Half a million #MarchForOurLives protesters rally in Washington DC - Polidicks

That's such a romanticized version of firearms. The current administration isn't "kept from seeking a more direct path to the death of democracy" by gun owners, a very large chunk of whom are Trump supporters. If anything, the way things are looking right now, armed militias would probably be more likely to assist a tyrannical government against rebellions than they are to rebel against tyranny themselves. Guns don't actually serve any purpose regarding the safekeeping of democracy, maybe it's time for that myth to be put down definitively.

Well tough shit on the "here and now" stuff. That isn't how society works. You don't get to ignore the massive amount of social problems in this country for a century and then try and slap a quick fix on it with a band aid solution that abridges the rights of other people. Laws are, at best, stop gap measures. They do not solve underlying problems. They aren't even particularly good at being stop gap measures. If you want something to stop, you need to address the circumstances that cause it.

We reacted instantly to two buildings and some tens of thousands of lives being lost with millions of bombs, immediate new laws being brought to the floor, and a unified voice that called for action and change. That is exactly how our society can work. Laws do attempt to solve underlying problems. Otherwise there would be no point to government itself.

Good thing I didn't say anything supportive of a specific ban on "assault weapons" then? And am just arguing against proliferation in general?

You realize that even during the American Revolution, we were heavily reinforced by other colonial powers, most notably the French? The French Navy was instrumental in fighting the British Navy, the largest in the world at the time. French troops also fought alongside the Continental Army in several battles against the British Army.

So are you going to address my point or simply cite the context in which a several-centuries-old constitution was drafted?

This is what frustrates me so much about the Stoneman-Douglas debate: I really want to agree with them. I really want to support them, because I completely agree that it's absolutely insane and ridiculous that these school shootings have become so commonplace and every single time we just sit around and wait a month or two for the gun debate to blow over. I'm just so disappointed that they've honed in 100% with laser-focus on "ban AR-15's! They look scary and the military uses them!".

If America becomes a tyranny we will either be entirely alone - or entirely surrounded by the entirety of the world who sees a weak America ripe for the taking, much as, directly analogizing, the French saw it.

Compromise has happened. There are background checks. There are weapon dimension limitations. Destructive devices are heavily controlled by the government. The machinegun registry was created and then subsequently closed to new entries. There are gun free zones. Things like suppressors are heavily regulated. There is an entire system for instant background checks to make sure that they are happening. Gun dealers are always kept under close scrutiny. There has been a mountain of compromise for very little in return. Do you really blame them for deciding that continuing to get the raw end of the deal is a stupid idea? It isn't compromise if you never cede anything in return. That is literally the opposite of compromise.

I missed that part. Do you really think policies to improve education, healthcare, and conditions for the prison population would have bipartisan support?

Are you really using post-9/11 legislation as an example of when our laws successfully deal with a tragedy? We literally invaded the wrong country, started a decade-plus of wars that destabilized the region and gave birth to a terrorist state that we're still trying to deal with today, passed the Patriot Act and expanded the US surveillance state at home and abroad, and made air-travel an insane security-theatre exercise that fails to stop even the most basic threats when tested. If you're trying to make the point that we have the ability to react quickly to a tragedy using kneejerk legislation, 9/11 is probably the worst example you could have used.

I'm talking about compromises since Sandy Hook - even in the last 2 years let's say. And what would you have them give you in return? 'We banned 15mm rounds.' 'Great, we're still being shot up darn-near every week.' 'But we banned 15mm rounds.' 'And we're still being shot up.' This is the problem with it.

You do realize that the objective of terrorism is to force legal change in your opponent through fear, right? It is literally in the name. Had our response been "well that was hardly impressive" their entire movement would have failed. It is the fear that grants them power. 90 percent of what we did in response to 9/11 was fucking awful and does a far better job of illustrating my point. Knee jerk reaction legislation is awful legislation.

Almost every time I've heard the Stoneman Douglas students (Gonzalez and the other guy that is really in the spotlight) they've been constantly talking about how nobody needs an assault rifle, nobody needs an AR-15, etc. Are we really pretending that banning assault weapons and AR-15's hasn't been a major talking point during this entire debate?

Where did I state it was good? You claimed that we can't, as a society, 'work like that'. I proved that we can. Refusing to engage in any legislation at all is also awful legislation. The problem is that nobody's introducing large bills that deliver a multi-tiered approach from a number of angles to getting at this problem. Instead, Senators are constantly just ducking cameras repeating over and over 'thoughts and prayers'.

And I'm saying your example is actually a good argument against a kneejerk AWB: all of the legislation and actions we made immediately following 9/11 were pretty overwhelmingly bad, set the precedent to allow our government to infringe on the rights of citizens under the name of "fighting terrorism", and contributed towards destabilizing a region and creating more terrorism.

And I'm saying that an AWB isn't necessarily the only thing they'd go for - my evidence of this is them having a bunch of views regarding what could and maybe should be done.

I know a bunch of people who are posting shit on FB like THE DEMOCRATS ARE USING THE YOUTH TO PUSH A BAN ON FIREARMS, IT'S JUST LIKE WHAT HITLER DID, I'M SO SCARED! Get a grip people, these kids are just tired of being targets, they aren't a part of some agenda.

So basically what you're saying is that the last time we listened to kneejerk "ban _____" demands, it didn't do anything, and then they demanded that we ban more things? So again, who is to say it will end with assault weapons? What happens when we ban assault weapons and then, to nobody's surprise, it doesn't stop school shootings? Are we then moving on to banning all semi-automatic weapons? What is next? I feel like you're being intentionally difficult here: do you disagree that the ban of assault weapons, specifically the AR-15 and AR platform rifles, has been a major, if not primary point of debate in the weeks since the Stoneman-Douglas shooting? I'm confused as to why you're trying to deny something so basic.

Source that it didn't do anything. Source that they're going to take away your guns. Source for any of that other than your adrenaline-fueled fear that proves that the whole movement is those few voices you've heard and which want exactly what you claim. I feel like you're being intentionally hyperbolic here. Do you disagree that you haven't actually listened to their platform, as in watching excerpts from the March for our Lives? I'm confused as to why you're stating that they hold a 'narrow, perfectly-structured, unilateral opinion' when that is anything but what I have seen come out from that movement from the top of the organization to the people who were in attendance for that rally.

> The students said they won’t be satisfied without an assaults weapons ban.

Yes actually. Republican voters aren't generally evil, they are just stupid and easy to manipulate. If you present them with a decent argument that something will save them money in the long run (which all of those things will) and frame your presentation properly, you can actually get them to agree to some pretty decent ideas. I live in a very red state, my hobby is making Republicans accidentally agree to socialist policies. Basically present the argument as a practical choice. You are saving money and are taking these steps to solve the problems that lead to gun violence, rather than pursuing anti gun legislation. Republicans will attempt to flank by claiming that you are treating prisoners well, or some other bullshit argument, but because of how you presented the idea in the first place, you've already got the upper hand. You can criticize them for being "emotional" rather than being fiscally and socially responsible. Republicans appreciate what they view as practicality. Democrats ALREADY largely support very practical policies, so it is mostly just a matter of framing them successfully, rather than engaging in bullshit identity politics and pursuing gun legislation that are only going to serve to under mind efforts to get the legislation that we need to get passed, passed. Let me put it this way: I assume we both agree that gun legislation doesn't stop the underlying issue, yes? Further steps are needed to address the social problems that lead to violence. Doesn't it make far more sense to side step the gun issue and go right for fixing the issue? If you approach it that way, you can use the fact that you aren't touching gun legislation as a token for negotiating better funding for helpful programs. If you remain stuck on this issue, you are never going to get the requisite bipartisan support to make these needed changes, because you will have eroded any trust that you could have leveraged.

Yeah that's great and all, but you can't just use this emotionally charged circumstance as an excuse to pass any legislation without it being scrutinized and thought about. That's what I find so annoying about this recent debate; if you try and make a reasonable argument as to why a policy that the students are pushing for is bad, people just keep saying "they're tired of gun violence!" instead of making the point that the policy is actually good and effective. The whole "we're tired of gun violence" thing is totally valid, but that just grants you the platform to make your case, it puts attention on you but doesn't give you a blank check to write bad legislation that won't even do what you hope it will do.

The students I watched had a variety of opinions. And I watched hours of them talking - both on stage and in the crowds. The overall consensus is not an AWB. The overall consensus was 'the violence has to end'.

Makes more sense to address both to me. Especially since I've shown that even cities with a relatively low poverty rate still have a relatively high murder rate compared to other nations. It seems that addressing the "underlying issues" won't be sufficient to bring murder rates down to first world level. Unless you want to reduce crime rates to exceptionally low levels somehow. I get your idea of convincing Republicans otherwise, however convincing a single colleague and convincing the entirety of the voter base, who are constantly subject to propaganda from the right, are two very different things.

Your own post? 'We banned 15mm rounds.' 'Great, we're still being shot up darn-near every week.' 'But we banned 15mm rounds.' 'And we're still being shot up.' Granted, we.. Didn't ban 15mm rounds, not sure why you brought that up, but I'm just making that point that your own example of how pro-gun people haven't given up enough just shows that you will continue banning things that don't yield any benefit, and then when your own bad ideas fail, you come back to the gun people and ask for more bans. If you can't understand that logic I don't know what else I can say. Well banning an entire category of weapons is just about as literal as "taking away your guns" can get.. You're being like, really emotional and kinda rude about all this, when I feel like I'm trying to be respectful and actually get something out of this conversation. I'm not a gun nut, I like guns somewhat, they're fun to shoot, I don't personally care about owning any for myself, I don't have any skin in the game here. I just don't think that an assault weapons ban is going to solve school shootings or gun violence in general, and so I don't see it as being fair to restrict access to weapons just as a feel-good measure. If you disagree, you can make your case as to why you think an assault weapons ban will be effective and we can go from there, but please stop pretending I'm just ignorant or something. I wouldn't be having this discussion with you if I didn't see some potential to be swayed the other way. You're asking me a question without answering mine, though I guess it's just rhetorical anyway since it's clear to everyone here but you that an assault weapons ban is one of the top "demands" of this movement and it has been from day one. Anyone that has even passed by a television or scrolled past an article about the Stoneman-Douglas activists and their many appearances, interviews, speeches, op-eds etc knows this fact. You seem to be the only one having trouble accepting that the students are pushing for an AWB. And no, I haven't watched the entirety of their media appearances. I haven't watched the entirety of their speeches at the March, so here's your chance to educate me since clearly you're very well versed in their positions (or maybe not so much, I don't know anymore). The students said they won’t be satisfied without an assaults weapons ban. Proposing an AWB is proposing legislation.

Its pretty hard to convince people otherwise unfortunately. I just had a heated discussion on Discord about how the YT firearm ban is them being retarded covering their own ass from losing sponsors. But instead its somehow about silencing conservatives because YT is leftist.

Try again. My own post doesn't count as a source. I am not one of those students nor do I hold majority opinion on you. I brought it up to show that what they want is for the violence to end - not for guns to be banned, not for pink elephants to fly through the sky, not to replace our economy with communism. They want the violence to end - this is not a movement to 'ban ar15s'. This is not a movement to 'ban all guns'. This isn't a movement to 'ban all weapons of a particular category'. This is a movement to attempt to curtail and/or end (to at least a major degree) gun violence. They are not politicians. They are not gun experts. They are not legal eagles. They are people who are being shot who want to stop being shot. That is the entirety and the full nuance of their entire argument. I'm not emotional and if you feel I'm being rude, I apologize, as I've tried to be nothing but respectful to you. However, you continuously are stating 'these people hold X view because I heard a clip somewhere therefore I know exactly what they want' meanwhile 'and you feel, therefore, the same thing that I suspect they want'. Again: Please provide sources that back your opinion that aren't my posts and aren't your anecdotal 'I heard it somewhere' statements that back your arguments that they won't stop until they ban all guns because, as I hear it, they won't stop until the violence ends. Note the absence of requirements for guns to be banned in there? You should.

Huh? You said an assault weapons ban would be a step in the right direction, even if the issue isn't specific to assault weapons. Addressing proliferation in general is a good idea. I just haven't seen anyone doing that.

That is ultimately a misleading statistic. I'm not suggesting you are being misleading, I'm saying we intentionally define poverty at a federal level incorrectly. The number the feds use for poverty is actually about half what it should be. It least to really unfortunate comparisons. Poverty is correlative, not actually the cause. You can give everyone a shitton of money and still wind up with almost zero impact, because the underlying issues still persist. Education, however, seems to have a borderline magical effect, where even if an individual's financial situation doesn't improve, they still are less likely to commit crime. One of the most cost effective prison programs for reducing recidivism is wildfire fighting training. The overwhelming majority of prisoners do not go on to be fire fighters, but they have a dramatically reduced chance of returning to prison. Other programs, like formal bachelor's degrees, have even better results, though they aren't quite as cost efficient. (though they remain RIDICULOUSLY cost efficient)