Yet another school shooting in America

[shaft]

Here, try this article out. It may help you dopey bastards who keep saying banning guns works in other countries understand why your logic is flawed.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/o ... gle.com%2F

It's from the NY Times, you should love it.

See the start of a "home grown" plan above.

lol, "Australians fear guns and Americans love guns" A+++ op-ed. You win!

[SOAPboy]

Here, try this article out. It may help you dopey bastards who keep saying banning guns works in other countries understand why your logic is flawed.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/o ... gle.com%2F

It's from the NY Times, you should love it.

See the start of a "home grown" plan above.

lol, "Australians fear guns and Americans love guns" A+++ op-ed. You win!

They neglect the dozens of other places that banned guns and suddenly had little to no gun violence anymore. Fuckin americans and guns.

[Eraser]

Here, try this article out. It may help you dopey bastards who keep saying banning guns works in other countries understand why your logic is flawed.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/o ... gle.com%2F

The article doesn't state that an outright gun ban wouldn't end mass shootings, it states that the American population in general simply wouldn't accept such a solution and therefore isn't as easy to pass as it was in Australia.
It's akin to saying that stopping smoking won't improve your health because you're too addicted to cigarettes to stop smoking in the first place.

[YourGrandpa]

Still in denial, even though strict gun control in American has been proven to be mostly ineffective.

In America we have a different relationship with guns, we have a powerful gun lobby and a constitutional right. As long as morons continue to scream BAN GUNS, there's going to be another set of morons screaming back. It's funny how the left comments about how things never seem to change no matter what happens. But they refuse to change their approach. When do you recognize Americans will never accept gun "bans"? However, most us realize we need reform. There really needs to be more focus on the people we allow to have guns instead of the actual gun. Until we remove the unreasonable extremists on both side of the conversation, change will continue to be difficult.

[seremtan]

RIP to all the victims of cellphone shootings

thoughts and prayers

[Eraser]

Still in denial, even though strict gun control in American has been proven to be mostly ineffective.

In America we have a different relationship with guns, we have a powerful gun lobby and a constitutional right. As long as morons continue to scream BAN GUNS, there's going to be another set of morons screaming back. It's funny how the left comments about how things never seem to change no matter what happens. But they refuse to change their approach. When do you recognize Americans will never accept gun "bans"? However, most us realize we need reform. There really needs to be more focus on the people we allow to have guns instead of the actual gun. Until we remove the unreasonable extremists on both side of the conversation, change will continue to be difficult.

The problem is that this powerful gun lobby in the US is opposed to any form of restrictions on gun ownership. This lobby has a huge influence on US politics while the anti gun lobby isn't nearly as powerful, no thing really happens.

It's quite simple: an outright gun ban is a method that will have a significant impact on the number of mass (school) shootings. The problem is that due to cultural aspects, such a measure is nearly impossible to actually implement in the US because of opposition due to rednecks such as yourself. That, however, doesn't mean nothing should be do to regulate gun ownership.

[YourGrandpa]

The problem is that this powerful gun lobby in the US is opposed to any form of restrictions on gun ownership. This lobby has a huge influence on US politics while the anti gun lobby isn't nearly as powerful, no thing really happens.

It's quite simple: an outright gun ban is a method that will have a significant impact on the number of mass (school) shootings. The problem is that due to cultural aspects, such a measure is nearly impossible to actually implement in the US because of opposition due to rednecks such as yourself. That, however, doesn't mean nothing should be do to regulate gun ownership.

Huh? You're parroting exactly what I just said. But somehow I'm a redneck that doesn't understand the necessity of additional reform.

To now say nothing really happens isn't true. You can already see republicans bucking the the NRA. Trump has tossed around ideas for national reform. Florida republican governor Rick Scott has already passed a law that adds restrictions to the possession of fire arms. Florida republican Senators Brian Mast and Marco Rubio are pushing for additional reform. Are these politician going to be met with resistance. Of course. But things are happening.

It needs to be understood that America will not stand for a "ban". Continuing to bitch and complain or push for a ban is FUTILE. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. It's time for a NEW collective approach that will allow for positive change. Keep screaming at the sky if you want. But if you really "care" about the lives of others you will get behind progressive ideas like the ones I've suggested.

[Eraser]

Because this:

Isn't it odd how 11 teenagers die EVERY DAY while texting and driving, and there isn't an outcry even close? No agenda here.

is the post that started this whole (sub)discussion. And it was in response to people denouncing the idea of arming teachers and saying how that's a bad idea. In fact, in this entire thread I don't think anyone called for an outright ban on guns. So if you're responding with "cellphones kill people" against people who simply question whether enough is done against gun violence in the US, then you're implying you're against what people have been discussing before (stricter gun control, not outright bans, mind).

Right now, however, we're at the point where you're saying that stricter control on gun ownership is necessary but an outright ban wouldn't work in the US due to whatever reason. So either you've been unclear about your point of view before, or you're backpedaling. So it's you that's parroting me now, not the other way around. Either way, bringing up cellphones is incredibly dumb.

[YourGrandpa]

My original point was, if you were so concerned about "life" you would be better to focus your angst toward texting and driving. Because banning ONE style of rifle (AR-15) is STUPID. Of course as conversations evolve the discussion changes. I then re-stated thoughts I've had for years. I also went on to say we had a powerful gun lobby (among other things) that make gun legislation particularly difficult. Then you followed up by echoing the same thing. I'm not backpedaling or changing my position. The problem is, you're coming into this discussion with preconceived notions and a closed mind. I can't help it if you can't/refuse to understand.

[Eraser]

I'm the one with preconceived notions? lol. What exactly are those preconceived notions then?

It's just very hard to take anything you say seriously after you compare people getting murdered using firearms to people getting involved in a traffic accident due to texting while driving.
It's been said before and I've been dropping hints towards this, but for some reason you don't seem to grasp the fact that it's not just about preservation of life, it's also the cause of loss of life. Getting murdered by a lunatic with a firearm is way down on the ethical ladder compared to accidentally getting killed by someone that is texting while driving.
Additionally, I'm not saying nothing should be done against the latter, but just because there's a bigger cause of loss of life than firearms doesn't mean nothing should be done against firearms. Like I said before, the "they're doing it worse" is a very poor argument for or against anything.

[plained]

reeeee

[YourGrandpa]

I'm the one with preconceived notions? lol. What exactly are those preconceived notions then?

That I'm a right wing redneck gun nut that doesn't understand the need for gun control or is open to future change.

It's just very hard to take anything you say seriously after you compare people getting murdered using firearms to people getting involved in a traffic accident due to texting while driving.

Both are loss of life by the misuse of an inanimate object. Both kill the user and people around them, and both are avoidable with the appropriate regulation. Therefore they are similar with regard to prevention and result.

It's been said before and I've been dropping hints towards this, but for some reason you don't seem to grasp the fact that it's not just about preservation of life, it's also the cause of loss of life. Getting murdered by a lunatic with a firearm is way down on the ethical ladder compared to accidentally getting killed by someone that is texting while driving.

So the life lost to the misuse of a firearm is more tragic/important than the misuse of a cell phone. I guess you should tell that to the parent of the dead teenagers who couldn't put down their phones.

Additionally, I'm not saying nothing should be done against the latter, but just because there's a bigger cause of loss of life than firearms doesn't mean nothing should be done against firearms. Like I said before, the "they're doing it worse" is a very poor argument for or against anything.

I'm not saying nothing should be done about firearms either. But don't come at me with the bullshit excuse that school shootings are killing hundreds of kids and that's why we need more gun control. Because we loose thousands to texting and driving. Be honest with me and yourself. It's not about the preservation of life. If it was, you'd be open to ANY reasonable reform that would prevent deaths. Banning one type of firearm or raising the age limit a few years isn't going to do shit in the grand scheme of things. We need legislation that better regulates the national distribution of all firearms.

[Eraser]

Dude, I already told you, it's not solely about preservation of life. Just plainly lobbing both murder and accidents into the "misuse of an object" category is grossly over-simplifying things to an unexcusable extent.
Besides, shooting other people with an AR-15 arguably is proper use of an object. What else are you gonna do with it?

And things are being done against texting while driving. For starters, it's illegal. Owning an AR-15 is not.

Also, I never said gun problems in the US would be solved just by banning AR-15's

[YourGrandpa]

If it's not about preservation of life, how else do you justify taking rights away from millions of law abiding citizens? Especially when you can't guarantee taking those rights would prevent future mass killings or keep people safe. All you have is the notion that it worked in other countries that are NOTHING like America. When in fact, stricter gun control largely doesn't work in America when implemented. All making any continued push for a ban seem logistically ridiculous.

[Scourge]

And things are being done against texting while driving. For starters, it's illegal.

Not getting into gun debate, but really dude? So is murder.

[SOAPboy]

If it's not about preservation of life, how else do you justify taking rights away from millions of law abiding citizens? Especially when you can't guarantee taking those rights would prevent future mass killings or keep people safe. All you have is the notion that it worked in other countries that are NOTHING like America. When in fact, stricter gun control largely doesn't work in America when implemented. All making any continued push for a ban seem logistically ridiculous.

Keep on sucking that NRA tit bro. Enjoy your guns while they last.




Theres really no place in this world for regular people to be so well armed. We need far far harsher regulations on guns and the # of guns people can own should be far more limited. As well as ammo.

Keep on pretending America isnt evolving. Keep on pretending.

[Eraser]

If it's not about preservation of life, how else do you justify taking rights away from millions of law abiding citizens? Especially when you can't guarantee taking those rights would prevent future mass killings or keep people safe. All you have is the notion that it worked in other countries that are NOTHING like America. When in fact, stricter gun control largely doesn't work in America when implemented. All making any continued push for a ban seem logistically ridiculous.

You don't read what I say:

- I didn't say it was not about preservation of life. I just said there's more factors than that which distinguishes one type of death from the other.

- I pointed out your "gun ban won't work in the US" argument seems solely based on the argument that such a ban wouldn't be accepted by many americans. You haven't provided arguments or indeed proof that if such ruling did in fact come to pass and people would comply, that the number of mass shootings wouldn't drop.

- You keep droning on about a gun ban, which is something I (or anyone in this thread) haven't suggested.

Interestingly, now you say that stricter gun control won't work in the US. To be clear, here's that quote again:

When in fact, stricter gun control largely doesn't work in America when implemented

Not just that, it's "in fact". So yeah, citation needed. Tell me, if stricter gun control laws wouldn't help, what would? That plan you posted? Looks a lot like stricter gun control to me

[SOAPboy]

- You keep droning on about a gun ban, which is something I (or anyone in this thread) haven't suggested.

I have.

I really do feel like MOST guns need to be banned. Things like pump action shotguns or whatever, bolt action hunting rifles, things like that I have no major issues with, They fill all the purposes that gun owners try to argue. Hunting, and home protection. But handguns need way fucking harder laws and anything that even slightly resembles an AR-15, AK47, Mp5, Whatever. Needs to go. Those are not something regular people should just have laying around.

So, I do really want a "ban" for some of this stuff. So maybe hes talking about me.

[Eraser]

Heh ok. I don't disagree with you though, but Gramps does have a point (assuming that is the point he's trying to make) about wholesale bans being hard to swallow for many Americans. At the very least, something like that needs to become gradually stricter over a period of years.

[SOAPboy]

Heh ok. I don't disagree with you though, but Gramps does have a point (assuming that is the point he's trying to make) about wholesale bans being hard to swallow for many Americans. At the very least, something like that needs to become gradually stricter over a period of years.

Yep, and im reasonable enough to understand that.

Buuuuuut at the same time, AR-15s, etcs, Should be on the short list of "nope, those are gone now you have X months to turn over to Y and if you qualify to use it at a range maybe you can still visit on weekends "

We could easily talk about keeping those kinds of guns at places like that, Japan I believe does hand guns that way? I think its Japan.

*shrug*

[Transient]

I'd just like to point out that when the 2nd amendment was written, we were shooting muskets and flintlock pistols.

[Eraser]

Buuuuuut at the same time, AR-15s, etcs, Should be on the short list of "nope, those are gone now you have X months to turn over to Y and if you qualify to use it at a range maybe you can still visit on weekends "

We're definitely on the same page here.
Funny how that took only 3 posts while 5 pages of posts still has Gramps arguing against himself.

[SOAPboy]

Buuuuuut at the same time, AR-15s, etcs, Should be on the short list of "nope, those are gone now you have X months to turn over to Y and if you qualify to use it at a range maybe you can still visit on weekends "

We're definitely on the same page here.
Funny how that took only 3 posts while 5 pages of posts still has Gramps arguing against himself.

Well, we're both clearly rational people.

I'd just like to point out that when the 2nd amendment was written, we were shooting muskets and flintlock pistols.

But But But Daaaaad The government only had flink locks toooooooo

[Eraser]

I'm pretty sure the 2nd amendment should allow for ownership of drones, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets and nuclear submarines as well.

[seremtan]

well now that's been sorted out once and for all, let's move on to world peace and an end to poverty