Majority in poll say Florida students 'effective advocates for gun control' - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;53193425]It's the point we've gotten to when time and again when this happens, the one side that never seems willing to make any meaningful concession are the gun-owners, lobbyists, and manufacturers.[/QUOTE] Show me where gun owners have gotten regulations reduced as many times as we've had regulations increased. I know you can't show that, so show me where suppressors are off of the NFA list. You probably can't do that either. So show me where the machine gun registry is open to new guns. Damn, you can't do that either. So unless you are starting from a biased position, the only side that has not been compromising is gun control advocates. [QUOTE=SIRIUS;53193476]Oh no, poor poor you, what would you do without guns?!?! Seriously, come on, get off the melodrama and get some perspective on what's really important[/QUOTE] Sure thing buddy. What's really important is that we donate a lot of money to the NRA and vote straight GOP every election so that we don't have to worry about people not wanting to give us anything back or compromise. I mean, that's the only thing that's going to happen with this line of thinking. [QUOTE=_Axel;53193641]On that note, why not simply require people to pass a test to determine whether they're able to handle weapons safely to get an obligatory license, just like it works with driving?[/QUOTE] We should also do the same thing with other constitutional rights, like voting! Oh, wait....

[QUOTE=Killuah;53193541]You know my first response to this post was "you sound awfully extremist" But after this post I think you sound dangerously extremist. You even start using the "we"vs "they" rhetoric. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] And how about you start reflecting on yourself and your problems and fears while using that knowledge? Because that's probably better and more positive towards you and your life than starting to think "we vs them"[/QUOTE] Joe is known to be extremely pro-gun, there's no point in debating with him because neither you nor him will back down. On topic: I'm impressed at how the Parkland shooting finally brought up the topic of more firearm restrictions in the US and got the ball rolling. At the same time I'm saddened how both sides of the arguement are unable to come to terms for something that could potentially save thousands.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53193736]We should also do the same thing with other constitutional rights, like voting! Oh, wait....[/QUOTE] Do you have an actual argument buried in there or...? Can you give me an ethical justification rather than clinging onto a 200 years old constitution or is it too much to ask why driving vehicles, which is absolutely vital in the US, requires a licence, but using firearms, the use of which is anecdotal, doesn't?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53193471]We do not want compromise. We want our cake back, and all of it. At this moment in time, we have played this game for over one hundred years, and we are consistently being told the same line of, "They are not going to take everything! Just this one thing!" and then the next year they want another thing, and another. Gun grabbers never fucking stop. They want complete disarmament, and the removal of the 2nd amendment, and we are sick of it. It's been 100 years of concession without any form of true gain for gun rights activist. Why should we give up more?[/QUOTE] This is as wild a claim as saying you want completely unregulated guns, imo.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53193736] We should also do the same thing with other constitutional rights, like voting! Oh, wait....[/QUOTE] If you honestly think that voting requires the same amount of skill and information as safely handling a gun or a car, I don't know what to tell you, man. I mean, you got to have some kind of argument. Going for a zinger without actually countering an argument? I mean, that'd just make you look like an asshole!

[QUOTE=_Axel;53193744]Do you have an actual argument buried in there or...? Can you give me an ethical justification rather than clinging onto a 200 years old constitution or is it too much to ask why driving vehicles, which is absolutely vital in the US, requires a licence, but using firearms, the use of which is anecdotal, doesn't?[/QUOTE] Depends on the context you look at it in. If the context you see it in is that modern society is infallible and will always provide for you when it comes to security and necessities for like so much that you aren't required to exercise your right to self preservation, then you won't see much of a point in firearms to begin with. On the other hand, if you realize that society is not perfect, can and will not always protect or provide for you, and that it's possible that it may even reach a point where it attacks you, then you see that a vehicle isn't going to get close to actually ensuring you can exercise your right to self preservation. [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;53193750]If you honestly think that voting requires the same amount of skill and information as safely handling a gun or a car, I don't know what to tell you, man. I mean, you got to have some kind of argument. Going for a zinger without actually countering an argument? I mean, that'd just make you look like an asshole![/QUOTE] See Donald Trump if you think voting doesn't require the same amount of skill and information. But that's besides the point. Everyone wants to restrict rights in some way (and I mean EVERYBODY), but nobody wants to amend the constitution to make it legal, because they know they won't get enough support to amend the constitution. So if you can't get enough support to follow the actual proper procedure for restricting a right, then you shouldn't be trying to restrict it in that manner in the first place. That's why we've outlawed things like literacy tests to vote. They are rarely used to help with the exercise of the right, and are always used to restrict the exercise of it to people who legitimately have the right to exercise it.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53193771]Depends on the context you look at it in. If the context you see it in is that modern society is infallible and will always provide for you when it comes to security and necessities for like so much that you aren't required to exercise your right to self preservation, then you won't see much of a point in firearms to begin with. On the other hand, if you realize that society is not perfect, can and will not always protect or provide for you, and that it's possible that it may even reach a point where it attacks you, then you see that a vehicle isn't going to get close to actually ensuring you can exercise your right to self preservation.[/QUOTE] So what does this have to do with having extremely basic requirements for being allowed to operate a firearm? The only people that will truly prevent from using guns (who are few and far between, gun safety rules are much less complex than driving laws) are people who are much more likely to harm themselves or others when using them than they are to be attacked in the first place. I don't see how that would do anything other than improve safety across the board, for everybody.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53193785]So what does this have to do with having extremely basic requirements for being allowed to operate a firearm? The only people that will truly prevent from using guns (who are few and far between, gun safety rules are much less complex than driving laws) are people who are much more likely to harm themselves or others when using them than they are to be attacked in the first place. I don't see how that would do anything other than improve safety across the board, for everybody.[/QUOTE] Because we've seen by "licensing" systems in some states that anything that CAN be used to restrict firearm ownership, WILL be used to restrict firearm ownership. Places like California will say "You have to attend this class that happens once a year, has limited seats, and costs $500 per person" in order to use it as more than just "let's make sure people know what they are doing." I have no qualms against mandatory classes as long as they are free and readily available. Hell, I want firearm safety taught in schools just like health education or the DARE program.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53193804]Because we've seen by "licensing" systems in some states that anything that CAN be used to restrict firearm ownership, WILL be used to restrict firearm ownership. Places like California will say "You have to attend this class that happens once a year, has limited seats, and costs $500 per person" in order to use it as more than just "let's make sure people know what they are doing." I have no qualms against mandatory classes as long as they are free and readily available. Hell, I want firearm safety taught in schools just like health education or the DARE program.[/QUOTE] I think gun safety being taught in schools is silly. Even the term "gun safety" is a bit of a contradiction; they are one of the most dangerous things you could possibly hold in your hands. Teaching kids that they're "safe" is irresponsible imo.

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;53193555]You having a gun isn’t essential to your life or your wellbeing. The rest of the world does just fine without guns (better, even, in basically every metric that matters). It’s seriously time to grow up and join the rest of the world where gun violence is significantly rarer and mass shootings almost never happen [B]due to the simple fact that there are less guns around and they’re much harder to get.[/B][/QUOTE] This stupid soundbite is getting really old and it's still total horseshit. In Switzerland every male adult is issued an honest-to-god fully-automatic assault rifle. Serbia has gun laws comparable to ours and is the runner-up for number of guns available to the populace but [I]still[/I] has a crime rate far lower than ours. The Czech Republic has a strong shooting culture but lower crime rate than many of its European neighbors. New Zealand has comparable culture to its Australian neighbors, but a similarly low crime rate despite much easier access to firearms. None of these countries have mass shooting problems. Meanwhile Democrats want our country to accept restrictions on firearm ownership that would be [I]stricter[/I] than any of these examples. If the argument is 'you just need to be as restrictive as peaceful European countries', we're virtually already there. The fact that it hasn't solved our gun violence problem should [I]maybe[/I] be a clue that there's more to it than that, and the fact that Democrats get so much pushback from even weekend hobbyists should [I]maybe[/I] be a clue that the resistance to their efforts is less 'I need muh guns' and more 'stop doing pointless shit'. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Scot;53193808]I think gun safety being taught in schools is silly. Even the term "gun safety" is a bit of a contradiction; they are one of the most dangerous things you could possibly hold in your hands. Teaching kids that they're "safe" is irresponsible imo.[/QUOTE] You don't make people safer by deliberately preventing them from knowing how to safely handle dangerous objects. Is it 'irresponsible' to teach kids how to safely operate multi-ton vehicles capable of 100+MPH speeds that could easily kill themselves and others? A car is incredibly dangerous in untrained hands; that's exactly why we have driver's ed in schools.

[QUOTE=catbarf;53193824] You don't make people safer by deliberately preventing them from knowing how to safely handle dangerous objects. Is it 'irresponsible' to teach kids how to safely operate multi-ton vehicles capable of 100+MPH speeds that could easily kill themselves and others?[/QUOTE] You get taught that when you get driving lessons, something typically done outside of school that you need to take upon yourself. Making learning about guns mandatory would ingrain them in children's minds as something normal, when they're really not.

[QUOTE=Scot;53193808]I think gun safety being taught in schools is silly. Even the term "gun safety" is a bit of a contradiction; they are one of the most dangerous things you could possibly hold in your hands. Teaching kids that they're "safe" is irresponsible imo.[/QUOTE] Anything can be used dangerously and most things can be used safely if trained properly

[QUOTE=Scot;53193832]You get taught that when you get driving lessons, something typically done outside of school that you need to take upon yourself. [/QUOTE] We have driver's ed in schools, specifically because most Americans drive, and there's a public interest being served in teaching kids how to handle dangerous vehicles responsibly. [QUOTE=Scot;53193832]Making learning about guns mandatory would ingrain them in children's minds as something normal[/QUOTE] Which they are, in the US, where a large percentage of the public owns guns and doesn't treat them as talismans of death. Deliberately not teaching kids how to be safe around firearms in a country saturated with them is how we get tragic stories of kids accidentally killing themselves with a parent's gun. If anything, we have mountains of psychological research indicating that the best way to get kids not to abuse something is demystification. Kids who grow up with alcohol don't binge drink when they get to college. Kids who know what a gun is and how to be safe around it don't go looking for Dad's handgun to play with.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53193834]Anything can be used dangerously and most things can be used safely if trained properly[/QUOTE] I probably phrased it badly; of course if you're well trained guns can be safely handled, but they're intrinsically dangerous things. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;53193838]We have driver's ed in schools, specifically because most Americans drive, and there's a public interest being served in teaching kids how to handle dangerous vehicles responsibly. Which they are, in the US, where a large percentage of the public owns guns and doesn't treat them as talismans of death. Deliberately not teaching kids how to be safe around firearms in a country saturated with them is how we get tragic stories of kids accidentally killing themselves with a parent's gun. If anything, we have mountains of psychological research indicating that the best way to get kids not to abuse something is demystification. Kids who grow up with alcohol don't binge drink when they get to college. Kids who know what a gun is and how to be safe around it don't go looking for Dad's handgun to play with.[/QUOTE] The point is that guns shouldn't be normal. I know, I know, "but they are". Maybe the solution isn't to make children accept guns, but to make a world where they don't have to.

[QUOTE=Scot;53193839]The point is that guns shouldn't be normal. I know, I know, "but they are". Maybe the solution isn't to make children accept guns, but to make a world where they don't have to.[/QUOTE] I don't see how this is any more legitimate than gun owners saying 'maybe the solution isn't to restrict guns, but to make a world where gun violence isn't a problem'. If we were talking about state-run homeless shelters, you wouldn't say 'maybe the solution isn't to provide for the homeless, but to make a world where nobody's homeless'. Yeah, sure, great long-term goal but it's denying the present reality. Gun control advocates want more training, I'm all for that. Roll it into the public school curriculum and you can kill two birds with one stone; a populace better educated about responsible use of firearms and a reduction in completely preventable child deaths due to ignorant curiosity.

[QUOTE=Scot;53193808]I think gun safety being taught in schools is silly. Even the term "gun safety" is a bit of a contradiction; they are one of the most dangerous things you could possibly hold in your hands. Teaching kids that they're "safe" is irresponsible imo.[/QUOTE] This is so stupid, of course they are not telling people that "guns are safe". They are making them aware how to safely operate with it. There are plenty of "driving safety" courses to take, yet people still get into accidents. That doesn't mean they were just told cars are safe and let go.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53193834]Anything can be used dangerously and most things can be used safely if trained properly[/QUOTE] A knife's primary purpose is to cut food. A baseball bat's primary purpose is to hit a ball. ... A gun's primary purpose is to... kill ? I'm happy to live in a country where I have never felt the actual need to be armed in any way, even in a pretty shitty neighborhood.

[QUOTE=Nabile13;53193883]A knife's primary purpose is to cut food. A baseball bat's primary purpose is to hit a ball. ... A gun's primary purpose is to... kill ? I'm happy to live in a country where I have never felt the actual need to be armed in any way, even in a pretty shitty neighborhood.[/QUOTE] Sure, nothing wrong with learning how to use a gun safely though.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53193889]Sure, nothing wrong with learning how to use a gun safely though.[/QUOTE] Did I imply otherwise ? I'm hinting at something else.

[QUOTE=Nabile13;53193883] ... A gun's primary purpose is to... kill ? [/QUOTE] How about, "a gun's primary purpose is to defend"?

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53193804]Because we've seen by "licensing" systems in some states that anything that CAN be used to restrict firearm ownership, WILL be used to restrict firearm ownership. Places like California will say "You have to attend this class that happens once a year, has limited seats, and costs $500 per person" in order to use it as more than just "let's make sure people know what they are doing." I have no qualms against mandatory classes as long as they are free and readily available. Hell, I want firearm safety taught in schools just like health education or the DARE program.[/QUOTE] So you're opposed to any and all implementation of a licensing system that could save thousands of lives simply because the only people who've pushed for gun regulation so far have done so in a shitty manner? That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people just throw out any form of regulation because those who implement it do a poor job at it then of course it's going to stay that way.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53193908]So you're opposed to any and all implementation of a licensing system that could save thousands of lives simply because the only people who've pushed for gun regulation so far have done so in a shitty manner? That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If people just throw out any form of regulation because those who implement it do a poor job at it then of course it's going to stay that way.[/QUOTE] But he explicitly stated that he wasn't against them, they just had to be done well, which in the past is not what happened. And looking at the current proposals, wouldn't happen this time. The restrictions and regulations generally being pushed for currently across the nation (and within this thread) are asinine, misinformed, and foolish feelgood nonsense. So we have all the reason to be skeptical. However should a reasonable and well thought out proposal be pushed, we would be all behind it.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53193914]But he explicitly stated that he wasn't against them, they just had to be done well, which in the past is not what happened. And looking at the current proposals, wouldn't happen this time. The restrictions and regulations generally being pushed for currently across the nation (and within this thread) are asinine, misinformed, and foolish feelgood nonsense. So we have all the reason to be skeptical. However should a reasonable and well thought out proposal be pushed, we would be all behind it.[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think mandatory classes is the same thing as a licensing system, which would deny access to weapons if you can't pass a safety test. As for the "being behind a well thought out proposal" part, I'm not sure. Given SIKY's tone I'm inclined to believe even such proposals may be dismissed because of a fear of slippery slopes.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53193347]And I'll get to listen to gun nuts' victim complexes[/QUOTE] If the government continually tried to reduce one the rights you value into virtually nothing, then I doubt you'd be hand waving people's complaints as having a victim complex. But since the right we're talking about is the right to own weapons, turning innocent people into paper criminals is 100% fine because they don't fit in with your world view. [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;53193362]If only 2% understand gun laws that's all the more reason for them to be banned. How can I trust anyone outside that 2% to be responsible gun owners?[/QUOTE] A lot of firearms laws don't apply to the user/owner but to dealers and law enforcement. This is like saying we can't trust people to own cars because the average person doesn't know the legal regulations which a car dealership has to follow. The point they were trying to make is that legislators should at least be familiar with firearms laws and relevant facts/statistics before acting dumb and trying to pass rehashed laws which have been demonstrated to do absolutely nothing, or attempt to ban things that are already illegal or heavily regulated. [QUOTE=mcharest;53193386]Not trying to be a dick or anything, but this entire comment comes off as profoundly self-absorbed. Like you do realize that people are dying right? Maybe having your feelings hurt by some misinformed politician or pundit isn't all that big a deal compared to actual people dying in a shooting? Maybe you're blowing things out of proportion just a little bit?[/QUOTE] The problem we have is politicians are using these deaths to ram bad legislation through the legal process before anyone can start thinking logically and see the obvious flaws of said legislation. Think of how the Bush administration was able to pass a lot of questionable shit after 9/11 and you'll get the idea of how we feel on politicians using the same tactics on passing overbearing firearm restrictions, instead of addressing any of the causes of violent gun crime. [QUOTE=MisterMooth;53193395]How fragile can you be lol[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=SIRIUS;53193476]Oh no, poor poor you, what would you do without guns?!?! Seriously, come on, get off the melodrama and get some perspective on what's really important[/QUOTE] This is exactly the reason why gun owners feel persecuted and don't want to take any of your arguments seriously. [QUOTE=Killuah;53193541]You know my first response to this post was "you sound awfully extremist" But after this post I think you sound dangerously extremist. You even start using the "we"vs "they" rhetoric. [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] And how about you start reflecting on yourself and your problems and fears while using that knowledge? Because that's probably better and more positive towards you and your life than starting to think "we vs them"[/QUOTE] It's kind of hard not to think there two sides of an argument, especially when one side of the argument likes to rely on actively antagonizing gun owners through emotional arguments and mischaracterization, kind of like what you're doing here by calling him an extremist. [QUOTE=MisterMooth;53193555]You having a gun isn’t essential to your life or your wellbeing. The rest of the world does just fine without guns (better, even, in basically every metric that matters). It’s seriously time to grow up and join the rest of the world where gun violence is significantly rarer and mass shootings almost never happen due to the simple fact that there are less guns around and they’re much harder to get.[/QUOTE] It sounds like you've never had to live in a rural area in the USA. Do you have a reliable police force with quick response times? Some people don't. Do you feel safe enough not to want a firearm in case of a prolonged storm or times of unrest where emergency services could be tied up for days? Some people don't. :privilege: [QUOTE=phygon;53193626]I don't think that banning guns is reasonable (or that it'd fix the problem) but I legitimately cannot understand why it is the sole political sticking point for so many people. Why are guns out of all things the most important thing to you politically?[/QUOTE] Because it's like Lambeth said: [QUOTE=Lambeth;53193345]It really sucks how guns seem to have become a intrinsic part of some americans' identities. If it was just some dumb hobby I bet there would be less resistance towards regulation.[/QUOTE] For many people it's not just a dumb hobby, but their way of life and in some cases their livelihood. A lot of people invest a considerable amount of time and money to make the 2nd amendment a part of their lives. Having this right suddenly revoked is not an option even with compensation (which would probably never happen). There's also the original intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment being wrote specifically to give the people a means of opposing a government gone completely rogue or a foreign power which hijacks our own government, but at the moment that's not entirely relevant and [B]hopefully it stays that way[/B]. [QUOTE=_Axel;53193641]On that note, why not simply require people to pass a test to determine whether they're able to handle weapons safely to get an obligatory license, just like it works with driving?[/QUOTE] A lot of states already do. My friend in Massachusetts (one of the strictest places for gun ownership) was able to, so that basically means he's more well trained to use his sidearm than the military :v: ... [URL="http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/12/11/us-armys-got-new-pistol-can-shoot/"]I wish I were joking[/URL].

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193915]You've done nothing to disown the people who propose disarmament, how am I to trust that you will not allow these people to tamper with the system, and turn it from a licensing system into a defacto ban system? Start decrying those who say "we must ban everything in order to save childrens lives" and I'll start paying attention more. You've already seen what my minimum requirements are for licensing, if you'd like i'll repost them, but if you've seen them before then that'd save a lot of time.[/QUOTE] Woah there buddy, it's not like a Frenchie has any actual ability to take your guns away, or do anything other than suggest alternatives. I'm not sure how I could carry out a hidden agenda through the internet alone. Not sure why decrying anybody should be a requirement for entertaining a discussion, unless you want me to prove I'm in the same team as you or something? Only thing I'm interested in is your requirements, which I'm afraid I missed last time you mentioned them, sorry.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53193919]If the government continually tried to reduce one the rights you value into virtually nothing, then I doubt you'd be hand waving people's complaints as having a victim complex. But since the right we're talking about is the right to own weapons, turning innocent people into paper criminals is 100% fine because they don't fit in with your world view.[/QUOTE] This is under the assumption that implying firearm ownership is a human right is sensible. It isn't.

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193926]This is under the assumption that implying firearm ownership is a human right is sensible. It isn't.[/QUOTE] I disagree, as the ability to be able to defend ones person is crucial. And it doesn’t matter what you think about it being a right is, in the US it is so you have to tackle it from that angle.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53193919]A lot of states already do. My friend in Massachusetts (one of the strictest places for gun ownership) was able to, so that basically means he's more well trained to use his sidearm than the military :v: ... [URL="http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/12/11/us-armys-got-new-pistol-can-shoot/"]I wish I were joking[/URL].[/QUOTE] Does Massachusetts tend to have less incidents related to accidental discharges?

[QUOTE=LegndNikko;53193926]This is under the assumption that implying firearm ownership is a human right is sensible. It isn't.[/QUOTE] I think owning personal property in general is a human right (not even starting on the right to defend ones self), and there is no actual reason that firearms should be an exception to that rule other than people thinking they are too scary or dangerous to be possessed by your average person, which is just... a sad belief to have, given the statistics say otherwise.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53193877]So do you have an actual opinion that you're willing to debate or what? Because in every thread about guns you seem to post "gotcha" posts, and tiny little quips here and there, and then when someone challenges you to a debate proper, you decide to continue your snide high horse posting. I'm straight asking you to defend your stance. Get off your emotional high horse and lets actually debate.[/QUOTE] I feel like pro-gun people are a little too overzealous with their "you're emotional" defence. I mean, if you want to say SIRIUS's response was pretty damn snarky, yeah, but it seems far from an amotional high horse. They're already telling someone to get off [I]their[/I] emotional high horse to "get off the melodrama." This isn't some "but I'm upset over this!" response, but a statement stating that you don't need guns. In a mocking fashion, sure. But how is being told "what would you do without guns" an emotional high horse? Why not actually tell them what you wouldn't be able to do without guns, and why you actually need them? If it's such a terrible, and simple argument, why not just answer it? It doesn't have to just be a "gotcha" but then you can finally put the question to rest instead of avoiding it and saying "stop being emotional and debate." [editline]11th March 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zombinie;53193933]I think owning personal property in general is a human right (not even starting on the right to defend ones self), and there is no actual reason that firearms should be an exception to that rule other than people thinking they are too scary or dangerous to be possessed by your average person, which is just... a sad belief to have, given the statistics say otherwise.[/QUOTE] Why is it sad to say that a firearm is too dangerous to be possessed by your average person?