The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Larry]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Then here's a pretty straight forward question for you, that you've now dodged over several pages and days.

 

If teachers have to go through regular training, regular screening, and are required to have biometric trigger locks on their guns, why should we use numbers for gun accidents from the general public where there is no regular training, regular screening, or a requirement to have biometric trigger locks on guns?

 

Why shouldn't we say that number is almost certainly wrong?

 

It probably is.  

 

No statistical comparison of different groups is perfect.  

 

Fortunately, I haven't been claiming that it's perfect.  I'm claiming it's in the ballpark.  It is, at the very least, better than simply pulling an opinion out of thin air.  

 

As opposed to you.  Who have claimed that the risk is ZERO.  Or attempted to demand that people demonstrate to you why increasing the number of guns by a thousandfold will increase the number of accidents any.  

 

[visionary]

 

[Busch1724]

Ignorant question, but why in the hell is a grocery store selling guns? I was not aware of Kroger being in the gun business. 

[PeterMP]

48 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

It probably is.  

 

No statistical comparison of different groups is perfect.  

 

Fortunately, I haven't been claiming that it's perfect.  I'm claiming it's in the ballpark.  It is, at the very least, better than simply pulling an opinion out of thin air.  

 

As opposed to you.  Who have claimed that the risk is ZERO.  Or attempted to demand that people demonstrate to you why increasing the number of guns by a thousandfold will increase the number of accidents any.  

 

 

If you've read all my posts, then you know your last part is a LIE.   I've repeatedly said that there will be accidents and issues.  I must have said at least 3 times since yesterday that I will take thousands of what happened yesterday in Georgia over a decade to save one kids life.

 

PleaseBlitz didn't say accidents.  He said shootings by teachers.  And it started with, arming teachers will cause more gun deaths.

 

"Because it will result in more gun deaths, not less."

 

PleaseBlitz is arguing that more people are going to die because teachers are going to shoot more and kill more people.

 

Not that there will be accidents, but actual lethal (where an accident does not have to be lethal) shooting by teachers that are not offset by saved lives.

 

Do you want to try again?

 

*EDIT**

And if you followed the chain of those responses, then you should have found Burgold's post where he specifically raised the issue of accidents, and I specifically stated accidents will happen.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[twa]

23 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

Ignorant question, but why in the hell is a grocery store selling guns? I was not aware of Kroger being in the gun business. 

 

sold by subsidiaries (I'd assume smaller market stores functioning as general stores rather than grocery stores)

 

https://www.fredmeyer.com/

[Bang]

The guns are never fresh at Kroger, and they don't taste nearly as good as guns you make at home.

 

~Bang

[PleaseBlitz]

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

 

PleaseBlitz didn't say accidents.  He said shootings by teachers.  And it started with, arming teachers will cause more gun deaths.

 

"Because it will result in more gun deaths, not less."

 

PleaseBlitz is arguing that more people are going to die because teachers are going to shoot more and kill more people.

 

Not that there will be accidents, but actual lethal (where an accident does not have to be lethal) shooting by teachers that are not offset by saved lives.

 

Do you want to try again?

 

 

 

I did not categorize shootings by teachers as either accidents or non-accidents, you are just making **** up.  

[Llevron]

6 hours ago, PeterMP said:

"ANYBODY using that gun to shoot at ANYBODY else REALLY have to be zero"

 

hmm

[MartinC]

51 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Then here's a pretty straight forward question for you, that you've now dodged over several pages and days.

 

If teachers have to go through regular training, regular screening, and are required to have biometric trigger locks on their guns, why should we use numbers for gun accidents from the general public where there is no regular training, regular screening, or a requirement to have biometric trigger locks on guns?

 

Why shouldn't we say that number is almost certainly wrong?

 

I did say that number is wrong earlier - for the reasons you cite.

 

But the number is not zero. In terms of home use your are 22 times more likely to have a gun injure of kill you or one of your family than be used in any self defensive action. I think it’s logical that the numbers for school use would be much lower. 

 

In my opinion - and this is ALL opinion since there is no really relevant data to really look at - it’s more likely that any guns in schools will cause accidents and fatalities through intentional or unintentional discharge than any use against a school invader. I reject the idea on that basis PLUS the question of what exactly are we teaching our kids by doing this. The answer to violence is more violence and our society is so dangerous you need to be armed at all times?

 

The US has a gun violence problem because there are far too many guns in easy access of civilians. Let’s take real action to do something about that if we really care about protecting people.

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, Bang said:

The guns are never fresh at Kroger, and they don't taste nearly as good as guns you make at home.

 

~Bang

 

Try Larrys Season salt. Makes a world of difference. 

[PeterMP]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

hmm

 

Why'd you cut off the first part of that sentence?

 

"If put in a flight or fight situation when faced with a mass killer and fleeing is really not an option, they aren't going to pull the trigger,"

 

You do notice the IF out in front, no?

 

 

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Why'd you cut off the first part of that sentence?

 

"If put in a flight or fight situation when faced with a mass killer and fleeing is really not an option, they aren't going to pull the trigger,"

 

You do notice the IF out in front, no?

 

 

 

This is the full quote if saw. Im not sure what you are talking about. But if you made another post and thats where this is coming from then I can see the confusion. Im not going to lie, I have little interest in following all of your posts at this point.

 

6 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Which of course, I didn't do.

 

"ANYBODY using that gun to shoot at ANYBODY else REALLY have to be zero"

 

I know you understand the difference between shooting at somebody and an accidental discharge of a weapon, and then of course I give to explicit examples below that.

 

The fact remains, if he's right, the risks go way down.

 

Just to point out, I've never claimed it was easy or that the a large percentage of teachers would be involved in the process.

 

 

Just pointing out why there seems to be so much confusion over your posts - cause this is what I remember. 

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

 

The US has a gun violence problem because there are far too many guns in easy access of civilians. Let’s take real action to do something about that if we really care about protecting people.

 

"If" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. 

[PeterMP]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

This is the full quote if saw. Im not sure what you are talking about. But if you made another post and thats where this is coming from then I can see the confusion. Im not going to lie, I have little interest in following all of your posts at this point.

 

 

 

Just pointing out why there seems to be so much confusion over your posts - cause this is what I remember. 

 

Ah, that's me quoting myself to Larry to emphasize the use of the at as indicated by the quote.  At that time, I wanted to emphasize the use of the at to Larry, and I only pulled the first part.

 

Here's the original full quote from the post I'm quoting:

 

"If put in a flight or fight situation when faced with a mass killer and fleeing is really not an option, they aren't going to pull the trigger, then the chances of ANYBODY using that gun to shoot at ANYBODY else REALLY have to be zero."

 

 

Though, you did read the original post and even laughed at it so you certainly saw it.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[Llevron]

Yea see thats a whole other context. I didnt pick that one up at all my bad playa

 

EDIT: I should have noticed the quotes. Seems obvious now. 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Llevron

[tshile]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

 

In the interest of trying to be positive about these things:

 

I wish people (mainly media and politicians) would stop letting "would not have stopped <shooting event>" be this sort of secondary tag line to everything.

 

The ideas/bills should be evaluated on their own merit. This needs to stop being an emotional thing (in both directions.) 

 

Either being on the no fly list is a good reason to stop someone from owning a gun, or it's not. It doesn't matter which mass shooting it would or would not have prevented.

 

It also makes the idea of crafting a bill harder. If we preface these things with "this would have stopped <mass shooting>" then the subliminal messaging becomes: This is a bill to help stop mass shootings!  So if/when there is another mass shooting, a group of people can say "see, this doesn't work." And no politician wants their name assigned to a bill to stop mass shootings, and then have a mass shooting happen 2 months later. They're too chicken ****.

 

it's amazing to me the level the discussion is (not here - in general.) it seems as though we're very much in need of adults to take over. cause right now it just doesn't feel like an adult conversation.

Edited March 1, 2018 by tshile

[PeterMP]

33 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I did not categorize shootings by teachers as either accidents or non-accidents, you are just making **** up.  

 

I didn't say you did.  But you also didn't just say accidents.  You just said shootings.  And most accidental handgun discharges aren't lethal.  You not only have to accidentally hit somebody, you have to accidentally have to hit them in a way that's lethal.

 

Is it possible that allowing teachers to carry guns in schools with training and screening will actually reduce shootings by teachers in totality?

 

Can we have an increase in accidental discharges, especially that aren't lethal, and have fewer shootings by teachers that are lethal?

 

As we see yesterday (and realistically with school shootings), it isn't like the current rules are really keeping people from bringing guns to school.

 

Polls show over 30% of teachers own a gun.  How many of them have little training and little screening and are bringing those guns to school in an insecure fashion?  Does that change if we allow them to do it with the relevant restrictions?

 

And if they can bring the gun to school with some training, screening, and some security measures in place is it possible that we actually make that home a safer home?

 

I'd argue the last thing is almost a sure thing.

 

(And I've already made this point to Burgold.  Saying there can't be a shooting (accident or otherwise) with a gun in a school by teacher because they can't bring a gun to the school just assumes that teachers follow rules perfectly.

 

Well, if that's the case, then if I say teacher has to have a biometric trigger lock on their gun at all times except for during an active shooting case, then I don't have an issue.)

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[FanboyOf91]

 

 

So basically, if you want Marco Rubio to support your position, you have to publicly humiliate him (Trump, Parkland kids).

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I didn't say you did.  But you also didn't just say accidents.  You just said shootings.  And most accidental handgun discharges aren't lethal.  You not only have to accidentally hit somebody, you have to accidentally have to hit them in a way that's lethal.

 

 

 

Yes.  I just said shootings.  Then you read into it a bunch of stuff I did not say, because you are generally flailing in this thread.  I didn't read the rest of your post since you started it with such a dishonest premise.  

[tshile]

---- 

Also, i'd like in addition to a no-fly, no-buy sort of bill...

 

if you are a verified member of any of the groups that are on that domestic terrorist watch list, you should fail a background check.

if you are a suspected member, the FBI should get an alert that you just bought a gun, and they should do some investigating and figure out what's going on.

 

i'm trying to think of how else we could deal with neo-nazi, white nationalist/supremacist people. i'm now a lawyer, so i'm sort of lost. it's not illegal to not like people, and the whole 2nd amendment and rights thing, so how do you get around all of that to accomplish the goal of paying attention to these people and their desire to shoot other people.

[The Evil Genius]

6 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said:

So basically, if you want Marco Rubio to support your position, you have to publicly humiliate him (Trump, Parkland kids).

 

 

Little Marco likes it rough. I mean..the M in S&M does stand for Marco, right?

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

 

i'm trying to think of how else we could deal with neo-nazi, white nationalist/supremacist people. i'm now a lawyer, so i'm sort of lost. it's not illegal to not like people, and the whole 2nd amendment and rights thing, so how do you get around all of that to accomplish the goal of paying attention to these people and their desire to shoot other people.

 

I think it would not be permissible to discriminate against someone for their political beliefs, no matter how abhorrent.  I would not want to see that even attempted.  IMO we should keep it to searching backgrounds for actual illegal activity, particularly violent activity.  Now, if a neo-nazi group is actually deemed to be a terrorist organization, that's a different story.  

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Yes.  I just said shootings.  Then you read into it a bunch of stuff I did not say, because you are generally flailing in this thread.  I didn't read the rest of your post since you started it with such a dishonest premise.  

 

Just like the NRA not suing local school districts for not allowing teachers to not have guns, I didn't read anything improper into your posts.  I accurately reflected the meaning and content of your posts in my response to Larry.

 

And as soon as Burgold specifically brought up accidents, I directly addressed it (which I've realistically probably done 20 times in this thread).  But we can have an increase is accidental shootings and a decrease in deaths.

43 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

I did say that number is wrong earlier - for the reasons you cite.

 

But the number is not zero. In terms of home use your are 22 times more likely to have a gun injure of kill you or one of your family than be used in any self defensive action. I think it’s logical that the numbers for school use would be much lower. 

 

In my opinion - and this is ALL opinion since there is no really relevant data to really look at - it’s more likely that any guns in schools will cause accidents and fatalities through intentional or unintentional discharge than any use against a school invader. I reject the idea on that basis PLUS the question of what exactly are we teaching our kids by doing this. The answer to violence is more violence and our society is so dangerous you need to be armed at all times?

 

The US has a gun violence problem because there are far too many guns in easy access of civilians. Let’s take real action to do something about that if we really care about protecting people.

 

The fundamental issue that I have is if somebody magically came and said here is money to put more cops at schools, I'm not going to say no, and I don't think most people would.  Yes having cops there increases the number of guns and there is certainly an increase risk with that, but I believe in totality for the most part cops reduce deaths, and I think by and large most people do.

 

So I have an issue with the first part of your post.  We have more security pretty much everywhere.  And yes teachers aren't cops, but I don't expect them to be able to do all the things cops can or would (even those just stationed at a school).

 

As for the last 2 sentences, I agree wholeheartedly.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Just like the NRA not suing local school districts for not allowing teachers to not have guns, I didn't read anything improper into your posts.  I accurately reflected the meaning and content of your posts in my response to Larry.

 

I strongly disagree, and I think it's pretty clear to everyone else that read my very simple posts.  

 

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

And as soon as Burgold specifically brought up accidents, I directly addressed it (which I've realistically probably done 20 times in this thread).  But we can have an increase is accidental shootings and a decrease in deaths.

 

I think you are conflating things that different people have said into one big hodgepodge.  I'm not surprised given that you seem bent on responding to every single post in this thread.  Case in point, your last sentence, while true, is entirely unrelated to anything that I've actually said in this thread.  

[tshile]

17 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said:

 

 

So basically, if you want Marco Rubio to support your position, you have to publicly humiliate him (Trump, Parkland kids).

 

 

 

Peh. I'm not cheersing that.

 

show me Rubio actually voting for gun law reform and then I'll sort of care.

 

He has a habit of saying stuff like this and then doing the exact opposite when given the opportunity to make good on it.