The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Case in point, your last sentence, while true, is entirely unrelated to anything that I've actually said in this thread.  

 

More (accidental) shootings by teachers does not need to mean more deaths.

 

5 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

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

 

4 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

2.  Because (1) arming teachers will lead to more shootings by teachers and (2) armed teachers will lead to more heavily armed school shooters, not deter them from doing it. 

 

Training will likely make teachers that already own guns better stewards of their guns.  They'll be carrying their gun more (in some cases, MAYBE) and so MAYBE accidents will go up, but they will also be less likely to have a lethal accident or unintentional shooting of an innocent person.  Across the board, they'll probably have better security on their gun.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

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.  

 

I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate it.

 

I also understand there's a real issue with white supremacy and neo-nazi and guns, and how that differs from 'political beliefs'

 

But i also understand how difficult, if not impossible, it is to legally draw lines especially when we're talking about constitutional rights.

 

also i said i'm now a lawyer but i intended to say not a lawyer. i just wanted to clear up any confusion since sometimes i come across and being one of you all knowing types.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate it.

 

I also understand there's a real issue with white supremacy and neo-nazi and guns, and how that differs from 'political beliefs'

 

But i also understand how difficult, if not impossible, it is to legally draw lines especially when we're talking about constitutional rights.

 

I think there's a real issue with a lot of groups and guns.  I just don't think you can categorize people by political affiliation for disparate treatment, because having ****ty political beliefs is not against any law.  I think it's a tough place to draw lines, but I think you start at "have they broken any laws?" or possible "have they been creditbly accused of violent behavior in the past (e.g., any restraining orders, things like that).

 

10 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

also i said i'm now a lawyer but i intended to say not a lawyer. i just wanted to clear up any confusion since sometimes i come across and being one of you all knowing types.

 

 

 

I had 0% confusion on that point.  

[FanboyOf91]

That'll fix it.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

1)  After re-reading your post that really got to me, I note that you were describing a hypothetical, in which the risks would be zero.  I really think your logic in making that assertion is completely invalid.  But my response to that caused me to lose sight of the fact that it was a hypothetical. 

 

I really think you've made that assertion elsewhere, as well.  But it was that one post that really set me off.  I'm going to assume that my mis-reading of that one post probably made me hyper-sensitive, causing me to see it in other posts, too.  

 

2)  Granted, I'm defending somebody else's post, here.  But I'm going to point out that a statement that "more guns create more gun deaths" does not in any way assert that accidents don't count.  Or that the increased deaths will occur solely because of intentional, aimed, fire from teachers deliberately targeting children.  (Although I will point out - Yes, there is a non-zero probability of a teacher "going postal" or some such.  And the odds of said teacher killing a student in a temporary rage does actually increase, if said teacher has a gun.  Obviously, if he doesn't have a gun, the odds of him shooting a student are zero.)  

 

Our country as a whole is a shining example that there are lots of ways people can die from gunshots.  Accidental discharges, suicides, mistaken identities, temporary rages, justified self defense, premeditated murder are some of the biggies.  

 

And all of those are facilitated (and made more lethal) by having easy access to a gun.  (The good and the bad).  

 

[PleaseBlitz]

55 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

More (accidental) shootings by teachers does not need to mean more deaths.

 

So your position, then, is that non-lethal shootings are a-okay?  Well that's not my position.  

 

Quote

 

 

 

Training will likely make teachers that already own guns better stewards of their guns.  They'll be carrying their gun more (in some cases, MAYBE) and so MAYBE accidents will go up, but they will also be less likely to have a lethal accident or unintentional shooting of an innocent person.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that, again, I made no distinction between accidental vs. intentional shootings, and this entire train of thought you are going down, again, has zero basis in any of my prior posts, do you have ANY evidence whatsoever for any of these claims other than your gut feeling? 

 

I'll also point out that you've consistently failed to recognize that my reasoning for why their will be more deaths has 2 components, the second one being that gunmen will simply acquire more firepower to offset the fact that a few frightened teachers may have guns.  

 

And I'll just end on a restatement of another point I made that you ignored, then let you get back to your foolishness:

 

This [arming teachers] is all beside the point, which is this: arming teachers is a stupid proposition, and the NRA knows it's a stupid proposition, but they also know that gun nuts are stupid enough to run with it so now everyone is talking about this stupid proposition rather than rationale ones that might actually stop people from getting murdered, because those rational propositions uniformly would reduce the number of guns being sold, which harms the bottom line of gun manufacturers, and improving the profits of gun manufacturers is the only reason the NRA exists.

 

 

18 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said:

That'll fix it.

 

Look, we need to give ALL schoolchildren the most violent video games conceivable so that everyone learns how to properly execute headshots.  Then would-be school shooters would think twice (said the Entertainment Software Association).

Edited March 1, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Larry]

53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

More (accidental) shootings by teachers does not need to mean more deaths.

 

While it is technically accurate that, if one were (to pull a number out of the air) to increase the number of accidental shootings ten-fold, the number of deaths might remain constant, I don't think that's the assumption we should be basing our arguments on.  

 

Silly me, but I tend to assume that the number of people who die from accidental shootings is pretty much proportional to the number of people who get accidentally shot in a random place, by accidental shootings.  

 

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by Larry

[tshile]

8 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Look, we need to give ALL schoolchildren the most violent video games conceivable so that everyone learns how to properly execute headshots.  Then would-be school shooters would think twice. 

flash bang short a i'll go awp long a

[Larry]

54 minutes ago, tshile said:

i just wanted to clear up any confusion since sometimes i come across and being one of you all knowing types.

 

Us all knowing types are well aware that you're not one of us.  

 

(That's cause we're all knowing.)  

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

So your position, then, is that non-lethal shootings are a-okay?  Well that's not my position.  

 

 

Notwithstanding the fact that, again, I made no distinction between accidental vs. intentional shootings, and this entire train of thought you are going down, again, has zero basis in any of my prior posts, do you have ANY evidence whatsoever for any of these claims other than your gut feeling? 

 

I'll also point out that you've consistently failed to recognize that my reasoning for why their will be more deaths has 2 components, the second one being that gunmen will simply acquire more firepower to offset the fact that a few frightened teachers may have guns.  

 

And I'll just end on a restatement of another point I made that you ignored, then let you get back to your foolishness:

 

This [arming teachers] is all beside the point, which is this: arming teachers is a stupid proposition, and the NRA knows it's a stupid proposition, but they also know that gun nuts are stupid enough to run with it so now everyone is talking about this stupid proposition rather than rationale ones that might actually stop people from getting murdered, because those rational propositions uniformly would reduce the number of guns being sold, which harms the bottom line of gun manufacturers, and improving the profits of gun manufacturers is the only reason the NRA exists.

 

 

 

Look, we need to give ALL schoolchildren the most violent video games conceivable so that everyone learns how to properly execute headshots.  Then would-be school shooters would think twice (said the Entertainment Software Association).

 

1.  Yesterday's shooting by the GA teacher was not accidental, but I've said I'll trade thousands of them over a decade for one life.  Even if it was an accident, it would not be okay with me, but that is a trade I'd make.  Thousands of accidental shootings over a decade that have the same result as yesterday's GA shooting is a trade 

 

2.  You don't think training people with guns makes them more safe with guns?  That's now something I have to prove?

 

3.  I'm not quite sure of what to make of your 2nd proposition.  I've actually been thinking about it.  How much fire power do you think they will get and how?

 

Getting an automatic weapon in this country is very hard.  They could go the illegal route, but I don't think that's easy and that increases the chances that we catch them before the shooting.  Do you think that the FL shooter would have brought a 2nd AR-15 if he though there was going to be armed teachers?

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

While it is technically accurate that, if one were (to pull a number out of the air) to increase the number of accidental shootings ten-fold, the number of deaths might remain constant, I don't think that's the assumption we should be basing our arguments on.  

 

Silly me, but I tend to assume that the number of people who die from accidental shootings is pretty much proportional to the number of people who get accidentally shot in a random place, by accidental shootings.  

 

 

 

First, not all accidental shootings hit somebody.  Just pointing the gun in the right direction (not towards a person) greatly decrease the odds of hitting somebody, much less killing somebody.  Even if have it out and it goes off, you are better off shooting somebody you can't see (through a wall) then somebody you can see.

 

Second, who said anything about deaths from accidental shootings.

 

"More (accidental) shootings by teachers does not need to mean more deaths."

 

Try again.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[Larry]

7 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

First, not all accidental shootings hit somebody.  Just pointing the gun in the right direction (not towards a person) greatly decrease the odds of hitting somebody, much less killing somebody.

 

Second, who said anything about deaths from accidental shootings.

 

"More (accidental) shootings by teachers does not need to mean more deaths."

 

While it is true that (I assume almost all) accidental discharges don't hit anybody, it does seem likely that if you increase the number of randomly-fired bullets, the number of said bullets that hit (and kill) people will increase proportionately.  

 

Now, if you wish to assert that yes, arming teachers will increase the number of kids who get accidentally shot, but you assert that it will result in an even greater reduction in the number who get intentionally killed, thus resulting in a net decrease in deaths, then I'll agree with you.  It's certainly possible.  

 

However, your lead-off sentence certainly does make it easy for people to read your post and to think that you're asserting that more random bullets will result in zero harm, because every single one of them will miss.  

[visionary]

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

While it is true that (I assume almost all) accidental discharges don't hit anybody, it does seem likely that if you increase the number of randomly-fired bullets, the number of said bullets that hit (and kill) people will increase proportionately.  

 

Now, if you wish to assert that yes, arming teachers will increase the number of kids who get accidentally shot, but you assert that it will result in an even greater reduction in the number who get intentionally killed, thus resulting in a net decrease in deaths, then I'll agree with you.  It's certainly possible.  

 

However, your lead-off sentence certainly does make it easy for people to read your post and to think that you're asserting that more random bullets will result in zero harm, because every single one of them will miss.  

 

1.  Going back to my days in gun safety, it matters how you carry a gun so that if you do trip, fall, and have an accidental discharge that you don't actually shoot somebody.  When you clean a gun, it matters how you do it and how you hold and point the gun in case you have an accident.  There are safe ways to care for and carry weapons that make it less likely an accidental discharge is going to hit somebody or hit something vital.

 

When I was doing them as a kid, the goal of gun safety programs was not just to reduce the risks of you having an accident, but to reduce the risks of you shooting somebody if you DID have an accident.  Now, maybe every teacher out there with a gun is an already a fire arms expert, but I doubt it.

 

I'm talking about increasing the amount of time people carry weapons, but I'm also talking about increasing the amount of training and security they have for those weapons (and the amount of screening they have too).  If you take two people one with gun training and the other one without and give them guns, it is likely it will take longer for the one with gun training to to have an accident, but it is also likely if they have an accident it will be less likely to be lethal.

 

I've said I think accidents will happen.  I think the rate will be very low.  It will be akin to a cop accidentally shooting somebody while in a situation they have no reason to have their gun drawn (e.g. shooting an innocent person/by stand when not being threatened in the police station.  Deaths in those kinds of cases seem to be unheard of).

 

I'll give you another example.  When was the last time an SRO killed somebody in a school where they weren't being threatened.  I know an SRO shot somebody accidentally, but the person didn't die.  And SROs don't have biometric trigger locks on their guns.

 

And we'll generally be increasing the gun safety of the teachers and their homes that have guns, which itself will likely reduce gun deaths.

 

2.  That is the lead off sentence in that post, and it was separated from any other comment in that post to be read as an independent idea.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

A primary assumption in this thread appears to be that there aren't teachers currently carrying weapons into schools illegally and that given the opportunity to do so legally with training, screening, and greater security measures, they will do so and present a less of a risk.

 

Or that their aren't guns in schools legally where we have no idea of how much training there is to use that gun.  Again, we've had a principal in this thread say he knows there are some schools that keep a gun in the office.

Edited March 1, 2018 by PeterMP

[Larry]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

A primary assumption in this thread appears to be that there aren't teachers currently carrying weapons into schools illegally and that given the opportunity to do so legally with training, screening, and greater security measures, they will do so and present a less of a risk.

 

Or that their aren't guns in schools legally where we have no idea of how much training there is to use that gun.  Again, we've had a principal in this thread say he knows there are some schools that keep a gun in the office.

 

I don't believe that the definition of "primary assumption" is " something which not one person has ever asserted, but which one poster has tried, multiple times, to claim that other people think it". 

[Springfield]

5 hours ago, FanboyOf91 said:

That'll fix it.

 

Hmm.  Video games depicting guns for their intended purpose.  Like movies or music depicting guns for their intended purpose.

 

We should have a talk with the arts.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I’m exhausted by this debate. Look, everybody just do what I tell you. Ok?

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[@DCGoldPants]

On 2/28/2018 at 5:26 PM, @SkinsGoldPants said:

Trump to Republican senator: 'You're afraid of the NRA'

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/28/politics/trump-senators-afraid-nra/index.html

 

If there is anything GOP fights him on, it'll be this. 

 

Then again, he probably will say the opposite tomorrow. 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[thinwhiteduke]

Guns are bad .of course they are.

But if you allow govt to take them. You'll just  have to bend over  and take the Police  State from your govt and like it. 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, thinwhiteduke said:

Guns are bad .of course they are.

But if you allow govt to take them. You'll just  have to bend over  and take the Police  State from your govt and like it. 

#1. Nobody wants to take away all of the guns (except for a few extremists).

#2. Lots of countries have gun control and aren't police states.

#3. If the govt wanted to institute a police state (which is an absurd notion in itself), Joe Blow and his guns would stand exactly a 0% chance of stopping them.

#4. You're a conspiracy guy. Did the shooting even happen?

[thinwhiteduke]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

#1. Nobody wants to take away all of the guns (except for a few extremists).

#2. Lots of countries have gun control and aren't police states.

#3. If the govt wanted to institute a police state (which is an absurd notion in itself), Joe Blow and his guns would stand exactly a 0% chance of stopping them.

#4. You're a conspiracy guy. Did the shooting even happen?

 

1. it doesnt matter if all you have is hand guns. no suppresive army will cower to your pee shooters.

2. they arent right now. But they  will be sooner rather than later. We already are in some ways because we give cops far more power than they really deserve or actually have. most laws are useless money grabs. and police are instructed not to tell you what and how a law actually works or is defined.

3. so youre admitting youre at the mercy of a oppressive govt but yet you call yourself free and in a free country? lol

4. all these shooting are practice exercises portrayed as real.these are purposely done to ignite gun control debates. a pretty boy kid who's dad works for the fbi, is the one they interview?. During the so called shooting, he's calmly filming himself with his own phone talking about it like its no big deal. the fbi was at the school 2 weeks before.

this Hogg kid ( of course thats not his real name) gets flown from LA to NY , Fox,CNN etc. giving these all to well prepared speeches and answers. do some research. Watch his eyes when he talks. plenty of people who took video journalism say he's obviously reading his lines because he hardly moves.

 a girl says a thin book she held to her face helped her from getting shot..lol so dumb.

 

watch this. this is not someone who didnt already constantly practice how to be on camera.  he's too calm, too prepared, too fluid. This is not a high school kid.

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Regarding the No Fly, No Buy proposal, has ANY of the mass shooters been on that list? 

 

Note: I'm not saying that is an argument for/against the bill.  Just curious.