18yrs old - too young to own guns - yet 16yrs old - Old enough to stipulate gun policy?? - madness

a reply to: Byrd

What I'm thinking is that he hardly has a monopoly on it.

Is he the only one who has suffered harm from guns, or rather the assholes using them? I can safely assure you that he isn't.

His history doesn't make him suddenly some font of all wisdom. I disagree with him. Rather strongly, though I don't think I really need to say that...

He's entitled to his opinion. I think he's badly mistaken. The moment someone in that crowd comes up with something original to solve the issues before us of violence in schools, let me know. I've heard nothing original in the past 15 years. I learned what works long before that. It's called standing up to the bullies/cowards who think it's their right to inflict pain and suffering upon those they deem weaker than themselves.

If some of these oh, so concerned students were to turn their attention to the issues of peer to peer bullying in the classrooms and hallways of the schools in this country, the issues of school violence, not just these horrific shootings, would be curtailed to a shocking degree. But that, I guess, isn't flashy enough for some. That wouldn't get them on CNN for their 15 minutes of fame.

As for his bully pulpit? Whose pulpit is it really? His, or his "advisers"/controllers, or someone else entirely? Forgive me if I'm not all that trusting of his advisers who are so quick to profit from tragedy.

This whole episode is designed to appeal to emotion. Who doesn't get emotional about people getting killed by some madman with a gripe? I certainly do, so do you. That's what's being appealed to here, raw emotion. Get so emotional we react without thinking. What's that old saying? Act in haste, repent at leisure...?

I can't claim to know you well. But we've chatted on many differing topics over the years we've been here. Some we've agreed, some not so much. This is going to be one of the latter, I'm afraid.

It's not the kids I've a problem with... It's the adults behind the scenes that I've serious trust issues with. I do not trust their altruistic act, in the slightest. These kids are going to get burned, and burned badly, is my fear for them. Not their ideas, though I don't particularly like them, they're hardly original to them.

The meaning of democracy implies that everyone should have an equal voice and is entitled to freely form their own opinion, and as far as I am concerned judging people’s right to an opinion or the validity of it is a great infringement on freedom. That’s not to say that all opinions are correct - after all if someone is shown only one side of an arguement it’s clear what side they’ll stand on - but the best one can do is share the reasoning for their beliefs and present their beliefs the best they can in the hope of educating and thus inspiring others to appreciate your point of view.

Of course, where a minority imposes their opinion on the masses, freedom has been lost (such is the way in dictatorships for example). But to be truly free, and possess the basic freedom to form our own opinions, therefore relies on our acceptance of others’ right to an opinion, whether or not you agree with it.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

Two questions. What percentage of gun deaths are caused by mass shootings in the United States? What do you think should be changed about the current gun laws?

The percentage of gun deaths caused by mass shootings don't have any relevance compared to the number of lives taken in the act of mass shootings and crimes committed with a gun. To compare a smaller percentage of deaths attributed to mass shootings compared to the total amount of deaths based upon deaths committed by other means in the United States is a ridiculous comparison. It basically trying to reduce the impact of mass shootings by comparing such nonsense.

Here's a link to basic statistics on gun violence and mass shootings in America. The statistics are nothing less than alarming.

How U.S. Gun Culture Compares to the World.

What do you think should be changed about the current gun laws?

I side with the same gun law changes that the Parkland Students are fighting for...

-A ban on semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds

-A ban on bump stocks and other accessories that simulate automatic weapons

-The creation of a database for gun sales and universal background checks

-Raise the legal age to purchase guns to 21

-Close the gun show loophole and loophole for second-hand gun sales

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Two questions. What percentage of gun deaths are caused by mass shootings in the United States? What do you think should be changed about the current gun laws?

The percentage of gun deaths caused by mass shootings don't have any relevance compared to the number of lives taken in the act of mass shootings and crimes committed with a gun. To compare a smaller percentage of deaths attributed to mass shootings compared to the total amount of deaths based upon deaths committed by other means in the United States is a ridiculous comparison. It basically trying to reduce the impact of mass shootings by comparing such nonsense.

Here's a link to basic statistics on gun violence and mass shootings in America. The statistics are nothing less than alarming.

How U.S. Gun Culture Compares to the World.

What do you think should be changed about the current gun laws?

I side with the same gun law changes that the Parkland Students are fighting for...

-A ban on semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds

-A ban on bump stocks and other accessories that simulate automatic weapons

-The creation of a database for gun sales and universal background checks

-Raise the legal age to purchase guns to 21

-Close the gun show loophole and loophole for second-hand gun sales

It does have relevance when you are using the mass shootings to push your gun ban agenda.

So let me get this straight you want to ban the simi-automatic rifles that kill less people than all other gun types (like 5%) but yet leave the laws unchanged when it comes to the handgun that is responsible for like 70% of all gun killings in the United States?

Did I miss something? Perhaps you can explain this flawed logic.

The Second Amendment reads as follows: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are two statements above, separated by a comma. If we were actually invaded, everyone owning a gun and useful with a gun can be called upon to defend the country. When they are called upon to do so, a well regulated malitia is the method the founders are hopeful the people would be prepared for. And yes, all that oppose the ability to defend oneself, state and country are either useful idiots and enemies or just enemies. There is only one group that ever wants to take away the ability of self defense, and they are ENEMIES. Either purposeful or just plain idiots.

a reply to: WeRpeons

a reply to: craterman

Then why do we have a standing army? The Articles of Confederation make it clear that the Founders wanted militias controlled by the states, not a standing federal army. If our citizenry is armed, we should abolish the Defense Department. That way, we would not need to fear the central government would take up arms against its fellow citizens. Anyone who disagrees, using your logic, is a monarchist who rejects the core principles of our Constitution.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

It's topics like this that breed contempt for adults among teenagers. The assumption that teenagers can't articulate or understand the points they are making is just silly and not to mention insulting. Though it will probably forever remain a low hanging fruit way of dismissing children's concerns.

Fun Fact: While they may be too young to own or operate a firearm, no one is EVER too young to be killed by a firearm. Perhaps you should take that into consideration and rethink this OP? I doubt you will though. It's easier to pretend like teenagers are drooling morons who can't think for themselves instead of real people.

You are correct in that we should not have a standing army. That is also a huge problem with the US of A today. But reducing rights is not the fix to that problem.

a reply to: DJW001

Not smart enough to keep Tide pods out of your mouth, not smart enough to influence policy.

originally posted by: craterman
You are correct in that we should not have a standing army. That is also a huge problem with the US of A today. But reducing rights is not the fix to that problem.

a reply to: DJW001

We are given the right to "bear arms," meaning serve in a militia during wartime. Pretty sure Thomas Jefferson would not object to banning massive private arsenals that go beyond self defense into the realm of stockpiling for an insurrection to overthrow constitutional government.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Byrd

What I'm thinking is that he hardly has a monopoly on it.

Is he the only one who has suffered harm from guns, or rather the assholes using them? I can safely assure you that he isn't.

His history doesn't make him suddenly some font of all wisdom. I disagree with him. Rather strongly, though I don't think I really need to say that...

But surely you'd admit that it gives him a personal perspective that many people don't have?

He's entitled to his opinion. I think he's badly mistaken. The moment someone in that crowd comes up with something original to solve the issues before us of violence in schools, let me know. I've heard nothing original in the past 15 years. I learned what works long before that. It's called standing up to the bullies/cowards who think it's their right to inflict pain and suffering upon those they deem weaker than themselves.

There's better answers than that - part of it is removing a culture that encourages or promotes the idea that a "man" has to be "manly" and use force to enforce their opinions. Many of the incidents where 4 or more people were injured or killed by a firearm are not by people who were bullied. And many people (I'm thinking of "road rage") with firearms are using them as a tool to deal with personal frustration.

If some of these oh, so concerned students were to turn their attention to the issues of peer to peer bullying in the classrooms and hallways of the schools in this country, the issues of school violence, not just these horrific shootings, would be curtailed to a shocking degree.

I disagree here. In a number of cases, the person doing the shooting at a school or other location is not from that location. At Parkland, the student had been kicked out of school.

This whole episode is designed to appeal to emotion. Who doesn't get emotional about people getting killed by some madman with a gripe? I certainly do, so do you. That's what's being appealed to here, raw emotion. Get so emotional we react without thinking. What's that old saying? Act in haste, repent at leisure...?

From what I've observed, people have been asking to move forward on gun control on these newer weapons for quite awhile but NRA and others have rejected any call for control (Brady, Giffords, etc). As I said in another post, back when Whitman shot up the University of Texas, measures were enacted to help prevent this from recurring. But the response in recent time (since at least 2010) is "don't take our guns!" rather than "we agree that something needs to be done in terms of changing access to this newer technology" and helping craft legislation that addresses the issues.

A more proactive stance from the "don't take our guns" (DTOG) crowd about bringing forward legislation to keep guns out of the hands of some people (instead of the absurd (to my thinking) response of "we need gun education and training") would have made this a non-issue quite some time ago. The fact that it now appears that people feel their firearms are more important than our lives and our children's lives mean there's a growing backlash and the measures that may be enacted may be more extreme than if the "DTOG" had stepped up and encouraged what they felt was sensible gun control measures.

a reply to: craterman

You're delusional when it comes to interpreting the 2nd amendment.

a reply to: Byrd

The reason you see people dig in on guns is because, as evidenced by Parkland, there are myriad laws that are currently ignored that could stem the tide of violence in the US. But they aren't. Instead, we want to restrict lawful citizens.

It just baffles me how this can even be a suggestion.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

For someone who supports the right to own an AR-15, anything I point out will be flawed logic in your mind. I can point out that AR-15's, is without a doubt, chosen as the gun of choice to kill the maximum people in a criminal act. It's only logical sense why a mass killer would choose such a gun.

...But I guess this is flawed logic on my part, right?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
So, these kids are saying they want the legal age to buy guns raised and a person isn't mature enough at 18 to buy some/all firearms, but then how would a 14-18 yr old be mature enough to understand the complexities of the gun debate other than what they have been told. When I was 16 I watched a lot of football games, and played in a number, but I wouldn't even begin to think that I should make policy in NCAA or NFL.

Even if there were an "assualt weapons" ban, such as during 1999 when Columbine happened, did that stop that incident? How do these people think restricting one (or a few) guns is going to stop this, it's like banning a few models of cars because they have been involved in lots of traffic accidents (they are the most popular models & appeal to risky drivers) while 90% of the accidents were drug/drunk/texting related. Outlawing the car is analogous to banning the gun(s).

Do the marchers not understand this or do they just have deeper ulterior motives?

You are assuming that any of these children even understand what is going on.

They are just innocents being fed talking points, children being used by the left to further a political agenda.

I am willing to bet that the same 30 year old talking points that they now magically know were sitting in pamphlet form waiting to be deployed before the shooting even happened.

The March of Soros.

I hope some time soon that real liberals start kicking the Marxists out of their party.

It's getting old.

So are you saying all children can't have an opinion because they only parrot what they hear? YOU are the one assuming they DON'T KNOW what's going on. Is a kid not allowed to have an opinion? It's not like what they say is going to be made into law, but they do attend these schools and naturally are going to think up ways to prevent it from happening so they can feel safe going to school. You do also know 95% of this forum is adults who don't have their own opinion and just parrot what they hear/read as well right? I guarantee your thoughts aren't even completely your own either and you just parrot what you read and hear and agree with. None of your thoughts are 100% your own, if you say they are you are lying.

You say you played football and watched football but never once had an opinion on the rules, then you are admitting that you couldn't think for yourself either and that you are just doing what you were told. How is that different than what you are claiming about how these kids who are (by your opinion) being fed info?

You somehow think you are the standard for All Human Beings because when I was younger I questioned anything I didn't agree with or understand and still do til this day.

It does look like you have a lot of fans, so I can see how your ego can get in the way of logical reasoning. I think you may be getting high off the attention and not really thinking about what you say because you have fans who will agree with you no matter what is said even it's completely wrong.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Byrd

The reason you see people dig in on guns is because, as evidenced by Parkland, there are myriad laws that are currently ignored that could stem the tide of violence in the US. But they aren't. Instead, we want to restrict lawful citizens.

It just baffles me how this can even be a suggestion.

So.... request for information here.... which laws would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting? How would enforcing these laws have stopped the Beltway Sniper and the Pulse Nightclub gunman - and the veteran who killed cops in Dallas at the Black Lives Matter parade two years ago? And which laws were broken in the Parkland High School shooting?

My impression was that all of these (and more) are legally obtained guns and ammunition. Or did they get through some sort of legal loophole? I haven't researched the laws so I really don't know.

You're delusional when it comes to interpreting the 2nd amendment.

Come get em then. We're waiting. Oh, you might want to bring your... Hahahahahah Never mind.
a reply to: WeRpeons

YOU add meaning......blah, blah, blah......

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" In those exact words, expressly given. And you're too damn dumb to read and understand them! Instead you argue against your own ability to defend yourself. Amazing amount of stupid there, purely amazing!!!
But don't worry, there are plenty of people who get the meaning. And they have guns for what they are for.


a reply to: DJW001

No logic. Just stupid. You assume they are for maximum criminality, but in fact they are for maximum self defense. How many exist today? How many used in a crime?? See, answer that and you will see, just stupid.

a reply to: WeRpeons

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Again, my tweenager nephew is not too young to die in a car accident or be killed by a car, so do you think he has the knowledge or depth of experience necessary to truly discuss speed limits?

He may understand theory, but he's missing the grounding on which that theory is based -- namely the practical experience of having driven a vehicle in all conditions and on all surfaces.