed to address the root issues instead of fixating on gun issues. If you're incapable of focusing on any other issue even for a minute, we have so little in common politically I'm just going to keep backing politicians that don't give a shit about your guns because at least then things I care about might get solved. My workplace and my students trump your property rights from my perspective.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198253]It's not disingenuous to say "one side is using but think of the school children to push for gun control, while the other side is using it to expand guns". It's factually correct. The only reason someone would have an issue with this is if they have an issue with the truth. And of course they did. Most schools have also managed just fine for years, decades with students having rifles, shotguns, and pistols in their vehicles without encouraging teachers to bring guns.[/QUOTE] I think when we're talking about schools, people have the right to "think of the children" because if you don't have the highest priority for the education and safety of children in schools, you've got the wrong priorities also I've posted this before but the [URL="https://www.frontlineeducation.com/insights/welcome-school-improvement-clients/?pr=guns"]overwhelming majority[/URL] wouldn't bring guns to school, even if given the chance. on a similar note, I would question in a crisis how accurate they would be. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html"]Police in NYC struggle[/URL] with this and they're handling guns the most in a civilian population. someone called this a bandaid on a sucking chest wound and yeah that sounds accurate. people only seem to be supporting it because they really like guns.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198253] And of course they did. Most schools have also managed just fine for years, decades with students having rifles, shotguns, and pistols in their vehicles without encouraging teachers to bring guns.[/QUOTE] You mean in a time where violence [I]wasn't[/I] as much of a problem as it is today? Where people wouldn't think twice about someone bringing a gun to school because [I]everybody[/I] did?

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53198260]The gun rights side isn't actively contributing to the solutions to these problems. I don't give a shit about your guns. I'm ambivalent to, even slightly pro-gun rights. I do not hold a fundamental opposition to someone's possession of firearms. Until republicans/gun rights activists can put up meaningful solutions to the problems and [B]actually fucking follow through[/B], I'll side with people that are at least attempting to address the root cause even if they're going to restrict gun rights. If gun rights have nothing to do with the problems, we shouldn't be focusing the conversation around them. We should be focusing the conversation and directing policy towards fixing the fucking problem. If you're a gun owner you probably ought to call up your representatives and demand that they maintain funding for shit like SERV and the other programs designed to address the root issues instead of fixating on gun issues. If you're incapable of focusing on any other issue even for a minute, we have so little in common politically I'm just going to keep backing politicians that don't give a shit about your guns because at least then things I care about might get solved. My workplace and my students trump your property rights from my perspective.[/QUOTE] And you know I don't do this already because????? I want the root issues fixed as well. I don't vote for people who want do defund shit that could help. And I agree the conversation shouldn't be around guns. So why are we discussing them now? Because every time shit like this happens, instead of pushing for solving the underlying issues, we have people who come right out of the gate with "we need more gun control". Don't blame people for defending something hard when they always have to do so right out of the gate. And all that aside, don't expect for me to give a shit about what you care about when you don't give a shit about what I care about. The issue is never that we agree that the underlying issues need to be solved. [QUOTE=Lambeth;53198264]I think when we're talking about schools, people have the right to "think of the children" because if you don't have the highest priority for the education and safety of children in schools, you've got the wrong priorities also I've posted this before but the [URL="https://www.frontlineeducation.com/insights/welcome-school-improvement-clients/?pr=guns"]overwhelming majority[/URL] wouldn't bring guns to school, even if given the chance. on a similar note, I would question in a crisis how accurate they would be. [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html"]Police in NYC struggle[/URL] with this and they're handling guns the most in a civilian population. someone called this a bandaid on a sucking chest wound and yeah that sounds accurate. people only seem to be supporting it because they really like guns.[/QUOTE] I don't think you get to say "Think of the children!", but then turn around and say "I don't like schools being used as a political football." If you're going to bring it up in the first place, get ready for it to be used. And I do think that the education and safety of children in schools is of the highest priorities. But with that being said, there are solutions that exist, that have been outlined many times before, that also don't interfere with other priorities that I may have. The route that satisfies both is the route that I'm going to support. And I don't think teachers should be forced to carry guns in schools. You can't force someone to risk their lives defending others. We don't even mandate that the police do it. But, if they have a CCW permit, and have gone through all of the proper channels, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed, especially if the classrooms are equipped with safes to keep them away from the kids. In fact, I would add that if they want to do it, they should be qualifying with the police several times a year. If not, then they shouldn't. But there is no reason why we can't make it so that a teacher that wants to defend themselves and their class has the ability to do so. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53198342]You mean in a time where violence [I]wasn't[/I] as much of a problem as it is today? Where people wouldn't think twice about someone bringing a gun to school because [I]everybody[/I] did?[/QUOTE] So you're saying that guns AREN'T the issue, since we had guns before and it [I]wasn't[/I] an issue then? So things [I]other[/I] than guns are the cause of this issue?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198348]So you're saying that guns AREN'T the issue, since we had guns before and it [I]wasn't[/I] an issue then? So things [I]other[/I] than guns are the cause of this issue?[/QUOTE] So you're not arguing that the problem is made worse with how easy it is for one to get a fire-arm these days?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53198428]So you're not arguing that the problem is made worse with how easy it is for one to get a fire-arm these days?[/QUOTE] So you're arguing that the problem isn't guns to begin with?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198348]And you know I don't do this already because????? I want the root issues fixed as well. I don't vote for people who want do defund shit that could help. [/QUOTE] Have you devoted at least half as much effort contacting your reps to protect the programs currently under fire by the Trump administration as you have posting on forums about gun issues lately? Did you even know that Republicans were eyeing funding cuts for the programs I've brought up? The general state of discourse makes me think people aren't even aware that this shit is going on. At least [URL="http://pix11.com/2018/02/25/cuts-to-school-safety-budget-need-to-be-stopped-sen-schumer-says/"]Schumer[/URL] has addressed the issue. If Schumer and other gun grabbing democrats are the only people that are going to talk about this shit, I'm going to back them. I have no reason to disbelieve you if you claim that you're actively engaging your representatives about the issues at hand. If you can't however be assed to put even a fraction of the effort you are putting into preserving gun rights, we're not on the same page. Fuck you I've got mine works both ways. I don't want you to lose your guns, but I care far far far more about working to solve the issues than I do about your personal property. If you want me to care about your shit, give me reason to. Don't let the dipshits distract from the issues at hand. Show me that you're actually on my side instead of pushing for shit I and the majority other educators don't want to deal with.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53198215]I agree that expansion of CC for educators in isolation, without half-assed means of compensation should that be pursued isn't necessarily a bad idea. No policy functions in isolation however, and that's not even what's being proposed. Again, gun rights activists could show a lot of good faith by actually engaging with their representatives about maintaining federal programs designed to address the root causes of shootings and other violence that are currently on the chopping block instead of pushing for gun culture bullshit. Focus on CC is absolutely infuriating coming from the perspective of someone that works in public education, especially since [B]that's not even what most educators want in their learning environments and people keep saying they don't think it's a solution to the problem[/B]. I'm tired of my workplace being treated like a political football, and most of the effort to do so seems to be coming from the gun lobby.[/QUOTE] Just so we are clear, I'm not "focusing" on concealed carry. I don't think it's a solution to any problem, I think it's just one way you can react to the problem that is quick and cheap to implement with statistically very, very few to zero downsides. Educators are absolutely underpaid and overworked and shouldn't be expected to get into gunfights with people to defend their students lives. I generally agree with funding local, state, or federal programs to help prevent things like bullying, and think mental healthcare (healthcare in general) should be cheap and readily available for problematic students. I also generally agree with the idea of voting Democrat because even if their gun control platform is awful, the other policies they support are a net benefit to society than the Republicans. My opinions aren't influenced by the gun lobby whatsoever, and I certainly don't agree with the idea that arming more people intrinsically makes a place safer. I've just seen the statistics for states that already let teachers carry on campus and can back that suggestion based on what I've seen. That Republicans and the gun lobby support this measure doesn't mean we agree on everything, or really [I]anything[/I], else. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198253] It's not disingenuous to say "one side is using but think of the school children to push for gun control, while the other side is using it to expand guns". It's factually correct. The only reason someone would have an issue with this is if they have an issue with the truth. [/QUOTE] "But think of the children" is a conservative meme in most cases but I feel like one of the few instances where it actually applies would be schools. I feel like children are the priority in every discussion about education. A better argument for why gun control proposals from Democrats should be criticized is the fact that historically they haven't seemed to work, not because people "think about the children". The "two sides" remark isn't that two sides have different opinions, that's always true. It's that you think both sides have equal opinions, which is laughably false. While Democrats gun-grabbing is unlikely to stop school shootings, they at least cover the problem in other ways by generally being in favor of higher funding for schools and local/state governments, as well as historically supporting easier access to mental healthcare. Republicans meanwhile want to band-aid the issue by letting teachers carry on campus while working to solve none of the underlying issues. One side [I]clearly [/I]has an agenda that better servers the public interest and I don't see how you especially can make the argument that this has "nothing to do with guns" then say that the Republican opinion of "just throw guns at it" is valid at all.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53198442]Except its harder to get a gun today than it was 30 years ago, or even 20 years ago. Hell, 40 years ago you could bring a shotgun to school and check it with the office, so you could go hunting after school. Hell, background checks weren't a thing until 1998. So why is it NOW that its a problem? Could it possibly be that the symptoms of our societal problems are getting worse because we've let them fester for so long? Could it possibly be that with the introduction of "zero tolerance" rules in schools, and the further defunding of schools, we've made them from places of learning into places where bullies can actively torture people? Could it possibly be that our law enforcement is too busy enforcing bullshit "drug war" things, that they can't or wouldn't investigate reports of people who are dangerous? Could it possibly be that we've completely devastated our mental health facilities, so that if you need help you're going to wait a minimum of 4 months, provided the doctor is even taking new patients? Could it be that with the introduction of privacy laws (Like HIPAA) we made it next to impossible for states to report mentally ill people to the NICS. Could it possibly be that the lack of punishment for failure to report to the NICS means that its easier to just not do your job than it is to report some potentially dangerous guy to the background check system? Nope, definitely the "availability" of guns.[/QUOTE] Maybe we toughened up on gun laws because we saw where society was headed (even though it's arguably much, much easier to get a gun here than in other developed, "gun-friendly" countries)? And somehow despite giving ourselves all that time to fix shit things have actually gotten worse, but somehow the solution is still "more easier access to better guns now or no deal"? Like the very reasons you list for wanting to buy these things for defense, hunting, whatever, are the very same reasons anyone who would want to commit a crime with one would want one, because it's either going to a) be very effective at destroying your target, intended or otherwise, or b) because whether or not you want to argue that a gun "isn't dangerous", it's incredibly effective at making [I]you/them[/I] more dangerous (defense/robbery), isn't it? So the decision that has to be made by law-makers could go one of two ways, and one is clearly more ideal for everyone (including gun owners) in the long-run (meaning maybe [I]some day[/I] we can get rid of all that pesky legislation?): Either law-makers and society in general all stop being selfish titty-babies and realize that healthcare, education, decent wages, police accountability, and the environment are incredibly important not just for the individual, but for [I]everyone[/I], and work towards making it all much more accessible or better than it currently is, or passing more gun laws. Considering the law-making histories of both parties, I think we can all see where this one's going, that is, the same direction it's been going in since this nation started drifting apart. The right could give a shit less about how easy it is for you to get a good education, healthcare, clean water, etc., but they won't let the left do anything else with guns, which is all the bigger left-leaning political figures seem to want (that shit-eating grin on Pelosi's face grossed me out TBH) or to fix any of those other problems, for that matter. But if you really want to know why "now" it's a problem, look at the increasing number of gun crimes in this country since its inception, particularly in the case of schools. There's a definite pattern to be found there. [editline]13th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198441]So you're arguing that the problem isn't guns to begin with?[/QUOTE] I am neither arguing that they're the problem, nor that they aren't part of it.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53198594]Have you devoted at least half as much effort contacting your reps to protect the programs currently under fire by the Trump administration as you have posting on forums about gun issues lately? Did you even know that Republicans were eyeing funding cuts for the programs I've brought up? The general state of discourse makes me think people aren't even aware that this shit is going on. At least [URL="http://pix11.com/2018/02/25/cuts-to-school-safety-budget-need-to-be-stopped-sen-schumer-says/"]Schumer[/URL] has addressed the issue. If Schumer and other gun grabbing democrats are the only people that are going to talk about this shit, I'm going to back them. I have no reason to disbelieve you if you claim that you're actively engaging your representatives about the issues at hand. If you can't however be assed to put even a fraction of the effort you are putting into preserving gun rights, we're not on the same page. Fuck you I've got mine works both ways. I don't want you to lose your guns, but I care far far far more about working to solve the issues than I do about your personal property. If you want me to care about your shit, give me reason to. Don't let the dipshits distract from the issues at hand. Show me that you're actually on my side instead of pushing for shit I and the majority other educators don't want to deal with.[/QUOTE] Exactly, fuck you I've got mine DOES work both ways. You want me to devote my energy to showing me that I'm on your side, but have you done the same thing you're asking me to do in return? It looks to me like you're just voting for people who fit with your views, then expect ME to bend. Have you been writing your representatives telling them to stop with the dumb anti-gun legislation? Because if not, your argument has no ground to stand on. [QUOTE=Raidyr;53198610]"But think of the children" is a conservative meme in most cases but I feel like one of the few instances where it actually applies would be schools. I feel like children are the priority in every discussion about education. A better argument for why gun control proposals from Democrats should be criticized is the fact that historically they haven't seemed to work, not because people "think about the children".[/quote] My issue isn't with someone saying "think of the children", because in this case it is warranted. In fact, this is completely besides the point I was making. You don't get to only get mad at one side using it when both are using it. If you have an issue with school kids being used as a political tool, then at least be consistent enough to have an issue with it being used on both sides, not just when it's the side you don't like using it. [quote]The "two sides" remark isn't that two sides have different opinions, that's always true. It's that you think both sides have equal opinions, which is laughably false. While Democrats gun-grabbing is unlikely to stop school shootings, they at least cover the problem in other ways by generally being in favor of higher funding for schools and local/state governments, as well as historically supporting easier access to mental healthcare. Republicans meanwhile want to band-aid the issue by letting teachers carry on campus while working to solve none of the underlying issues. One side [I]clearly [/I]has an agenda that better servers the public interest and I don't see how you especially can make the argument that this has "nothing to do with guns" then say that the Republican opinion of "just throw guns at it" is valid at all.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that their opinion is the right one, but they have a right to it, and their constituents have a right to representation of their opinions, just like democrats do theirs. So in that sense, yes, both opinions are valid. Do I agree with them? Not really. I never said that arming teachers will solve the problem. I just don't have a problem with CCW license carriers carrying on campuses just like I don't have a problem with police carrying on campus, or anyone else who goes through the process to obtain a license to carry in these areas. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53198628]I am neither arguing that they're the problem, nor that they aren't part of it.[/QUOTE] Then what are you arguing? Because you're not making sense.

[QUOTE=Quark:;53195931]You underestimate how poorly teachers are paid, treated, and even bullied in America. If you give a public school teacher permission to bring a pistol into the school, a kid will eventually die. There are places where teachers still hit kids[/QUOTE] in my school you would regularly hear about kids trolling teachers known to have PTSD to the point of having a breakdown by dropping textbooks to scare them...

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198741]Exactly, fuck you I've got mine DOES work both ways. You want me to devote my energy to showing me that I'm on your side, but have you done the same thing you're asking me to do in return? It looks to me like you're just voting for people who fit with your views, then expect ME to bend. Have you been writing your representatives telling them to stop with the dumb anti-gun legislation? Because if not, your argument has no ground to stand on. [/QUOTE] I have been reaching out to people on these issues. I've also been consistently encouraging people to run on democratic tickets if they've got pro-gun positions. I've got regular access to Hill Days through my institution and a couple of organizations I'm involved with. I'm in a comparatively good position to get shit done. How is asking you to ask people not to fuck up things we both supposedly care about "making you bend"? That sends a pretty clear message that you don't actually care. If you actually cared about that shit you'd do something to support it, and you probably wouldn't dance around the issue when asked flat out if you're doing anything to advocate for the shit you allegedly care about. If you don't actually support the federal programs that are currently at risk of being cut as solutions to school violence, why not? What alternatives are you pushing for? What evidence do you have that these will better serve the public interest?

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53198835]I have been reaching out to people on these issues. I've also been consistently encouraging people to run on democratic tickets if they've got pro-gun positions. I've got regular access to Hill Days through my institution and a couple of organizations I'm involved with. I'm in a comparatively good position to get shit done. How is asking you to ask people not to fuck up things we both supposedly care about "making you bend"? That sends a pretty clear message that you don't actually care. If you actually cared about that shit you'd do something to support it, and you probably wouldn't dance around the issue when asked flat out if you're doing anything to advocate for the shit you allegedly care about. If you don't actually support the federal programs that are currently at risk of being cut as solutions to school violence, why not? What alternatives are you pushing for? What evidence do you have that these will better serve the public interest?[/QUOTE] Please, point out to me where I said I don't support those programs. Please show me.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198883]Please, point out to me where I said I don't support those programs. Please show me.[/QUOTE] Actually read what I wrote mate. If you support these programs are you actually going to support them or just sit on your ass getting mad at people asking for help to protect them? If you're serious about fixing this shit then fucking help. Right now getting help from gun owners is like pulling teeth, which you've pretty well demonstrated.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53198940]Actually read what I wrote mate. If you support these programs are you actually going to support them or just sit on your ass getting mad at people asking for help to protect them? If you're serious about fixing this shit then fucking help. Right now getting help from gun owners is like pulling teeth, which you've pretty well demonstrated.[/QUOTE] I am doing more than just "sitting on my ass". I do support them. The reason getting help from gun owners is like pulling teeth is because people slip in something to fuck over gun owners every chance they get. Give me solutions that don't fuck us over and I'm on board 100%. It's not that hard. I already support several. Gun owners are not going to swallow the poison pill anymore. We will work with anyone who doesn't fuck us over. Actually, I should clarify. I'm talking about those of us gun supporters who are sane and don't suck the republican tit.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198741] My issue isn't with someone saying "think of the children", because in this case it is warranted. In fact, this is completely besides the point I was making. You don't get to only get mad at one side using it when both are using it. If you have an issue with school kids being used as a political tool, then at least be consistent enough to have an issue with it being used on both sides, not just when it's the side you don't like using it. [/QUOTE] But nobody was getting mad at anything. Nobody even invoked "think of the children" until you did. And it's only something thats invoked when you are trying to discount someones argument by attacking their motivations. If it's warranted why even bring it up? [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198741]I'm not saying that their opinion is the right one, but they have a right to it, and their constituents have a right to representation of their opinions, just like democrats do theirs. So in that sense, yes, both opinions are valid. Do I agree with them? Not really. I never said that arming teachers will solve the problem. I just don't have a problem with CCW license carriers carrying on campuses just like I don't have a problem with police carrying on campus, or anyone else who goes through the process to obtain a license to carry in these areas. [/QUOTE] This is baseless sophistry. Just because every opinion exists doesn't make every opinion equal. Just because thousands or even millions of "constituents" believe global warming is a conspiracy theory concocted by the (((globalists))) doesn't mean it's as valid as opinions informed by facts and evidence gathered by scientific observation. I can't possibly see how you can say you don't agree with the idea that simply arming teachers will solve the school shooting problem then on the other hand say it's equally valid to the solutions Democrats propose. It's like you are incapable of criticizing Republicans when you clearly feel they are in the wrong so the best you can do is the same old "both sides are the same and bad" schtick.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53198956]But nobody was getting mad at anything. Nobody even invoked "think of the children" until you did. And it's only something thats invoked when you are trying to discount someones argument by attacking their motivations. If it's warranted why even bring it up?[/quote] Would you look at this, the very thing I was responding to that you somehow missed in the conversation... [QUOTE=1legmidget;53198215]I'm tired of my workplace being treated like a political football, and most of the effort to do so seems to be coming from the gun lobby.[/QUOTE] [quote]This is baseless sophistry. Just because every opinion exists doesn't make every opinion equal. Just because thousands or even millions of "constituents" believe global warming is a conspiracy theory concocted by the (((globalists))) doesn't mean it's as valid as opinions informed by facts and evidence gathered by scientific observation. I can't possibly see how you can say you don't agree with the idea that simply arming teachers will solve the school shooting problem then on the other hand say it's equally valid to the solutions Democrats propose. It's like you are incapable of criticizing Republicans when you clearly feel they are in the wrong so the best you can do is the same old "both sides are the same and bad" schtick.[/QUOTE] Because I can disagree with someone's position on a subject while simultaneously realizing that the very fabric of any democracy unravels when you immediately ignore and dismiss entire groups of people because you disagree with their solution. You're looking at it in a completely different context.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198965]Would you look at this, the very thing I was responding to that you somehow missed in the conversation...[/QUOTE] But he didn't once mention "think of the children", he said he was sick of schools being a political football, mostly by the gun lobby, [B]which is true[/B] because only the gun lobby is suggesting solutions that affect schools directly. When Democrats want to ban assault weapons that's dumb but its not using schools as a political football. When the NRA wants as many teachers as possible to buy guns and get trained in classes provided by ranges or groups affiliated with the NRA that is clearly using schools as a political football. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198965]Because I can disagree with someone's position on a subject while simultaneously realizing that the very fabric of any democracy unravels when you immediately ignore and dismiss entire groups of people because you disagree with their solution. You're looking at it in a completely different context.[/QUOTE] I never said you dismiss entire groups of people I said you don't have to give every opinion equal weight and measure merely for the fact that it exists. It's the same reason we don't teach creationism in schools alongside evolution. I'm not asking you to say "Republicans are dumb" I'm asking why you would equivocate "arm teachers" and "fund state and federal resources to better provide for ostracized students" as equally valid solutions to school shootings when you yourself don't believe the latter is superior to the former. [editline]13th March 2018[/editline] I don't even think we differ too much on the facts on the ground right now, I'm just struggling to understand why someone who seemingly despises Trump and isn't afraid to be critical of Republicans refuses to just outright say that while Democrats gun-grabbing efforts are bad, their solutions seem better than the other guys.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53198714]Yes, I certainly see the pattern of larger class sizes, worse funding, more requirements for students (state testing anyone?), and the introduction of "zero tolerance" policies, creating an environment that is not only suboptimal for learning, but also flat out miserable to be in. So is it any wonder that someone who gets horribly bullied at school, and comes home and thanks to social media can't escape the bullying unless they want to be some sort of miserable loner, who knows that they aren't going to make it to college, so their life after school is going to be a miserable mess, would make the choice to go and end the lives of the people who tortured them, and anyone else who happens to look at them funny?[/quote] And in one of the easiest, most accessible (assuming people aren't keeping their shit locked up as they should, lack of stronger background checks, etc) and potentially indiscriminate ways available to you, no less. (I say "potentially indiscriminate" because remember, a gun is considered to be dangerous towards whatever it's pointed at, not necessarily what you INTENDED to hit) [quote]We've created the perfect storm of "get fucked" in our school systems, and the perfect storm of "get fucked" in our social safety nets. There are legitimately people with nothing to lose anymore.[/quote] And people with plenty of ways to help, yet they refuse to do anything about it/are actively destroying it, and then acting surprised when things go to pot. [quote]That shouldn't be the case, that shouldn't EVER be the case. Rebuilding our safety nets, and ripping apart our education system and rebuilding it from the ground up is the only way forward, that's actually WORTH A DAMN. Because the society I want to live in doesn't have the option of "having no options", unless your just too lazy to fill out the forms to have options. You've said "vote for the party that has societies best interest at heart" and I wish I could agree. But with the amount of dems in the back pockets of corps, and the amount of dems who refuse to understand even basic statistics, I DON'T TRUST THEM. I don't trust the democratic party to do what's best, any more than I trust the GOP to do what's best. They talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. [/quote] That's the sad truth. I thought we might actually get somewhere with Bernie, but we all know how that panned out. [quote]Hell, I should start a political party called the "getting shit done" party, where we focus on societal reforms and unfucking our safety nets, rather than on bullshit little stunts that make the populous shut up for a few weeks till the next incident happens.[/QUOTE] Sign me up. [editline]13th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53198741]Then what are you arguing? Because you're not making sense.[/QUOTE] "Clearly time has shown that guns aren't the problem because legislation against them 'hasn't done shit' as you and others argue, but at the same time the calls for 'MORE GUN' clearly aren't working either, and if anything things are just getting worse and worse, and no matter the 'true cause' of the problem, the addition of 'more gun' into the mix clearly isn't making it any better, either." [editline]13th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;53199162]I'll say this right now, and you can screen shot it for posterity if it ever happens. If the dems could abandon their idiotic stances on gun control, and take a look at statistics, and make legitimate legislation based on statistics (like several people on FP do, on both ends of the gun debate), they'd sweep every election for the next decade, AT A MINIMUM.[/quote] Probably, probably not. When I log into Facebook these days, after a shooting has occurred, you know what I'm greeted by? Usually there's a Snope's or some other outlet's article on it, maybe a friend or two talking about how horrible it was, and of course my senators are right there in that lot, too. But the ones I see the most often, and often the quickest? All my pro-2A buddies from various walks of life, posting imagines comparing "THE LEFT" to Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc., before gun control is even mentioned. [I]Pol Pot, Stalin, AND Hitler[/I]. [quote]Probably even longer if they could get their heads out of their ass about the whole "identity politics" thing too. Seriously, taking a step back from their assinine pushes for "registries" and "ban scary things", and actually acknowledging the statistics, will show me everything I need to see. It'll show me that you're willing to make laws based on facts instead of feelings, that you're willing to be "evidence based", that you actually understand that making "feel good" legislation is pathetic, and a single "real" solution will fix more problems than 30 "feel good" solutions ever could. If you're making legislation based on facts and statistics then I can support you, because you'll deal with other important issues in the same way, like healthcare, like education, like poverty, like infrastructure, like the courts, like foreign policy. Simply put, if you can legislate around facts and statistics, then I can sleep soundly at night, knowing that you're not an idiot who's going to fuck everything up if I don't constantly check on you every 5 minutes.[/QUOTE] The difficulty is guns alone are enough of an issue to massively divide the vote. Fuck, as I said, even BERNIE, who [I]probably[/I] has the better chance of actually fixing the problems we're having, has a history of being the "ban!" sort, so even if you ignored him: Buying a house (with book money + money from a house his wife's family owned, but they don't care) Writing that report in college where he mentions a woman fantasizing about being raped (taken out of context by the media of course) Endorsing Hillary (whom every 2A supporter I've met seems to equate to Voldemort on some level) Then he still wouldn't "sweep", and neither would any Democrat, sadly. Certain people (and we know who they are by now) have it so ingrained that A party is the bastion of good in a dying world and B party is a citadel of spite and putrid decay that destroys all that is good in life, and though which party is which may change based on the individual, it's the individual who seems less likely to change. [editline]13th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=BlackWolf97;53198789]in my school you would regularly hear about kids trolling teachers known to have PTSD to the point of having a breakdown by dropping textbooks to scare them...[/QUOTE] Ugh, yes. Kids are dicks. Remember 9/11? That thing people love to rally around as something that "brought America together"? Kids were singing "Blame Canada" in class when it happened, as they watched on the monitors people jumping to their deaths rather than being burned alive [I]on national television[/I]. [I]While[/I] we had a substitute teacher who was a little girl when Pearl Harbor happened, so you can imagne that at first she was super distraught, but eventually, she just got [I]pissed[/I] and went off on the dumb-asses who were singing. Why are kids dicks? Beats me. I was hardly a Boy Scout in school, either, but nothing I did was anywhere remotely near [I]that[/I] bad.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53198985]But he didn't once mention "think of the children", he said he was sick of schools being a political football, mostly by the gun lobby, [B]which is true[/B] because only the gun lobby is suggesting solutions that affect schools directly. When Democrats want to ban assault weapons that's dumb but its not using schools as a political football. When the NRA wants as many teachers as possible to buy guns and get trained in classes provided by ranges or groups affiliated with the NRA that is clearly using schools as a political football. [/quote] In this case, "think of the children" is a given on both sides. And I understand that they are using schools as a political football to expand guns and other policies that are pro-gun. But you can't sit here and tell me that anti-gun people aren't using schools as a political football to push the same anti-gun policies they know have failed several times before instead of pushing real solutions at a time when they could probably get them passed. If that's not using kids as a political football, then I don't know what is. [quote]I never said you dismiss entire groups of people I said you don't have to give every opinion equal weight and measure merely for the fact that it exists. It's the same reason we don't teach creationism in schools alongside evolution. I'm not asking you to say "Republicans are dumb" I'm asking why you would equivocate "arm teachers" and "fund state and federal resources to better provide for ostracized students" as equally valid solutions to school shootings when you yourself don't believe the latter is superior to the former.[/quote] When it comes to making laws, yes we do. Unless you don't want to live in a democratic society anymore, we kind of have to. [quote]I don't even think we differ too much on the facts on the ground right now, I'm just struggling to understand why someone who seemingly despises Trump and isn't afraid to be critical of Republicans refuses to just outright say that while Democrats gun-grabbing efforts are bad, their solutions seem better than the other guys.[/QUOTE] I don't think we differ much either. But I can say "I don't like either." I'm not going to settle for "well this one is better, so we'll go with this one even though it has a poison pill in it." We don't HAVE to choose the lesser of both evils. We can say "Your solution sucks less, but that's not saying much when both solutions are absolute shit. Go back to the drawing board.", and I think we absolutely can and should do that. [QUOTE=Zero-Point;53199837]"Clearly time has shown that guns aren't the problem because legislation against them 'hasn't done shit' as you and others argue, but at the same time the calls for 'MORE GUN' clearly aren't working either, and if anything things are just getting worse and worse, and no matter the 'true cause' of the problem, the addition of 'more gun' into the mix clearly isn't making it any better, either."[/QUOTE] Statistics don't follow your claim that things are getting "worse and worse". And while more guns statistically don't make it better, you're going to have to show where it statistically makes things worse.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53197422] As a measure for addressing mass shootings it's terrible, but as a policy in isolation I've yet to see a credible reason why it's a problem.[/QUOTE] Because policies do not exist in isolation. This passing would be the American people accepting this as an effective way to mitigate the problem.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.