The Gun Control Debate Thread

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I picture them in a dark room with the door closed and the lights off. the kids are in the corner. and the teacher is sitting/standing there realizing there isn't a god damned thing he/she can do if the shooter walks in the door.

 

and i imagine my kids being in that corner.

 

and it drives me ****ing nuts that nothing is being done about it, and that the discussion of arming teachers is reduced to jokes, mocking, insults (cause we must just not care about kids getting shot because they're just stats right?), and other disingenuous bull****. promptly followed by accusations of us being the ones that don't care.

Secure the damned doors!

Schools are ALREADY doing this, there are several counter measures already widely available to prevent these door from being opened. 

The simplest and safest solutions is to keep them out of the schools, and when that fails, keep them out of the classrooms. As twa said, layered security.

[twa]

4 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Disarming police ONLY works with a disarmed populace. Keeping guns OUT of schools effectively disarms the populace. The trick is keeping the criminals out of the schools, i.e. school security measures. 

 

 

 

So you are willing to pay for fail safe security in schools now?

 

 

[Bang]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

Protected classes don't have anything to do with selling to customers?

So you can not sell to a person because they're black? Or old? or female?

 

I don't believe pets are a protected class.

 

I've never understood how a neighborhood (we have those around here) or an apartment complex (or a hotel for that matter) can deny someone because they have children. I don't know that it's ever been challenged though.

I would too.

 

So would pretty much everyone else in the thread.

 

 

 

Discrimination is based in hate. I think this makes the major difference and i think it's easy to spot.

 

But, i do see how it is in this country that there can be no common sense applied when we view these things, Everything must be spelled out in absolutes because of the few who will abuse and then play semantics while trying to justify being contrary.

 

Nothing wrong with that, i suppose. Use the courts, i'm sure we can all afford to continually have to ride the brakes to accommodate them.

 

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Just now, twa said:

 

So you are willing to pay for fail safe security in schools now?

 

 

Oh son.

Remember I’m NOT the one pushing a budget agenda that would shut half or my state’s public schools.

[Fresh8686]

I wonder how feasible it would be to bullet-proof classroom doors in conjunction with restricting guns to the level where there would be no issue penetrating CMU walls (I have no idea what the current class of weapons penetrative power is).

4'x8' Lvl 3 Ballistic Shielding is around $575 a sheet, plus the 4" batten strips at $6.25 a lnft at the seams... it would be too expensive to encase every single room in a school if they were using drywall partitions, but maybe we could have centralized locations on each floor, where students and teachers could congregate in case of these shootings? You wouldn't need to have the shielding from floor to deck, just ceiling height or 8' at minimum would offer sufficient protection.



 

[Llevron]

Also who was it that came in here and said we shouldn't be talking about gun control since it wont ever happen.  

 

Now when my best friend ever @Kilmer17 says something similar its a problem. Yall funny

[tshile]

Just now, Bang said:

Discrimination is based in hate. I think this makes the major difference and i think it's easy to spot.

 

But, i do see how it is in this country that there can be no common sense applied when we view these things, Everything must be spelled out in absolutes because of the few who will abuse and then play semantics while trying to justify being contrary.

 

Nothing wrong with that, i suppose. Use the courts, i'm sure we can all afford to continually have to ride the brakes to accommodate them.

 

I agree with you... I wouldn't call it a few though, we see it through a lot of things even when the stakes are not as high. We see people call damn near everything racist/sexist, for example.

 

I don't know that discrimination is based on hate. I thought it was based on a person's characteristic (like skin color, age, gender, religion). I didn't think you could simply say "oh but it's not because I hate you" and that absolves you of having to worry about being discriminatory. 

 

[twa]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

Oh son.

Remember I’m NOT the one pushing a budget agenda that would shut half or my state’s public schools.

 

Is that a Yes, No or maybe?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

If i'm in the next mass shooting thread, 6 months from now, mocking you for your movements know it's only because I'm incredibly frustrated with the bs.

But bro, a lot of us feel that the real BS is the constant idea of throwing more guns at the problem and that's what we see this as... just another way to keep saying "more guns" and to take the proliferation of firearms in our society and ratchet it up another level.

 

And when, like every other time we've tried this before, things only get worse (6 months is being extremely generous for predicting the next mass shooting)? One could easily say, "I'm going to be in here mocking you for supporting the same non-solution that has gotten us to the point where we're at now." What then? Movie projectionists need guns. Waiters and waitresses. Grocery store bag boys. Youth sports officials. If the plan is to have zero soft targets, and every public gathering is to be protected by underprepared civilians, armed with weaponry that is going to stand little chance against a psychotic killer with military firepower and tactical gear, then that's no plan at all...

 

unless the plan is to sell more guns.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Also who was it that came in here and said we shouldn't be talking about gun control since it wont ever happen.  

 

Now when my best friend ever @Kilmer17 says something similar its a problem. Yall funny

 

We didn't say you shouldn't talk about it because it won't ever happen.

 

We said we were only discussing this because we believe it (the other gun control stuff) won't ever happen.

 

The stuff is in plain text. There are numbers at the bottom you can click on to go back a few pages and read it.

 

I'm so incredibly sick of how disingenuous you and others are being. It's fine if you don't like the idea, but it'd be nice if you'd stop making up what we say.

Edited February 28, 2018 by tshile

[twa]

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

.

 

unless the plan is to sell more guns.

 

And the gun rights folk think any restriction means the plan is to disarm them.....and around we go.

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

But bro, a lot of us feel that the real BS is the constant idea of throwing more guns at the problem and that's what we see this as... just another way to keep saying "more guns" and to take the proliferation of firearms in our society and ratchet it up another level.

 

And when, like every other time we've tried this before, things only get worse? One could easily say, "I'm going to be in here mocking you for supporting the same non-solution that has gotten us to the point where we're at now." What then? Movie projectionists need guns. Waiters and waitresses. Grocery store bag boys. Youth sports officials. If zero soft targets, and every public gathering is to be protected by underprepared civilians, armed with weaponry that is going to stand little chance against a psychotic killer with military firepower and tactical gear, then that's no plan at all...

 

unless the plan is to sell more guns.

 

when have we thrown more guns at the problem? we put police on school campuses. when else have we put more guns at the problem?

 

and that's not even to address the fact that I don't believe we should throw more guns at the problem. I'm just curious when we've actually thrown more guns at the problem? as far as I can tell we've done nothing of substance in any direction. 

 

(edit: I suppose 8 states allow teachers to carry guns, but I had no idea bout that until this week. i certainly don't know what the affects of that has been, or whether there's been a school shooting in one of those schools and what the outcome was.)

 

you can mock me all you want. in fact, that's pretty much what this thread has been - a couple handfuls of people rotating in and out mocking 3 of us and refusing to read what we actually write and respond. 

 

you guys can keep repeating the same stuff. maybe you're right, and this time will be different.

 

or maybe not and next time you'll come back in here and post the same stuff and hope that that time is different.

Edited February 28, 2018 by tshile

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

5 minutes ago, twa said:

And the gun rights folk think any restriction means the plan is to disarm them.....and around we go.

Which is all part of the plan...

 

The plan to sell more guns.

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

I'm so incredibly sick of how disingenuous you and others are being. It's fine if you don't like the idea, but it'd be nice if you'd stop making up what we say.

 

Be sick playa! Seriously. IDGAF. Not at all. But I will gladly point to all of my statements being misconstrued that you seem to have to no problem scrolling past when its coming from your side of the argument. Dont pick and choose which hypocrisy is a problem now. If the dishonesty bothers you maybe speak up about it on both sides or just stay quite about it. Your choice. 

 

But ima go back and see just how different you said it versus him. Will report back later. 

 

[tshile]

 

source: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

 

We can all sit around and talk about how we want increased background checks, increased age restrictions, decreased magazine capacity, and even banning semi automatic guns all day long.

 

But until we deal with the fact that 55% of americans think the NRA has the right amount or too little (can you believe 15% think it's too little? I mean wtf) influence in gun policy... i don't know where you expect to get any traction.

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

And the gun rights folk think any restriction means the plan is to disarm them.....and around we go.

Because they are fed that steady stream of BS from the NRA, and do not even pretend it isn’t true!

You want to see the every day man’s attitudes change? Then get the NRA onboard with sensible gun regulation and controls. 

This land of absolutism is what is killing children. The problem is that the NRA refuses to come to the table and work toward real solutions.

They walk into the room and the moment anyone mentions anything that sounds like gun control they flip the tables and storm out of the room ranting like a petulent child, then they hit social media screaming “thur comin’ fer yur gunz!”

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

when have we thrown more guns at the problem? we put police on school campuses. when else have we put more guns at the problem?

 

and that's not even to address the fact that I don't believe we should throw more guns at the problem. I'm just curious when we've actually thrown more guns at the problem? as far as I can tell we've done nothing of substance in any direction. 

 

you can mock me all you want. in fact, that's pretty much what this thread has been - a couple handfuls of people rotating in and out mocking 3 of us and refusing to read what we actually write and respond. 

 

you guys can keep repeating the same stuff. maybe you're right, and this time will be different.

 

or maybe not and next time you'll come back in here and post the same stuff and hope that that time is different.

I'm not mocking you. I only used that wording because you specifically said that you were going to come in here and mock somebody after the next mock shooting.

 

But to answer your question, that's been the idea perpetuated by the NRA for the last ten years, every single time this happens... More guns. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a goo guy with a gun. The reason _______ got shot up is because nobody was there with a gun. Gun sales were higher during Obama's presidency than at any other point in our history.

 

 

We all better hope things will be different this time...

[tshile]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

But to answer your question, that's been the idea perpetuated by the NRA for the last ten years, every single time this happens... More guns.

Fine.

But when has anything actually been done that was more guns to solve the problem?

 

We put SRO's on schools (that started 20 years ago around here).

8 states apparently allow teachers to carry guns (again, I just learned this, so I can't speak to it on any level.)

 

what else do you have? what am I missing?

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, tshile said:

Fine.

But when has anything actually been done that was more guns to solve the problem?

 

We put SRO's on schools (that started 20 years ago around here).

8 states apparently allow teachers to carry guns (again, I just learned this, so I can't speak to it on any level.)

 

what else do you have? what am I missing?

Isn’t it interesting that an SRO in a school was not enough of a deterring threat to prevent Cruz from killing 17 of his former classmates and teachers?

Some people just want to see the world burn...so you take away their matches.

Edited February 28, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[visionary]

 

[tshile]

2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Isn’t it interesting that an SRO in a school was not enough of a detering ghreat to prevent Cruz from killing 17 of his former classmates and teachers?

Some people just want to see the world burn...so you take away their matches.

 

I don't know that interesting is the right word.

 

I would say it's deplorable that the person who puts on a gun, a badge, and a vest every day, and was assigned to a school, hid outside when he was needed most. I wish terrible things upon that person.

[PleaseBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

 

But to answer your question, that's been the idea perpetuated by the NRA for the last ten years, every single time this happens... More guns. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a goo guy with a gun. The reason _______ got shot up is because nobody was there with a gun. Gun sales were higher during Obama's presidency than at any other point in our history.

 

 

 

Well, when you are an industry lobbying organization created by and paid for by gun companies to create demand for guns, your solution to all problems is to sell more guns, because that is your only reason for existing.  Sure, they were able to exploit the Obama presidency because he actually wanted to restrict gun ownership, but the basic playbook doesn't change.  X happens, the answer is more guns, because the NRA's bosses have an earnings report coming out soon. 

1 minute ago, visionary said:

 

 

Standard Twitter clapback, Im certain, is "no Marco, We The People just don't really like YOU and your complete lack of a nutsack."

Edited February 28, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Fresh8686]

Just now, tshile said:

 

source: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

 

We can all sit around and talk about how we want increased background checks, increased age restrictions, decreased magazine capacity, and even banning semi automatic guns all day long.

 

But until we deal with the fact that 55% of americans think the NRA has the right amount or too little (can you believe 15% think it's too little? I mean wtf) influence in gun policy... i don't know where you expect to get any traction.

 

I'd be curious to see if those numbers would be different if they did that poll again this year.

I personally think things are sustainably swinging towards a direction that will engender greater gun-control mobilization and hopefully a shift in November towards more democrats and also more republicans who are less tied to gun interests. Too much of the narrative of what can and can't be done is poised amidst this backdrop of gun control apathy, that really seems to be shifting.


Regarding this thread I'd like to see boundaries or lines of demarcation created between immediate solutions and long-term substantive solutions, along with a kind of order or operations in place, to prioritize each individual solution along it's respective line of demarcation. Maybe that would make this thread more focused and less contentious and repetitive?
 

[visionary]

 

[Llevron]

On 2/22/2018 at 3:52 PM, PeterMP said:

We're talking about limiting the conversation to what can actually be done.

 

Given the current the Supreme Court, Congress, the NRA, and the general electorate, treating all semi-automatics like automatics isn't something that can be done (currently).

 

@tshile

 

AND you liked it. 

 

Like I said. One side says limit the conversation to what can (in their opinion) actually be done. But when one guy says he doesn't want you to arm teachers thats the problem and everyone is a ****ing hypocrite but you. 

 

Be sick. Please.