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

[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] Well it's obvious that the existence of guns allows this to happen, I just disagree that the only way to prevent it is to remove them. I think we can have a perfectly safe and functional society [I]and[/I] allow civilians to own guns. It's worked that way for hundreds of years, and the monthly mass-shooting is a recent phenomenon. I put the blame squarely on the media for hyping up every shooting like it's some big event to be celebrated. Some rage-filled outcast sees this and decides he's going to be the next media darling, and boom, there's your next mass murder. Someone posted a link somewhere in one of these threads where a group of psychologists even theorized that if we stop making these people famous, that attacks should nearly dry up in a year or two.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;53146179]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?[/QUOTE] But he DID have guns readily available, so he could shoot people

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146199]But he DID have guns readily available, so he could shoot people[/QUOTE] This is comically missing the point and I'm 100% aware from your prior posts you're being intentionally obtuse, quit the BS. :v:

[QUOTE=evilweazel;53146234]This is comically missing the point and I'm 100% aware from your prior posts you're being intentionally obtuse, quit the BS. :v:[/QUOTE] I understood what you said, but there's more to fixing it than that. I agree that the centre of the issue is mental health (mainly) but the access to guns is what allowed this to be what it was

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146248]I understood what you said, but there's more to fixing it than that. I agree that the centre of the issue is mental health (mainly) but the access to guns is what allowed this to be what it was[/QUOTE] Law Enforcement also not doing their job allowed this to happen.

[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] As already iterated multiple times throughout the thread, every time a "compromise" is come up with, its paltry in comparison to what is added. In 1934 the National Firearms Act highly regulated machine guns, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and AOW's making them literally only available to the rich by placing a tax of $200 (which at that time was half the price of a car) per item. The compromise was that handguns weren't added to the NFA. In 1986 the Firearms Owner Protection act further restricted legally ownable machine guns, preventing any new manufacture machine guns from being registered thus large inflating the prices of those that were already registered. The compromise was the safe passage clause, which exempts indeviduals from State laws so long as they are just passing through. In 1994 the assault weapons ban did exactly that, banning firearms based on models and features. It also restricted capacities to 10rds with limited exception. The compromise was the grandfather clause on mags and weapons owned prior, which once again highly inflated costs associated until the ban sunset in 04'. Gun owners have a hard time going to the table to compromise because its never a compromise. A compromise implies that the decision made its done with the approval of both parties, with each party getting part of what they want but not getting what they want in total. What everybody is calling for is the banning of semi-auto weapons with certain features. Where is the compromise there? We get to keep our hunting rifles? That's not a compromise. A compromise would be you get to keep your semi-rifles, but you need to do an extensive psychological test to do so. But no one is asking for that, they're asking for a total ban. Many gun owners remember the old ban, and they'll do whatever it takes to not go back to that. What people need to understand about American Gun owners is that for many of us the second amendment is more than just "fighting the gubment" . Americans in general have a strong sense of the indevidual, something that can seen is schools/jobs/interactions etc. We focus on indevidual ability, reward each other on indevidual achievement, and pride ourselves in our own accomplishments. Many of us take pride in our ability to take care of ourselves, and to us gun owners take pride in being able to fend for ourselves. We aren't looking for a handout, we're not looking for someone else to save us. We have decided that our own safety and well-being is best left in our hands rather than in the hands of someone who may or may not have our best interests in mind. To us the second amendment is what allows us to keep that ability in our own hands, and we distrust anyone who says it's better off in someone else's hands. We believe this because history has proven time and time again that placing too much into higher authority has lead to exploitation, degradation, and disregard for life and well being. To any sane indevidual this can be seen today, with an orange idiot in office supported by an Evangelical nut job. For us protecting what we have is insurance for the future; insurance for the next internment of the Japanese, the next LA riots, the next Katrina, the next failure of government. It is insurance so that our children and our children's children have the ability to maintain their Independence, to ensure they have the ability to keep their control over their ability to decide not to be a helpless victim to a robber/rapist/riot/corruption.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53146110]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. 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] I don't understand why discussing gun law with you requires that someone share your exact perspective on things. I just don't agree that I have some moral obligation to make additional concessions to you before we even get started. The final result should be something grounded in logic and reasoning anyway. Why would your points be excluded if they're able to stand on their own? Additionally, I don't understand how you can call me out on not having good faith when you yourself have a pretense to any discussion. You want something, and if you're not guaranteed to get it, you won't bother even showing up. FInally (and I hate to keep bringing this up because despite being frustrated with you I at least understand that you're not doing this in direct relation to the news story) given the grave circumstances I don't think we should be drawing lines in the sand and saying some ideas are off-limits. I don't even want to compromise gun rights, it's just that when there's taboos in a discussion it's counterproductive to problem-solving.

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53146297]I don't understand why discussing gun law with you requires that someone share your exact perspective on things. I just don't agree that I have some moral obligation to make additional concessions to you before we even get started. The final result should be something grounded in logic and reasoning anyway. Why would your points be excluded if they're able to stand on their own? Additionally, I don't understand how you can call me out on not having good faith when you yourself have a pretense to any discussion. You want something, and if you're not guaranteed to get it, you won't bother even showing up.[/quote] The fact that you think that starting on fair ground is a "concession" just proves that you're not ready to start discussing the issue. If you can't start from a neutral position, then there is no point. [quote]FInally (and I hate to keep bringing this up because despite being frustrated with you I at least understand that you're not doing this in direct relation to the news story) given the grave circumstances I don't think we should be drawing lines in the sand and saying some ideas are off-limits. I don't even want to compromise gun rights, it's just that when there's taboos in a discussion it's counterproductive to problem-solving.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying any idea is off limits. I'm willing to discuss anything.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146258]Law Enforcement also not doing their job allowed this to happen.[/QUOTE] And the school etc. But the point of gun control remains

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146388]And the school etc. But the point of gun control remains[/QUOTE] What point exactly? Getting nothing of note accomplished and doing nothing to actually prevent more shootings from happening? Cause thats whats happening. Thats the reality of the situation. Shit wont happen, its the least productive argument to have in regards to preventing gun violence.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146396]:snip: might have misunderstood.[/QUOTE] Except Australia, and lots of other countries where less available guns makes a difference

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146404]Except Australia, and lots of other countries where less available guns makes a difference[/QUOTE] Okay no i didnt misunderstood. That shit just wont ever happen here, thats reality, accept it, come to terms with it, and start doing something actually productive. How many times has this argument happened? Over how many years? Over how many shootings? Has it actually ever gotten anywhere? [i]EVER[/i]?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146410]Okay no i didnt misunderstood. That shit just wont ever happen here, thats reality, accept it, come to terms with it, and start doing something actually productive. How many times has this argument happened? Over how many years? Over how many shootings? Has it actually ever gotten anywhere? [i]EVER[/i]?[/QUOTE] WEll then push harder till it does, more gun control can do something

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146417]WEll then push harder till it does, more gun control can do something[/QUOTE] You dont get it. [i]Its. Not. Happening. Ever.[/i] Thats the reality of the situation, that isnt changing, its fundamentally pointless to keep bashing at this shit because it gets NOTHING accomplished and just furthers political divide further entrenching people and further leading to shit not getting done.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146421]You dont get it. [i]Its. Not. Happening. Ever.[/i] Thats the reality of the situation, that isnt changing, its fundamentally pointless to keep bashing at this shit because it gets NOTHING accomplished and just furthers political divide further entrenching people and further leading to shit not getting done.[/QUOTE] Because why? why CAN'T it happen?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146422]Because why? why CAN'T it happen?[/QUOTE] Because theres enough guns here to arm nearly every man, woman, and child. Because theres million of people who do own them. Because its a hugely bipartisan issue between two parties that fucking despise eachother. Because its entrenched in the bill of rights. Because of an inherent distrust with the government. Etc, etc, etc. Stop trying to break down a brick wall with your fists to get to the other side and go buy a ladder.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146428]Because theres enough guns here to arm nearly every man, woman, and child. Because theres million of people who do own them. Because its a hugely bipartisan issue between two parties that fucking despise eachother. Because its entrenched in the bill of rights. Stop trying to break down a brick will with your fists to get to the other side and go buy a ladder.[/QUOTE] So because thing is, thing can't change? There's been bigger changes made socially and politically than this before, sure it takes time but it's still worth pursuit

Banning guns is not a worthy pursuit.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146432]So because thing is, thing can't change? There's been bigger changes made socially and politically than this before, sure it takes time but it's still worth pursuit[/QUOTE] It. [i]Wont. [b]Happen.[/b][/i] [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] How do you not get this? Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of reality. Thats what the situation is.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146449]It. [i]Wont. [b]Happen.[/b][/i] [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] How do you not get this? Its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of reality. Thats what the situation is.[/QUOTE] I mean they said Trump would never be president and yet here we are.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53146468]I mean they said Trump would never be president and yet here we are.[/QUOTE] Donald Trump isnt an entrenched part of America as a country and its culture dating back to its inception with the right to own him being second only to free speech. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] Like what kind of inane comparison is that?

You won't get Australian style gun control until you have a constitutional amendment that voids/edits the 2nd Amendment. Doing that will require an outpouring of bipartisan public opinion and an overwhelming agreement in the house and Senate. Aka not in the near or visible future. State level gun control is not unforeseeable, however.

[QUOTE=OvB;53146477]You won't get Australian style gun control until you have a constitutional amendment that voids/edits the 2nd Amendment. Doing that will require an outpouring of bipartisan public opinion and an overwhelming agreement in the house and Senate. Aka not in the near or visible future. State level gun control is not unforeseeable, however.[/QUOTE] Not to mention ratification by at least 35 states. State level is the much more viable option.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53146468]I mean they said Trump would never be president and yet here we are.[/QUOTE] Yeah and the people that got him elected are the most likely to own guns and support lax gun control, so what does that say about the feasibility of sweeping gun control laws?

[QUOTE=bdd458;53146436]Banning guns is not a worthy pursuit.[/QUOTE] Who the fuck said banning guns? Also why not?

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146491]Who the fuck said banning guns? Also why not?[/QUOTE] All the effort it would require could be better used on targeting the root causes of gun crime to begin with which would probably have the side effect of just making life better in general for everybody?

The push back against guns is only going to get stronger the more this happens. I don't think it's a particularly worthwhile pursuit, I view it in the same lens as alcohol prohibition or ramping up the war on drugs, but if conservatives want to have liberals stop coming after their guns every time this happens the it's time to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to suggestions that the school system and mental health services be improved. It gets said in every thread where this comes up but I don't think any pro gun politician has ever actually even begun to make an effort to put these sorts of measures into place after the fact. It seems more of a talking point for folks who have good intentions than actual serious policy, but I'd love to see it happen. Hell, I'd be up for relaxing currently existent restrictions if it meant investment into education, psychological health services, and background check systems, especially if those actions bore fruit.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146494]All the effort it would require could be better used on targeting the root causes of gun crime to begin with which would probably have the side effect of just making life better in general for everybody?[/QUOTE] Or both ffs

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53146504]Or both ffs[/QUOTE] Jesus christ, no, why dont you understand this?

[QUOTE=AaronM202;53146505]Jesus christ, no, why dont you understand this?[/QUOTE] Great argument, it is entirely possible to push for gun control AND mental healthcare