Shooting at Florida School, Shooter IS in custody. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Rusty100;53144964]i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything anymore, it's taken far too much time of my life. it's not my job to convince grown adults that guns aren't cool and nobody should have them.[/QUOTE] Then why are you posting, and you are in no position to imply anyone else isnt acting like a grown adult with the way you've decided to talk to other people. Your opinion holds no greater a weight than anyone elses, comrade, slow your role.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53144966]if you include uh black people I feel like that's not true.[/QUOTE] touche, we'll go with second most then :v:

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53144937]There are definitely too many people refusing to give any ground, but it's not hard to see why otherwise reasonable people don't want to make any concessions. Things are too hot and too political on both sides. One side has to protect guns and the other side has to ban guns and there's no middle ground and neither side remembers why the whole thing started but by god they're gonna see it through. I think most gun owners aren't principally opposed to smart regulations but "give an inch and they'll take a mile" is unfortunately all too true in this political climate. I can only hope that a growing moderate tone among gun owners will calm things down & all this shit doesn't completely carry over to the next generation of politicians so that before too long we'll be able to have this conversation on a national level and not just in isolated pockets on the web.[/QUOTE] Please yes. I want to have a real solution. I've met so many people in my life who honestly and truly see things like school shootings as just some natural consequence of the second amendment and that any argument to the contrary is some sort of attack on that. Even suggesting we could do better is an assualt on them and their rights and the constitution and Christianity and freedom and America. I get so frustrated when people are unwilling to even discuss what could change without costing them their freedom. I'm not a gun owner, but I understand why people want to own guns. I understand that a gun, when owned and handled properly, does not pose an immediate threat to me as an ordinary citizen. The couple of times that I've been intimidated by a gun, it's been because it's been held by some dumb asshole. I don't want to be the enemy of the responsible gun owner, but some people act like because I don't want dumb assholes having guns I don't want anyone having guns, you know? It really bothers me when people boil it down to absolutes. Either you're in support of everyone having guns all the time or noone having guns ever. I'm so tired of that.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;53144964]i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything anymore, it's taken far too much time of my life. it's not my job to convince grown adults that guns aren't cool and nobody should have them.[/QUOTE] If you aren't interested in having a discussion and just come into these threads now to shit on gun owners (or simply anyone who doesn't want guns [I]banned completely[/I]), then aren't you just trolling at that point? If it's taken so much time of your life go do something else. There are a lot of good posts in this thread and your spam is adding nothing to the conversation.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53144971]touche, we'll go with second most then :v:[/QUOTE] I honestly feel like I could make the case for chinese/japanese/asian immigrants too, so maybe 3rd or 4th. I guess that doesn't sound as good.

Maybe I should give my fun input. * Kill all current standing gun control legislation. It's a list of jargon and bureaucratic dick-waving which is currently stopping any legitimate processes from occurring. This means stuff like National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, all get tossed out the proverbal window, and then curbstomped. * Review and redo the Militia Act and its standing reforms. Go for a more Czech Republic approach too automatics/artillery/explosives. Requiring a mental health review, extensive criminal background check, and safe/armory for ownership of the previously mentioned. * Weapons not mentioned previously are legal, but mental health checks and criminal background will still apply. Also, have it so all weapons are sold with action locks. Incidents which occur with said firearms, ie. kid accidentally shooting themselves, will be put against the owner of said firearm for neglectful storage of weapon. * Create a program which teaches safe handling of firearms at schools. * In regards to mental health checks: All should be done on a person to person basis. Some people are stable, some are not. Outlawing people for broad spectrum is an outright attack on human rights as defined by the United Nations and United States constitution. * Restructure the ATF. It needs to be built with congressional oversight for it's operations. Without said oversight we are just a nation of boating accidents and dead dogs. I can think of quiet a few things relating to the Militia Movement, and how to calm them down regarding stuff like the border, but I think that is a bit outside the scope of this.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53145000]Maybe I should give my fun input. * Kill all current standing gun control legislation. It's a list of jargon and bureaucratic dick-waving which is currently stopping any legitimate processes from occurring. This means stuff like National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, all get tossed out the proverbal window, and then curbstomped. * Review and redo the Militia Act and its standing reforms. Go for a more Czech Republic approach too automatics/artillery/explosives. Requiring a mental health review, extensive criminal background check, and safe/armory for ownership of the previously mentioned. * Weapons not mentioned previously are legal, but mental health checks and criminal background will still apply. Also, have it so all weapons are sold with action locks. Incidents which occur with said firearms, ie. kid accidentally shooting themselves, will be put against the owner of said firearm for neglectful storage of weapon. * Create a program which teaches safe handling of firearms at schools. * In regards to mental health checks: All should be done on a person to person basis. Some people are stable, some are not. Outlawing people for broad spectrum is an outright attack on human rights as defined by the United Nations and United States constitution. * Restructure the ATF. It needs to be built with congressional oversight for it's operations. Without said oversight we are just a nation of boating accidents and dead dogs. I can think of quiet a few things relating to the Militia Movement, and how to calm them down regarding stuff like the border, but I think that is a bit outside the scope of this.[/QUOTE] The thing the GOP could do all of this now if they wanted to. They don't actually give a fuck about gun owners.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53145000] * Create a program which teaches safe handling of firearms at schools. [/QUOTE] I wanted to single this one out specifically. It bothers me so much that we don't have this. We should be teaching younger kids that guns are dangerous and what to do if they find one. We should be teaching teenagers how guns operate, how to safely handle one, and how to protect themselves from one. I really wish my school would have taught this. A coworker of mine once exposed to me how little I understood about how to handle guns myself by asking me what I would do if a young child came up to me with a gun they had found. A six-year-old, holding a firearm, telling me they found it. I realized I wouldn't even know how to safely take it from them without [i]guessing[/i] and that's actually pretty fucking scary considering that it's something capable of killing or seriously injuring either one of us.

Vote JoeSkylynx for Guildist League. State Banks, localized economies, gun rights, decriminalized drugs, abolition of mandatory jail sentences, structuring the education system on a federal level, infrastructure, and deurbanization w/ reclaimed land being used for communal farms for helping feed those in need. And being an ex-militiaman you know I'm crazy enough to do it. :v:

[QUOTE=Devil Traitor;53144882]And not a single one of these papers have any words written on it. lol.[/QUOTE] So just as empty as a real prayer then. 2 days after a mass school shooting, a guy who accepted 10 grand from the gun lobby during his 2016 campaign delivers a ziplock bag of thoughts and prayers to the president, and they're smiling wide like they're proud about it or something You can't make this shit up. How is the Onion even staying in business

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53141950]There are a lot of gun owners like me. Its just we're in a rock and a hard place. On the one hand we can vote for the party that isn't going to touch our guns (but isn't going to do shit else), or we can vote for the party that the INSTANT a shooting occurs, goes back to its rhetoric of "we must ban guns, we must register the guns we don't ban, we must tax and license them in a way that only the rich can afford". Its a no win situation, and its fucking horseshit.[/QUOTE] I know there's a lot of gun owners like you, but I still wish there were more. I'm surrounded by people who double down on their guns to a point of idiocy when shit like this happens because they're aware they're on their back foot. They become ridiculously opposed to rational discussion for positive change and just want to keep the status quo. They literally put their guns above all else. They'll say (in a roundabout way) that it's worth it to have school shootings so long as they aren't inconvenienced even slightly while trying to buy or own guns. Not accusing you of holding that position, I'm just saying that the GOP didn't get its stance from noone or nowhere. There are people who really are this blind to discussion.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;53144958]a) mass shootings within the us? b) cool, it's not enough, and also they shouldn't exist c) what does this mean? people say guns are bad and nobody should have them so you put on the breaks for regulating them better? i don't follow this. is it a punishment?[/QUOTE] Your arguments aren't exactly compelling logically. a) Yes. Do your own research. b) Lobbyists for a certain group shouldn't exist? Why should some be allowed to exist, and some not be allowed to exist? c) It's because you're choosing to not argue with any sort of logical basis that people are responding poorly to your opinions. Not your arguments, which are lacking, your opinions, which are all you are choosing to provide. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Grenadiac;53144955] b) "Gun lobbyists" have made more compromise than any group in the history of US politics [/QUOTE] What an absolutely ridiculous claim

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53145000]Maybe I should give my fun input. * Kill all current standing gun control legislation. It's a list of jargon and bureaucratic dick-waving which is currently stopping any legitimate processes from occurring. This means stuff like National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, all get tossed out the proverbal window, and then curbstomped. * Review and redo the Militia Act and its standing reforms. Go for a more Czech Republic approach too automatics/artillery/explosives. Requiring a mental health review, extensive criminal background check, and safe/armory for ownership of the previously mentioned. * Weapons not mentioned previously are legal, but mental health checks and criminal background will still apply. Also, have it so all weapons are sold with action locks. Incidents which occur with said firearms, ie. kid accidentally shooting themselves, will be put against the owner of said firearm for neglectful storage of weapon. * Create a program which teaches safe handling of firearms at schools. * In regards to mental health checks: All should be done on a person to person basis. Some people are stable, some are not. Outlawing people for broad spectrum is an outright attack on human rights as defined by the United Nations and United States constitution. * Restructure the ATF. It needs to be built with congressional oversight for it's operations. Without said oversight we are just a nation of boating accidents and dead dogs. I can think of quiet a few things relating to the Militia Movement, and how to calm them down regarding stuff like the border, but I think that is a bit outside the scope of this.[/QUOTE] You see, all of this stuff is entirely reasonable, which is why it will never happen because there are no reasonable people in the US government. (though I'm pretty sure automatic weapons are extremely difficult to get already) [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=butre;53144178]cubeman's saga is worse than that article let's on.[/QUOTE] That was the only centralized source of information I could find. Please link it if you know one better. I didn't know he was somehow even worse than this. :v:

[QUOTE=dustyjo;53145193]You see, all of this stuff is entirely reasonable, which is why it will never happen because there are no reasonable people in the US government. (though I'm pretty sure automatic weapons are extremely difficult to get already)[/QUOTE] We should be pushing for more reasonable people then! Why can't we do that?

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53145265]We should be pushing for more reasonable people then! Why can't we do that?[/QUOTE] Fearmongering used to manipulate and deceive the voting populace while using their political sway to keep the status quo and prevent threats from usurping them, usually.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;53144926](for the record i don't condone compromise. one side is wrong. get rid o guns)[/QUOTE] if you hate guns so much, why don't you come and take them?

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53145265]We should be pushing for more reasonable people then! Why can't we do that?[/QUOTE] Because people value their emotions over reason.

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53144868]"Sure, fewer children would die in pointless mass murder incidents, but what's in it for me?" [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] Leaving the original post here because I'm not going to hide my original, admittedly hostile response, but I want to explain it. I have had to deal with so many people the last few days impressing on me how the pro-status-quo-gun argument is literally unassailable. That there is literally no compromise or argument to be made. That this shooting was literally the product of our great wonderful liberty of gun ownership bequeathed by the constitution and GOD and AMERICA and OUR FOREFATHERS which means that in no way can we even suggest that things could be better without being against everything this country stands for. I don't want guns banned. I want a real solution that fixes the problems that the US is facing. I want there to be compromise and alternative solutions. I want everyone for and against guns to push for them. We can work this out in a way that works for everyone. What Sega said resonated with me and it upset me that you rebuked her so quickly, especially in a way that appeared to me to be dismissive of the message behind her post. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] For those of you who rated or will rate my post dumb after I posted my explanation, I'd like to know why it is you seemingly oppose rational discussion of topics surrounding gun violence that don't involve restricting gun rights?[/QUOTE] I am for alternative solutions. I wholeheartedly support alternative solutions. What pisses me off is when people think that just because they didn't get everything that they wanted, it's a good compromise, regardless of the fact that the opposition actually got nothing that they wanted, and got things taken away. Why don't we have national reciprocity and standards on CCW permits? Why don't we have suppressors and/or SBRs off of the class 3 list? Open up the NICS system to the public and make universal background checks mandatory, but give us one of those in return. One side losing everything while the other only sacrifices a little is NOT a compromise. Her argument was about being tired of gun owners saying "what do we get in return". That's why my response was the way it was. If you want things to get fixed, you can't be upset that the opposition wants something in return for their compromise.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145449]I am for alternative solutions. I wholeheartedly support alternative solutions. What pisses me off is when people think that just because they didn't get everything that they wanted, it's a good compromise, regardless of the fact that the opposition actually got nothing that they wanted, and got things taken away. Why don't we have national reciprocity and standards on CCW permits? Why don't we have suppressors and/or SBRs off of the class 3 list? Open up the NICS system to the public and make universal background checks mandatory, but give us one of those in return. One side losing everything while the other only sacrifices a little is NOT a compromise. Her argument was about being tired of gun owners saying "what do we get in return". That's why my response was the way it was. If you want things to get fixed, you can't be upset that the opposition wants something in return for their compromise.[/QUOTE] The other side of the compromise is all the innovation and progress the gun industry has undergone in the last 200+ years. People have access to technology several orders of magnitude more powerful than they did in the 1700s and we're still attempting to fit them under the massive umbrella cast by the 2nd amendment which some people (not necessarily you) literally interpret as unquestionable protection for all guns ever, no backsies. That's why it's hard to see gun owners as victims in this exchange. The concept of gun control is framed as an infringement on rights without the context of that right ballooning in scope for the last two centuries.

Well, keep in mind, the idea was for the people to be armed the same as what the government could muster. Obviously that isn't really practical (unless you subscribe to the idea of Recreational Nuclear Warheads) but the Second Amendment still means the same thing today as it did in the past. Whether that's a good idea or not when taken to the logical extreme is a different question.

Waiting for more information before posting a new thread, but a [U]7th-grader shot himself[/U] in his middle school bathroom this morning. [url]http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/02/jackson_local_schools_on_lockd.html[/url] Developing.

All respect to gun owners and all but sometimes I think they point fingers at everything but guns. Mental health can't be the full reason people go out and decide to shoot up people.

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53145715]The other side of the compromise is all the innovation and progress the gun industry has undergone in the last 200+ years. People have access to technology several orders of magnitude more powerful than they did in the 1700s and we're still attempting to fit them under the massive umbrella cast by the 2nd amendment which some people (not necessarily you) literally interpret as unquestionable protection for all guns ever, no backsies. That's why it's hard to see gun owners as victims in this exchange. The concept of gun control is framed as an infringement on rights without the context of that right ballooning in scope for the last two centuries.[/QUOTE] This is so stupid it hurts. This is the same old "They couldn't have known technology would progress!" argument in a different form. No, you don't get to infringe on my rights, and then say that I'm not a victim. You can jump through as many mental hoops as you want, but you are infringing on rights. And no, "you get to keep something!" is NOT a compromise, no matter how hard you try to make it out to be one. [QUOTE=Lambeth;53145878]All respect to gun owners and all but sometimes I think they point fingers at everything but guns. Mental health can't be the full reason people go out and decide to shoot up people.[/QUOTE] It's not like people have suggested improving NICS, economic situations, or any of the underlying causes of violence.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145910]It's not like people have suggested improving NICS, economic situations, or any of the underlying causes of violence.[/QUOTE] It's a question of what's more difficult to solve. improving economic conditions is kind of abstract. continuing to even consider gun control legislation basically means you're leaving policy to people don't know guns as well which means you're just gonna get shitty legislation.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53145928]It's a question of what's more difficult to solve. improving economic conditions is kind of abstract. continuing to even consider gun control legislation basically means you're leaving policy to people don't know guns as well which means you're just gonna get shitty legislation.[/QUOTE] There are steps we could take (which are usually outlined). I will say that the environment in our schools right now are just atrocious, and really needs to be improved first. If we can make education better, we can solve a lot of the problems for future generations, because they will already have a leg up.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53145728]Well, keep in mind, the idea was for the people to be armed the same as what the government could muster. Obviously that isn't really practical (unless you subscribe to the idea of Recreational Nuclear Warheads) but the Second Amendment still means the same thing today as it did in the past. Whether that's a good idea or not when taken to the logical extreme is a different question.[/QUOTE] I think it's misleading to say that the 2nd Amendment "means the same thing today as it did in the past" because the implications of the law have changed and are continuing to change, even if the letter and spirit haven't. Not that I'm necessarily saying it shouldn't have been allowed to expand the way it did. That's a different argument I don't want to get into right now. My original point was that I don't agree with the idea that asking for compromise means we're chipping away at something static and unchanging. Gun rights are continuously expanding because of technological advancement. The law is protecting more powerful and useful weapons and accessories as time goes on. As such, I don't see compromise as eroding a right, I see it as curtailing its growth. So I object to people framing the argument that compromise in gun law means that gun owners get nothing out of the deal because from my point of view they already have. If "but what's in it for me" is honestly someone's primary reason for not even coming to the table, I have a serious issue with that especially with the stakes we're dealing with. It really bothers me that some people would look at a call for discussion, compromise, and on the heels of yet another school shooting and before the undoubtedly-impending [i]next[/i] school shooting and be so negative and obstinate, especially when it comes from a self-victimizing perspective.

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53145981]I think it's misleading to say that the 2nd Amendment "means the same thing today as it did in the past" because the implications of the law have changed and are continuing to change, even if the letter and spirit haven't. Not that I'm necessarily saying it shouldn't have been allowed to expand the way it did. That's a different argument I don't want to get into right now. My original point was that I don't agree with the idea that asking for compromise means we're chipping away at something static and unchanging. Gun rights are continuously expanding because of technological advancement. The law is protecting more powerful and useful weapons and accessories as time goes on. As such, I don't see compromise as eroding a right, I see it as curtailing its growth. So I object to people framing the argument that compromise in gun law means that gun owners get nothing out of the deal because from my point of view they already have. If "but what's in it for me" is honestly someone's primary reason for not even coming to the table, I have a serious issue with that especially with the stakes we're dealing with. It really bothers me that some people would look at a call for discussion, compromise, and on the heels of yet another school shooting and before the undoubtedly-impending [i]next[/i] school shooting and be so negative and obstinate, especially when it comes from a self-victimizing perspective.[/QUOTE] So now we're back at square one where if you're not willing to ACTUALLY compromise, then expect to be fought tooth and nail or outright ignored.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53145910]This is so stupid it hurts. This is the same old "They couldn't have known technology would progress!" argument in a different form. No, you don't get to infringe on my rights, and then say that I'm not a victim. You can jump through as many mental hoops as you want, but you are infringing on rights. And no, "you get to keep something!" is NOT a compromise, no matter how hard you try to make it out to be one. [/QUOTE] This isn't even an argument, it's just an emotional outburst at a perspective you don't like. It's sad because I don't even think you're asking for anything unreasonable. I just dislike that you'd be unwilling to even come to the table. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53146022]So now we're back at square one where if you're not willing to ACTUALLY compromise, then expect to be fought tooth and nail or outright ignored.[/QUOTE] You can occupy square one all you like. I'll be working with people who don't hide any chance for discussion behind their personal wish list.

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53146075]This isn't even an argument, it's just an emotional outburst at a perspective you don't like. It's sad because I don't even think you're asking for anything unreasonable. I just dislike that you'd be unwilling to even come to the table.[/quote] I'm willing to come to the table. But there is no point in coming to the table when we can't even agree on where we currently are. [quote]You can occupy square one all you like. I'll be working with people who don't hide any chance for discussion behind their personal wish list.[/QUOTE] Good luck finding people to work with. When they find out you're not working with them in good faith, they aren't likely to stick around.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53145878]All respect to gun owners and all but sometimes I think they point fingers at everything but guns. Mental health can't be the full reason people go out and decide to shoot up people.[/QUOTE] I'd say a healthy mind doesn't get up and decide to go shoot at innocent people. The gun isn't forcing someone to aim it and pull the trigger. If someone is willing to just wake up one day, grab a gun, and shoot someone out in the streets, that's inherently a mental health issue, not something that the gun simply being available did. If that was the way it worked, the situation would be even worse than its made out to be considering the dickload of firearms out there that would be corrupting innocent minds and persuading them to blat their neighbors. There's always a reason someone makes that sorta choice, and it usually loops back to an unhealthy state of mind. Yeah, if you took guns out of the equation body counts may be less. But a disturbed kid could still stab his alleged bully, or bomb the cafeteria. Why not tackle the issue that leads to all three, AND preserves the rights of 300M+ people?