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

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53200728]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 asked you and everyone else a simple question, which was essentially "have you made meaningful action to support these programs?". If they have poison pills, [I]show me[/I]. These programs have [U]nothing[/U] to do with restricting gun rights. They allegedly line up with everything you guys are claiming to care about, but you fucking right out of the cage made your support conditional. You went on a tirade about how support for them is "making you bend" and essentially implied that you won't care about them unless I and educators care about guns. You fucking used support for these programs as a political football. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RESTRICTING GUN RIGHTS AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HELPING KIDS AND YOU STILL CAN'T GET OUT OF YOUR OWN ASS BECAUSE I SAID ONLY ONE SIDE IS REALLY HELPING YOU THEN WENT TO DEMONSTRATE TO EVERYONE ELSE THAT [B][U]ONLY ONE SIDE IS DEMONSTRABLY HELPING THE SITUATION[/U][/B] You became the best argument anti-gunners could ask for in this situation. I'll say it again I don't want to take your guns. [B]I don't want to take your guns.[/B] [B][I]I DON'T WANT TO FUCKING TAKE YOUR GUNS[/I][/B] Politicians backed by the NRA are pushing for changes in my workplace. Anti-gun legislators are pushing for changes in my workplace. ONLY ONE FUCKING SET OF POLITICIANS IS ALSO DEMONSTRABLY PUSHING FOR CHANGES THAT WILL ACTUALLY HELP E.G. MAINTAINING SUPPORT FOR THE PROGRAMS I'VE MENTIONED. THE SUBSET OF POLITICIANS PUSHING FOR [B]MEANINGFUL CHANGES OR POLICY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ISSUE IS HEAVILY WEIGHTED TO ONE SIDE[/B]. Since the public eye is on my workplace and demanding changes, I and other educators have to work with someone to make sure we don't get fucked over. Those cuts will fuck us over. ERGO, we either have to support democrats OR build support for these programs amongst republicans and gun owners since those two groups have formed a coalition. I'm trying to do the latter. Public sentiment is slowly turning away from gun ownership. Educators are increasingly calling for crazy restrictive gun laws. You're losing support with the people you need. I'm not asking for any more gun laws. I'm only fucking asking that people focus on the real shit. Get people in your camp to change the focus of the conversation, and you'll fucking knock the opposition on their ass. Maintaining the current level of funding or even increasing it takes [B]nothing[/B] from you guys. You lose no rights, you look reasonable, you show educators that you're on our side. Apparently, that's too much to ask for.

[QUOTE=1legmidget;53200816]I asked you and everyone else a simple question, which was essentially "have you made meaningful action to support these programs?". If they have poison pills, [I]show me[/I]. These programs have [U]nothing[/U] to do with restricting gun rights. They allegedly line up with everything you guys are claiming to care about, but you fucking right out of the cage made your support conditional. You went on a tirade about how support for them is "making you bend" and essentially implied that you won't care about them unless I and educators care about guns. You fucking used support for these programs as a political football. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RESTRICTING GUN RIGHTS AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HELPING KIDS AND YOU STILL CAN'T GET OUT OF YOUR OWN ASS BECAUSE I SAID ONLY ONE SIDE IS REALLY HELPING YOU THEN WENT TO DEMONSTRATE TO EVERYONE ELSE THAT [B][U]ONLY ONE SIDE IS DEMONSTRABLY HELPING THE SITUATION[/U][/B] You became the best argument anti-gunners could ask for in this situation. I'll say it again I don't want to take your guns. [B]I don't want to take your guns.[/B] [B][I]I DON'T WANT TO FUCKING TAKE YOUR GUNS[/I][/B] Politicians backed by the NRA are pushing for changes in my workplace. Anti-gun legislators are pushing for changes in my workplace. ONLY ONE FUCKING SET OF POLITICIANS IS ALSO DEMONSTRABLY PUSHING FOR CHANGES THAT WILL ACTUALLY HELP E.G. MAINTAINING SUPPORT FOR THE PROGRAMS I'VE MENTIONED. THE SUBSET OF POLITICIANS PUSHING FOR [B]MEANINGFUL CHANGES OR POLICY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ISSUE IS HEAVILY WEIGHTED TO ONE SIDE[/B]. Since the public eye is on my workplace and demanding changes, I and other educators have to work with someone to make sure we don't get fucked over. Those cuts will fuck us over. ERGO, we either have to support democrats OR build support for these programs amongst republicans and gun owners since those two groups have formed a coalition. I'm trying to do the latter. Public sentiment is slowly turning away from gun ownership. Educators are increasingly calling for crazy restrictive gun laws. You're losing support with the people you need. I'm not asking for any more gun laws. I'm only fucking asking that people focus on the real shit. Get people in your camp to change the focus of the conversation, and you'll fucking knock the opposition on their ass. Maintaining the current level of funding or even increasing it takes [B]nothing[/B] from you guys. You lose no rights, you look reasonable, you show educators that you're on our side. Apparently, that's too much to ask for.[/QUOTE] Oh look, I can do this too: [B][U]I AM TRYING TO CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THE CONVERSATION. I WANT CHANGES THAT WILL FUCKING HELP YOU. I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WOULDN'T SUPPORT THESE PROGRAMS. I'M SAYING IT'S A NO IF IT COMES AT THE COST OF OTHER RIGHTS.[/U][/B] YOU might not want to take our guns, but OTHER people do. SHOW me the bills that have come up in response to this shooting that have NOTHING to do with restricting firearms yet still tries to fix the issue, and I'll show you a bill I will most likely support. Let me make this perfectly clear: My support for these programs is not conditional. [B]My support for these programs is not conditional.[/B] [B][I]MY SUPPORT FOR THESE PROGRAMS IS NOT CONDITIONAL[/I][/B] I don't know WHY you are having such a hard time seeing that. [B][U]WE WANT THE SAME FUCKING THING HERE.[/U][/B] At this point, I don't even know what you are arguing against. People in "my camp" already want to increase school funding and help solve the underlying issues. WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53200728] 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] You don't think there's evidence school shootings are becoming more and more common place? I'm not talking headline-making massacres like Parkland, Columbine, or Sandy Hook, I'm talking [I]school shootings[/I], as in shootings that have occurred on school grounds.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53202686]You don't think there's evidence school shootings are becoming more and more common place? I'm not talking headline-making massacres like Parkland, Columbine, or Sandy Hook, I'm talking [I]school shootings[/I], as in shootings that have occurred on school grounds.[/QUOTE] I know the statistics show that violence in general, and even firearm violence, has been on a downward trend for decades. Things are not getting worse. They are actually getting better. And are you using that specific definition of "school shooting" so you can use that source that's been debunked already several times?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53202693]I know the statistics show that violence in general, and even firearm violence, has been on a downward trend for decades. Things are not getting worse. They are actually getting better. And are you using that specific definition of "school shooting" so you can use that source that's been debunked already several times?[/QUOTE] What source would that be? The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States]list[/url] of every school shooting in America's history since its inception? Because that list's rules are stated thus: [quote][B]List of school shootings in the United States lists in chronology and provides additional details of incidents in which a firearm was discharged at a school infrastructure or campus, including incidents of shootings on a school bus. This list contains school shooting incidents that occurred on the campuses of K-12 public schools and private schools, as well as colleges and universities.[/B] It [B]excludes incidents[/B] that [U]occurred during wars or police actions, [B]as well as murder-suicides by rejected suitors or estranged spouses[/B], and suicides or suicide attempts involving only one person. [B]Mass shootings by staff of schools that involve only other employees are covered at workplace killings.[/B] This list does not include bombings such as the Bath School disaster.[/U][/quote] So that REALLY narrows it down. You can't seriously tell me you don't see a pattern, if not a trend?

Arming teachers is such a fucking stupid idea. Not only are they burdened with responding to threats, but the revival of video games being the scapegoat causes of why kids are acting violent means they expect teachers to be armed and prepared to shoot a kid.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;53202870]Arming teachers is such a fucking stupid idea. Not only are they burdened with responding to threats, but the revival of video games being the scapegoat causes of why kids are acting violent means they expect teachers to be armed and prepared to shoot a kid.[/QUOTE] A teacher who is armed has gone out of their way to get a CHL, gone through the training voluntarily, and practiced enough to qualify for the license. Nobody is burdening them. They accept the "burden" voluntarily like any other CHL holder. I feel like a broken record because I've repeated no less than 5 times today that nobody whose opinion is worth a good god damn wants to force teachers to carry guns. All these bills are trying to do is allow teachers who have licenses to carry their guns on school grounds. They already carry everywhere else. Because they want to. Not because anyone's forcing them to. If I have to say this again I'm going to blow a gasket. Stop looking for the most outrageous, insane, outlying viewpoint and taking it to represent the entire other team. Stop. Please. For everyone's sanity. Why does it even strike you as a remote possibility that any voting majority would want to force anyone to be armed at all? And to reiterate: [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53202029]That's fine. I'm not here to tell anyone they're wrong for being opposed to teachers carrying in schools. It doesn't exactly sit right with me, either. But I'm not going to let people construct sock puppets to argue against and accuse me of being one of their invented boogeymen. I'm trying to get the discussion moving in a direction that's based on reality, not imagination. My personal position is that I don't think it's exactly a good idea to do it, but I'm on the fence as to whether or not it should be strictly illegal. Conceal carry is fine in most places, and with that comes the increased possibility of a ND in those places. But in general it seems to provide a net public safety benefit. The question is if the risk is greater in schools and if that risk being greater means we should keep them gun-free. I tend to think that the risk of a ND is higher in a school. I'm undecided on whether or not they'd represent a net safety increase considering the increased risk.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53202884]A teacher who is armed has gone out of their way to get a CHL, gone through the training voluntarily, and practiced enough to qualify for the license. Nobody is burdening them. They accept the "burden" voluntarily like any other CHL holder. I feel like a broken record because I've repeated no less than 5 times today that nobody whose opinion is worth a good god damn wants to force teachers to carry guns. All these bills are trying to do is allow teachers who have licenses to carry their guns on school grounds. They already carry everywhere else. Because they want to. Not because anyone's forcing them to. If I have to say this again I'm going to blow a gasket. Stop looking for the most outrageous, insane, outlying viewpoint and taking it to represent the entire other team. Stop. Please. For everyone's sanity. Why does it even strike you as a remote possibility that any voting majority would want to force anyone to be armed at all?[/QUOTE] I blame the way it's worded. "Arming teachers" implies we are going to either buy guns for every teacher or subsidize their own purchases. It's a completely inaccurate portrayal of what most of the suggestions are, which is to let CHL holders carry in schools just like they have been able to in several states for many years with few (if any) problems.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53202888]I blame the way it's worded. "Arming teachers" implies we are going to either buy guns for every teacher or subsidize their own purchases. It's a completely inaccurate portrayal of what most of the suggestions are, which is to let CHL holders carry in schools just like they have been able to in several states for many years with few (if any) problems.[/QUOTE] Yes; well, that's the power of the media. The major takeaway here should be that no mainstream media outlet (or any media outlet, really) is interested in offering you a factual, objective take on political issues. Any little twist they can get away with to create outrage where none needs to exist. That's why the best way to get informed is to have objective, open, honest, good faith discussion with other people.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53202893]Yes; well, that's the power of the media. The major takeaway here should be that no mainstream media outlet (or any media outlet, really) is interested in offering you a factual, objective take on political issues. Any little twist they can get away with to create outrage where none needs to exist. That's why the best way to get informed is to have objective, open, honest, good faith discussion with other people.[/QUOTE] I find outlets like WaPo and NYT to have great reporting 98.89% of the time, but reading articles about guns as of late shows that at best journalists are woefully misinformed about the topics or at worst are outright pushing a narrative. It's something that needs to be curbed since it gives conservatives easy ammo (no pun intended) for the old "fake news" chestnut.

[QUOTE=Segab;53196631]You can make stats say whatever you want. Think a little bit about the implications instead of making numbers fit your narrative. Mistakes happen, tragedies happen. Easier access to guns means more ways tragedies can happen. Imagine being a teacher, answering a student's question at their desk and having to always watch your back in case a teenager snaps whacks you in the back of the head with a blunt object with the intent of then stealing your gun. You could say, "well [i]statistically[/i] this never happens", but changing a few small variables could cause those situations to happen and cause dozens of kids to die. You're basically arguing that the risk of that happening is lower than the number of kill sprees stopped by armed teachers. I don't think it is, and even if it was, it's a solution that brings more guns in the equation, and more general anxiety of always having to watch your back in case someone steals your gun or some else's. I much prefer living somewhere where it's not even a thought that crosses my mind.[/QUOTE] Do you seriously think that the teachers going to be carrying the pistol on them at all times? Your situation is impossible with something as simple as a gunsafe and a numpad. Edit: Also a reminder noone has a individual constitutional right to guns only to be involved in a "Well regulated militia" which has a right to "bear arms" [QUOTE] In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare"[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53203004]Do you seriously think that the teachers going to be carrying the pistol on them at all times? Your situation is impossible with something as simple as a gunsafe and a numpad. Edit: Also a reminder noone has a individual constitutional right to guns only to be involved in a "Well regulated militia" which has a right to "bear arms"[/QUOTE] "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "...the right of the [B]people[/B]..."

[QUOTE=SKEEA;53203027]"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "...the right of the [B]people[/B]..."[/QUOTE] people is a plural noun, not singular. edit: i for one am thankful for the learning opportunities these shootings have given us. the rest of the world has a serious learning deficit when it comes to teaching kids how to dodge bullets. it's an incredibly useful life skill. edit 2: in fact, arming the teachers will increase the learning of the students by giving them more opportunities to apply their bullet dodging skills. practice makes perfect!

[QUOTE=omggrass;53203054]people is a plural noun, not singular. edit: i for one am thankful for the learning opportunities these shootings have given us. the rest of the world has a serious learning deficit when it comes to teaching kids how to dodge bullets. it's an incredibly useful life skill.[/QUOTE] [quote] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the [b]people[/b] peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.[/quote] [quote]The right of the [b]people[/b] to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/quote] So all these other rights don't belong to any individual I guess. They just wanted to make unicorn rights that don't apply unless you are a collective, right?

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53202715]What source would that be? The [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States]list[/url] of every school shooting in America's history since its inception? Because that list's rules are stated thus: So that REALLY narrows it down. You can't seriously tell me you don't see a pattern, if not a trend?[/QUOTE] You might want to read this [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.4b7e35126e76"]article[/URL] because the same thing wrong with the Everytown for Gun Safety statistics. It uses things that people wouldn't consider a "school shooting" to inflate numbers and drive emotions. My favorite passage is this one: [QUOTE]The figures matter because gun-control activists use them as evidence in their fight for bans on assault weapons, stricter background checks and other legislation. Gun rights groups seize on the faults in the data to undermine those arguments and, similarly, present skewed figures of their own.[/QUOTE] So while that criteria is oddly specific, it's also oddly broad in the sense that it includes things like suicides, accidental discharges, and other incidents that don't come to mind when people think "school shooting". Suicides, accidental discharges, mass shootings, they all have different causes and require different approaches to solve. Bundling them together just strips context and nuance. Do I see that mass school shootings are getting more frequent? Of course I do. One would have to be blind not to see that. But let's not pretend that the solution that works for a guy shooting a pellet gun at a school bus window is the same solution that's going to solve the issue of a kid being pushed to the point that he wants to kill everyone.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53202884]A teacher who is armed has gone out of their way to get a CHL, gone through the training voluntarily, and practiced enough to qualify for the license. Nobody is burdening them. They accept the "burden" voluntarily like any other CHL holder. I feel like a broken record because I've repeated no less than 5 times today that nobody whose opinion is worth a good god damn wants to force teachers to carry guns. All these bills are trying to do is allow teachers who have licenses to carry their guns on school grounds. They already carry everywhere else. Because they want to. Not because anyone's forcing them to. If I have to say this again I'm going to blow a gasket. Stop looking for the most outrageous, insane, outlying viewpoint and taking it to represent the entire other team. Stop. Please. For everyone's sanity. Why does it even strike you as a remote possibility that any voting majority would want to force anyone to be armed at all? And to reiterate:[/QUOTE] They're incentivizing it with bonuses. Teachers are under-paid, over-worked, and under-appreciated. Do you honestly think the irresponsible teachers (and there are a LOT more than you think out there, the education system [I]sucks[/I], man) are going to pass up a bonus, and they just have to carry a piece on them? Pffft! [editline]15th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53203447]You might want to read this [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.4b7e35126e76"]article[/URL] because the same thing wrong with the Everytown for Gun Safety statistics. It uses things that people wouldn't consider a "school shooting" to inflate numbers and drive emotions. My favorite passage is this one: So while that criteria is oddly specific, it's also oddly broad in the sense that it includes things like suicides, accidental discharges, and other incidents that don't come to mind when people think "school shooting". Suicides, accidental discharges, mass shootings, they all have different causes and require different approaches to solve. Bundling them together just strips context and nuance. Do I see that mass school shootings are getting more frequent? Of course I do. One would have to be blind not to see that. But let's not pretend that the solution that works for a guy shooting a pellet gun at a school bus window is the same solution that's going to solve the issue of a kid being pushed to the point that he wants to kill everyone.[/QUOTE] Those statistics are relevant because it still involves random people getting hold of a fire-arm, which most people agree has no place in a school where people should be able to focus on their studies in peace, which still can include the death or injury of an individual. It goes to show that the mass proliferation of the things and people's carelessness in using them is causing a problem that needs to be addressed. We've already beaten the "NO BANS!/MORE GUNS!" horse to death 10-fold over by now, so as many have already said we need to take some sort of immediate action, and I personally don't care who does it at this point, whether it's you or your congressman or your retailer or manufacturer. These problems are multi-faceted and will take time to mend, so if anything has to be done right now to try to curb the accidents, suicides, or murders, and I don't care what it is, whether it's mandatory licensing/training or age restriction, as long as [I]something[/I] tangible is done before it's swept under the rug just in time for the next breaking headline.

[QUOTE=BoopieDoopie2;53203004] Edit: Also a reminder noone has a individual constitutional right to guns only to be involved in a "Well regulated militia" which has a right to "bear arms"[/QUOTE] [URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20180201191936/http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm"]well regulated [/URL] [URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246"]militia[/URL] [URL="http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html"]purpose of 2A[/URL] [URL="https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers"]founding father quotes[/URL] [URL="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html"]"not an individual right"[/URL]

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53203660]Those statistics are relevant because it still involves random people getting hold of a fire-arm, which most people agree has no place in a school where people should be able to focus on their studies in peace, which still can include the death or injury of an individual. It goes to show that the mass proliferation of the things and people's carelessness in using them is causing a problem that needs to be addressed. We've already beaten the "NO BANS!/MORE GUNS!" horse to death 10-fold over by now, so as many have already said we need to take some sort of immediate action, and I personally don't care who does it at this point, whether it's you or your congressman or your retailer or manufacturer. These problems are multi-faceted and will take time to mend, so if anything has to be done right now to try to curb the accidents, suicides, or murders, and I don't care what it is, whether it's mandatory licensing/training or age restriction, as long as [I]something[/I] tangible is done before it's swept under the rug just in time for the next breaking headline.[/QUOTE] And we've already beaten the "BAN CERTAIN GUNS/LESS GUNS!" horse to death 10-fold over by now as well. You want to see something Done to restrict guns, I want to see something done to solve the underlying issue. The issue here is that nobody in our legislature is pushing for these solutions. They are just pushing the common more/less guns schtick. It sounds like you want something done, no matter what it is or how effective it is at solving the problem, just to say "look, we did something!" This is a case where no legislation is better than bad legislation. And let's be honest here, I could show you the statistics about how violent crime and gun homicides have been getting lower and lower even though the amount of firearms has gone up, but you're not going to care, because they don't support your feeling that more guns equals more gun deaths.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53203935]And let's be honest here, I could show you the statistics about how violent crime and gun homicides have been getting lower and lower even though the amount of firearms has gone up, but you're not going to care, because they don't support your feeling that more guns equals more gun deaths.[/QUOTE] I don't think Zero-Point believes proliferation is the sole cause of homicides or violent crime, so this is irrelevant. This type of statistics is useless to anybody who considers that such issues can have several root causes.