posted by geeblockIt’s literally ok to just say u are against gun control without listing the 99 other ways people die
It's literally OK to just say you only care about how children die and not how many kids die.
Well, not really it just makes you look like a useful idiot.
posted by jmogBanning AR’s wouldn’t even do it as there are a 100 hunting rifles that fire higher caliber bullets, at the same rate of fire, as an AR..
Speaking of misinformation....
I'm absolutely floored that even when presented with the data and insights, that supposedly "moderate" and intelligent people still buy into the meme tropes. People on this board have been saying it for years, and a quick google search readily confirms it.
But it's not just this issue - it's well documented that emotion can completely suppress logic. Yet it still blows my mind that a majority of the population believes there's something special and mythical about the AR, when it's such an easy misconception to dispel.
posted by iclfan2He somehow works in education and is clueless.
His pupils are literally safer at school than at home, but you know...
Hilarious. I picture u guys driving a 4wd f 150 for your 10 mile commute to work that is all highway lol.
Please continue listing all the ways kids die for 10 more pages. Like seriously why can’t we care about both. Why does it have to be one or the other. So we can’t look at gun laws until we cure world hunger? No one is trying to take your guns that you probably haven’t shot it 10 years
posted by gutIt's literally OK to just say you only care about how children die and not how many kids die.
Well, not really it just makes you look like a useful idiot.
You realize it’s possible to care about many ways kids die. This particular thread is about kids dying from guns so I’m not sure what u don’t get about that.
posted by jmogCare to point out where someone gave a threshold of acceptable child deaths in this thread?
If not just more BS hyperbole.
Someone give one law that will prevent these type of planned school shootings in the USA, and all of us will back it.
Banning AR’s wouldn’t even do it as there are a 100 hunting rifles that fire higher caliber bullets, at the same rate of fire, as an AR.
3 day waiting periods won’t as 99% of these are planned out attacks and they had the weapons for weeks/months before the shootings.
So stop with the bullshit hyperbole that those of us that like the 2A just want kids to die…and give an actual workable solution.
These are your opinions - that none of these will work. None are being tried now, so no one can say if they would work in terms of preventing, or at least lessening, these tragedies.
Yes, this is a highly politicized issue. But we are ALL a part of politicizing it. From the hysteria of banning every firearm, to the dug in arguments that firearms aren’t the problem. We all engage in it every time this happens. Politicians don’t lead this - in my opinion. Instead, they reflect what’s already out there. It’s all emotional, including the emotion behind the plea to “follow logic”. Emotion is what leads in human action.
Accepting that all sides are emotional would be a good first step in addressing this in some constructive way.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieThese are your opinions - that none of these will work. None are being tried now, so no one can say if they would work in terms of preventing, or at least lessening, these tragedies.
Yes, this is a highly politicized issue. But we are ALL a part of politicizing it. From the hysteria of banning every firearm, to the dug in arguments that firearms aren’t the problem. We all engage in it every time this happens. Politicians don’t lead this - in my opinion. Instead, they reflect what’s already out there. It’s all emotional, including the emotion behind the plea to “follow logic”. Emotion is what leads in human action.
Accepting that all sides are emotional would be a good first step in addressing this in some constructive way.
Sorry, but not just an opinion, an informed opinion based on logic and facts.
If there are 100s of hunting rifles that shoot the same or higher caliber rounds at the same rate (semi-auto) then logic says that banning AR-15s won’t change a thing.
The fact that the vast majority of these are planned attacks and the perps have the guns for weeks/months before the shooting…logic and reason says that no 3 or 5 day waiting period would change their minds.
So yes, they are my opinion, but those opinions are backed up by facts, logic, and reason.
Just saying “we have to try something” is illogical.
Anybody who says that banning ARs is pointless because it won't do anything doesn't understand the point. Tankies like Biden, ptown, and the idiots in Congress know it won't work. They also know that after they ban ARs, the FBI will begin grooming school shooters to use handguns. Then they will say we need to ban them. Biden is already laying the ground work for this with his stupid 9mm bullshit. They they start coming for shotguns and bolt action rifles until the American people are defenseless against the shit stains in Washington.
posted by geeblockKids are being killed and you are bringing up drug addicts dying as some reason why we shouldn’t do anything.
Pointing out selective outrage for the purpose of virtue signaling. "Look at all the death over here!" (While ignoring 100X more deaths over here)
posted by FletchPointing out selective outrage for the purpose of virtue signaling. "Look at all the death over here!" (While ignoring 100X more deaths over here)
It’s possible to have concern about two things at the same time.
What about the idea of licensing for firearms? It would be similar to the vetting for getting a driver’s license (probationary period, testing on safety and testing actual operation, background check, renewal on a periodic basis, the ability to lose your license based upon criminal behavior, etc.) Why couldn’t something like this be implemented?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieIt’s possible to have concern about two things at the same time.
What about the idea of licensing for firearms? It would be similar to the vetting for getting a driver’s license (probationary period, testing on safety and testing actual operation, background check, renewal on a periodic basis, the ability to lose your license based upon criminal behavior, etc.) Why couldn’t something like this be implemented?
You can care about multiple things, it’s been said. But the reaction to the deaths are completely different, which is the point being made. The border is much easier to control yet the left refuses to do so. Gun violence could be curbed more, yet the left doesn’t try to pass harsher laws and instead actually makes it harder to enforce/ convict. So only school shooting deaths make them want MORE laws?
And guns are a right, not a privilege. After the Covid overreach, FBI being called into school board meetings, why would anyone trust the government with being on some sort of list?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieIt’s possible to have concern about two things at the same time.
What about the idea of licensing for firearms? It would be similar to the vetting for getting a driver’s license (probationary period, testing on safety and testing actual operation, background check, renewal on a periodic basis, the ability to lose your license based upon criminal behavior, etc.) Why couldn’t something like this be implemented?
Because you would have to repeal the 2A to get that. There’s the whole “shall not be infringed part” and your proposal is just step 1 towards confiscation which is what every other country that went down that route did.
Since the "scary looking" weapons ban ended in 2004 who has killed more school aged children, individual US citizens or the US federal government?
posted by jmogBecause you would have to repeal the 2A to get that. There’s the whole “shall not be infringed part” and your proposal is just step 1 towards confiscation which is what every other country that went down that route did.
You shoot down all ideas with sweeping generalizations and guesses at what will happen.
posted by majorsparkSince the "scary looking" weapons ban ended in 2004 who has killed more school aged children, individual US citizens or the US federal government?
Well don’t leave us guessing.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieYou shoot down all ideas with sweeping generalizations and guesses at what will happen.
Every country that has confiscated guns in the last 150 years required registration first.
That’s factual history not sweeping generalization.
History tends to repeat itself, so I am not guessing, just happen to have studied history and don’t want it to repeat here in the US.
If somebody bought Boogie a history book, do you think he could find someone to read it to him?
posted by supermanTankies like Biden, ptown, and the idiots in Congress know it won't work. They also know that after they ban ARs, the FBI will begin grooming school shooters to use handguns.
A lot to unpack there.
But I have to ask - what is a "tankie"?
posted by geeblockThis particular thread is about kids dying from guns so I’m not sure what u don’t get about that.
Again, your students are more likely to die from bullets at home than at school. Would you care to attempt a non-emotional, fact based argument to the contrary?
LMFAO....why are you ALWAYS on the wrong side of facts and data? Whether it be school shootings, cops, or BLM?
The key to being a good useful idiot is to not know one is a useful idiot....
posted by geeblockYou realize it’s possible to care about many ways kids die.
And, yet, you haven't started a single thread about all the other preventable ways kids die...
Maybe, according to you, I'm just a redneck that drives an F150, but you somehow manage to be ignorant and full of shit at the same time.
posted by gutAgain, your students are more likely to die from bullets at home than at school. Would you care to attempt a non-emotional, fact based argument to the contrary?
LMFAO....why are you ALWAYS on the wrong side of facts and data? Whether it be school shootings, cops, or BLM?
The key to being a good useful idiot is to not know one is a useful idiot....
I don’t see why that matters that’s just dumb. Do you think people aren’t working every day to change that? Completely irrelevant. If you want to discuss that start a thread about it.
Just because jmog says a waiting period won’t stop a shooter doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. So no that’s not “facts and data”. Neither is pointing out the 100 other ways kids die. Trying to insult someone because they believe we could actually do something to reduce these shootings like maybe raise the legal age to 21 is also very weak in your part. You are the one who seems upset and emotional. I’m not having an emotional reaction to this at all. The thread was literally created asking for possible solutions to the gun problem and you are all butthurt for people trying to discuss them. Calm the fuck down
posted by jmogEvery country that has confiscated guns in the last 150 years required registration first.
That’s factual history not sweeping generalization.
History tends to repeat itself, so I am not guessing, just happen to have studied history and don’t want it to repeat here in the US.
Plenty of places require gun registration where “confiscation” hasn’t followed.
It’s just an idea worth exploring. What’s your solution?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieWell don’t leave us guessing.
It's a rhetorical question.
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogiePlenty of places require gun registration where “confiscation” hasn’t followed.
It’s just an idea worth exploring. What’s your solution?
What murdered schoolkids would be alive today if we had registration?
posted by queencitybuckeyeWhat murdered schoolkids would be alive today if we had registration?
Who knows. Possibly all of these kids in Texas. Columbine kids, Parkland, many others perhaps.