Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (7 Viewers)

[Phatguysrule]

Because students haven't been allowed to carry guns at school.

At columbine there was a shootout between school cops and the shooters. It didn't stop them. They still killed many students after that before killing themselves.

So once... And I would submit that having armed staff and trained/permitted 18 year old students would have almost certainly resulted in far fewer deaths at Columbine.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Parents need to pay the fuck attention to their kids and not let them get ahold of guns.

This sounds like a very Republican argument.

"People just need to get jobs... "
"Just stop doing drugs... "
"If everybody would just choose to help more..."

...we wouldn't need government services, etc.

These same illogical arguments are being made by gun control enthusiasts.

But the reality is, we can't punish or restrict our way out of this. Guns aren't "just bad" and they aren't going anywhere. Regardless of this law or any gun control kids will be able to bring guns to school. Regardless of what their parents do.

You're not being logical.

Focus on increasing access to healthcare, education, and improving the social safety net.

Get those and the judicial system fixed and most of our gun problems will go away, along with most of our problems with violent crime and murder.

 

[barfo]

But the reality is, we can't punish or restrict our way out of this. Guns aren't "just bad" and they aren't going anywhere. Regardless of this law or any gun control kids will be able to bring guns to school. Regardless of what their parents do.

You're not being logical.

Focus on increasing access to healthcare, education, and improving the social safety net.

Get those and the judicial system fixed and most of our gun problems will go away, along with most of our problems with violent crime and murder.

Gun control can work. It might take 100 years, but it could work. Gradually reduce the number of guns in circulation, make them more expensive and harder to obtain, increase penalties for misuse. It could potentially be done.

You are right that those other things you mentioned would be very good to do. But they are all approximately the same level of impossible as gun control, i.e. they might be fixed sometime after we are all dead, if the country survives that long.

But there's no reason we shouldn't take tiny, tentative baby steps toward addressing all the issues in the meantime.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Gun control can work. It might take 100 years, but it could work. Gradually reduce the number of guns in circulation, make them more expensive and harder to obtain, increase penalties for misuse. It could potentially be done.

You are right that those other things you mentioned would be very good to do. But they are all approximately the same level of impossible as gun control, i.e. they might be fixed sometime after we are all dead, if the country survives that long.

But there's no reason we shouldn't take tiny, tentative baby steps toward addressing all the issues in the meantime.

barfo

If we put this much energy into addressing mental illness, wouldn't that also solve the same issue? Or, more importantly, actually address the root cause of the issue? Getting rid of the guns doesn't get rid of the murderous people. It just limits the tools that are available to them.

 

[barfo]

If we put this much energy into addressing mental illness, wouldn't that also solve the same issue? Or, more importantly, actually address the root cause of the issue? Getting rid of the guns doesn't get rid of the murderous people. It just limits the tools that are available to them.

My point was that we (the government of, by, and for the people) aren't going to put 'this much energy' into anything at all.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Gun control can work. It might take 100 years, but it could work. Gradually reduce the number of guns in circulation, make them more expensive and harder to obtain, increase penalties for misuse. It could potentially be done.

You are right that those other things you mentioned would be very good to do. But they are all approximately the same level of impossible as gun control, i.e. they might be fixed sometime after we are all dead, if the country survives that long.

But there's no reason we shouldn't take tiny, tentative baby steps toward addressing all the issues in the meantime.

barfo

Yeah there is. There is data showing those things actually work. Indisputable data. Most people actually like the idea of their kids getting a good education and not being in crazy debt. Most people like the idea of being able to take time off. They like the idea of knowing they won't go bankrupt if they get sick.

Most people don't want the right to own all guns to go away. They just don't. There is nowhere that there are no guns, so people want to be able to defend themselves as well.

I can't make healthcare in my garage in an afternoon. Or an education.

These things are far easier, far more proven, far less divisive, and in my opinion far more likely to happen than eliminating guns.

The reason to stop about guns is that there is a weaker case for gun control then there is for everthing else on that list. And pushing gun control costs us valuable political capital that could help get those things done.

And they are all far easier than gun control because we wouldn't need to amend the constitution, restricting the rights of every American to make them happen.

Without democrats hammering on gun control Hillary Clinton would have likely beaten Trump. Gore would almost certainly have beaten Bush.

How different would the world be today in that situation?

 

[barfo]

Yeah there is. There is data showing those things actually work. Indisputable data. Most people actually like the idea of their kids getting a good education and not being in crazy debt. Most people like the idea of being able to take time off. They like the idea of knowing they won't go bankrupt of they get sick.

They also like the idea of not getting shot. I think not getting shot is super popular right now.

Most people don't want guns to go away. They just don't. There is nowhere that there are no guns.

There are no guns on Uranus, so far as we know.

I can't make healthcare in my garage in an afternoon. Or an education.

You don't have a bottle of bleach or some horse dewormer in your garage?

These things are for easier, far more proven, far less divisive, and in my opinion far more likely to happen than eliminating guns.

Ok. I don't see any of them happening, but maybe I should withhold judgement until I've waited a full century instead of just most of one.

The reason to stop about guns is that there is a weaker case for gun control then there is for everthing else on that list. And pushing gun control costs us valuable political capital that could help get those things done.

Without democrats hammering on gun control Hillary Clinton would have likely beaten Trump. Gore would almost certainly have beaten Bush.

How different would the world be today in that situation?

I don't accept that hypothetical. There's always some social issue that conservatives can rally around, it hardly matters what it is. Maybe liberals should stop writing books, to keep Republicans from being able to burn them? Women should stop getting pregnant, to take away the abortion 'issue'? Etc. If it wasn't guns it would have been something else.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don't accept that hypothetical. There's always some social issue that conservatives can rally around, it hardly matters what it is. Maybe liberals should stop writing books, to keep Republicans from being able to burn them? Women should stop getting pregnant, to take away the abortion 'issue'? Etc. If it wasn't guns it would have been something else.

barfo

Maybe... But you would have gained Democrat votes that would have won you Gore and Hillary. Not conservative votes.

I know countless "democrats" who didn't vote for either because of the pushing of gun control. People who voted for Bill Clinton.

There isn't another issue that would have scared them like that. The gun issue is a swing voter issue.

Seems to me you get fewer votes if you can be painted as coming after guns. You get more votes if you cannot.

 

[THE HCP]

I can't think of a time a shootout ensued at a school after an opposing gun showed up.

The shooter leaves or commits suicide.

I can’t think of a time when a shootout ensued at a school when NOBODY BROUGHT A FUCKING GUN TO THE SCHOOL!

 

[Phatguysrule]

I can’t think of a time when a shootout ensued at a school when NOBODY BROUGHT A FUCKING GUN TO THE SCHOOL!

At most school shootings (during school hours, inside the school), killings typically continue until somebody else brings a gun to the school.

 

[THE HCP]

At most school shootings (during school hours, inside the school), killings typically continue until somebody else brings a gun to the school.

Ya but just think how many LESS school shootings there would be with NO FUCKING GUNS BROUGHT TO SCHOOL! Imagine that.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ya but just think how many LESS school shootings there would be with NO FUCKING GUNS BROUGHT TO SCHOOL! Imagine that.

Not possible. I'm sorry, there is just no scenario in which guns at school are removed as a possibility. And again, kids in the US are 20x more likely to be killed by their parents than by a gun at school... so it's already pretty darn rare.

 

[Chris Craig]

Your points aren’t bad ones. Im not disregarding the idea that those are things that need addressed. I just think there needs to be another line of defense when those steps fail, which they so often do.

Merely your opinions

But, yes this is one line of defense and an important one.

There are avenues to fixing the problem and I have discussed many of them. This is one of them.

 

[Chris Craig]

So once... And I would submit that having armed staff and trained/permitted 18 year old students would have almost certainly resulted in far fewer deaths at Columbine.

I shared one with example....there are many others.

Or the permitted kid gets shot and and the shooters have yet another gun and more ammo to further kill students with.

 

[Chris Craig]

This sounds like a very Republican argument.

"People just need to get jobs... "
"Just stop doing drugs... "
"If everybody would just choose to help more..."

...we wouldn't need government services, etc.

These same illogical arguments are being made by gun control enthusiasts.

But the reality is, we can't punish or restrict our way out of this. Guns aren't "just bad" and they aren't going anywhere. Regardless of this law or any gun control kids will be able to bring guns to school. Regardless of what their parents do.

You're not being logical.

Focus on increasing access to healthcare, education, and improving the social safety net.

Get those and the judicial system fixed and most of our gun problems will go away, along with most of our problems with violent crime and murder.

Nah, I'm not deflecting...that's what Republicans do. I'm noting one part of what can help in the bigger picture. Holding parents responsible will help among other things to curve the numbers.

 

[THE HCP]

Not possible. I'm sorry, there is just no scenario in which guns at school are removed as a possibility. And again, kids in the US are 20x more likely to be killed by their parents than by a gun at school... so it's already pretty darn rare.

Their parents WITH A GUN.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I shared one with example....there are many others.

Or the permitted kid gets shot and and the shooters have yet another gun and more ammo to further kill students with.

I don't think lack of guns and ammo is a problem we've run into.

And in every other situation you can point out, the argument can be made that an armed person could have ended it sooner, thereby saving more lives.

Simply saying, for every positive there is a negative and vise versa with gun control. Legitimately.

It's not as cut and dry as so many other issues that we could be focusing on, which have been proven to be so much more effective.

Just feels like chopping off our noses to spite our face.

 

[Chris Craig]

I can’t think of a time when a shootout ensued at a school when NOBODY BROUGHT A FUCKING GUN TO THE SCHOOL!

Bam!

 

[Phatguysrule]

Their parents WITH A GUN.

No, typically not with a gun.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Nah, I'm not deflecting...that's what Republicans do. I'm noting one part of what can help in the bigger picture. Holding parents responsible will help among other things to curve the numbers.

I don't think so. It's not really enforceable without giving up so many other rights that it's not worth it.

If your 17 year old wants in your gun safe he's going to figure it out.

We've seen school shootings where exactly that happened. And others where it could have easily happened. Many times the parents are among the victims.

 

[Chris Craig]

I don't think lack of guns and ammo is a problem we've run into.

And in every other situation you can point out, the argument can be made that an armed person could have ended it sooner, thereby saving more lives.

Simply saying, for every positive there is a negative and vise versa with gun control. Legitimately.

It's not as cut and dry as so many other issues that we could be focusing on, which have been proven to be so much more effective.

Just feels like chopping off our noses to spite our face.

They also could have made the situation worse running in guns blazing trying to take out the shooter. That's why police don't do that at schools immediately.

 

[Chris Craig]

I don't think so. It's not really enforceable without giving up so many other rights that it's not worth it.

If your 17 year old wants in your gun safe he's going to figure it out.

We've seen school shootings where exactly that happened. And others where it could have easily happened. Many times the parents are among the victims.

Giving up rights? Parents are responsible for their kids. If their kids take their guns to school they should be held responsible. Such as the Wisconsin shooting.

 

[Lanny]

Students have taken guns to school for hundreds of years. Most recently they have been left in their pickup so they could go hunting after school... It pretty much always turns out just fine.

Kids don't just see a guns then turn into blood thirsty killers...

Tektronix would not allow us to bring guns to work nor even keep them in the trunk of our car in the parking lot. That company was known for it's brilliance. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Lanny]

After killing as many people as they want with no pushback.

Preventing bullying would prevent a lot of problems.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Giving up rights? Parents are responsible for their kids. If their kids take their guns to school they should be held responsible. Such as the Wisconsin shooting.

I believe the Wisconsin parents are being held responsible, are they not? If not, then yes I agree they should be.

But I don't think we need any more laws on the books to hold them accountable.

 

[Phatguysrule]

They also could have made the situation worse running in guns blazing trying to take out the shooter. That's why police don't do that at schools immediately.

You are trained not to do that in order to get a concealed carry permit.

 

[Chris Craig]

You are trained not to do that in order to get a concealed carry permit.

Doesn't mean a kid isn't going to do it anyway

 

[Lanny]

You are trained not to do that in order to get a concealed carry permit.

And kids are so good at following rules.

 

[calvin natt]

We certainly could. Most active shooters stop firing once an opposing gun arrives.

But that's beside the point. I'm saying our politicians bickering about that costs us exponentially more lives by strengthening the right wing agenda and hardening people against democrats.

There is no upside to arguing against gun rights. It's all downside.

You can’t be serious

 

[Phatguysrule]

And kids are so good at following rules.

Well, the ones who jump through the hoops required to get a concealed carry permit would almost certainly be better at it than average. And their training would ve VERY current.

That's certainly the case for adults, as concealed carry holders are the demographic with the lowest crime rates.