The hypocrisy of the ________

[sdskinsfan2001]

Even if I was for banning AR-15s (I am not), I don't trust the government or most of the MSM to stop there. When that fails to prevent shooting deaths, and it will fail, then they'll just move on to the next type guns that are legal to try and make illegal.

In addition, criminals are criminals because they break laws. I don't see how more gun laws/restrictions is the answer. They will still find ways to get these guns.

We need to find what causes these people, whether a white supremacist, or a local gang banger, to get to the point where they think taking peoples lives is the answer. And stopping them before they do.

Unfortunately with 400 million very diverse people this is extremely difficult.

[Chico23231]

Schools have historically gotten much more safe. Last year NPR did a good story about it and how parkland, columbine, and sandy hook...which were targeted mass shootings...amplified a narrative schools are unsafe and violent. It’s not the case. Also because of the fact some orgs have done some goal post moving stats to include violence by non-students, during non school hours, during the summer (school not in session), on school ground or on the street where the school is located to greatly inflate school violence numbers. CNN of course ran the fake numbers

Also remember when you talk about gun deaths to remove suicides from them...suicide is a mental health issues, of course conveniently being left out.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

But is it reality based or fear based thing. Which is more likely on a given day, a deadly car accident, a death from sickness, or a shooter in a school?

There are urban city schools that have lived with metal detectors for decades, but now that suburban schoolchildren are threatened the media elite/liberal nannies want to pass bad laws and create fear driven panic to do it.

The fact bulletproof backpacks even exist is pretty sad if you ask me. I'd hope we could all agree on that.

What bad laws are you talking about exactly? We've had a good 20 years of school shootings going back to Columbine, just wondering what "bad laws" we've seen go on the books in response.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

The fact bulletproof backpacks even exist is pretty sad if you ask me. I'd hope we could all agree on that.

What bad laws are you talking about exactly? We've had a good 20 years of school shootings going back to Columbine, just wondering what "bad laws" we've seen go on the books in response.

I guess the other viewpoint would be that for 20 years there have been changes and yet I think we all agree the shootings are getting worse.

Popular Science In the 12 months after the Columbine shooting, lawmakers proposed more than 800 new bills having to do with guns. Some promoted gun control—for example, beefing up background checks—while others promoted gun ownership rights—for example, protecting the rights of gun owners who cross state lines with weapons. About 10 percent of those bills passed

That means that about 80 laws were passed in the year after Columbine. Yet they didn't curb or reduce the violence. As you said we have had 20 years since to show that laws by themselves aren't the answer. We have had background checks that screen law abiding citizens since 2008 yet we continue to see mass shootings. Is it a bad law, not necessarily, but it's a chicken little law because it cries out fear instead of responsibility. We have laws to make it illegal for bad people to have guns, and as Chico and BaltimoreSkins agreed the penalty (barring extreme exceptions) should be tough. But adding levels of laws and bureaucracy simply increase government without a corresponding increase in security.

Further, many if not all the mass shootings could have been prevented with the laws already on the books

When I asked her opinion, Schildkraut said she thinks that upon closer examination, the new bills turn out to be redundant. "We do have so many great pieces of legislation in place, both for gun rights and for gun control," she says. "I think it's more important to really work on enforcing what you have before you rush out more pieces that are not going to be enforced."

Bad laws can be redundant laws that make more bureacratic work for police officers, they can be laws that have placebo effects but do more to remove rights then enhance safety, and they often have smiley face names to make it more emotionally tied to victims of 1 off incidents then addressing underlying facts and causes.

[MTK]

Well as long as the NRA has politicians in their back pocket nothing truly meaningful in terms of gun reform is going to happen. Therefore we got bad and redundant laws. It's basically a waste of time to even discuss it.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

Well as long as the NRA has politicians in their back pocket nothing truly meaningful in terms of gun reform is going to happen. Therefore we got bad and redundant laws. It's basically a waste of time to even discuss it.

So you don't consider instant background checks meaningful (passed in 2008 and signed by a Republican president)?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So you don't consider instant background checks meaningful (passed in 2008 and signed by a Republican president)?

The big man got the bump stock gone this year. Boom, outta here

[MTK]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So you don't consider instant background checks meaningful (passed in 2008 and signed by a Republican president)?

You just said yourself despite background checks we keep seeing mass shootings. Sounds like a chicken little law.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

You just said yourself despite background checks we keep seeing mass shootings. Sounds like a chicken little law.

Moreso a redundant law that only stops those willing to be stopped.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[BaltimoreSkins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I truly hate the gun debate. No one wants to see mass shootings, gang shootings, shootings resulting in suicide. I am not defending those actions by bad actors.

That said,







Which number seems the most outlandish?

Okay but we are constantly working and improving car safety. Family planning and access to birth control in order to reduce abortions have been a priority but we have been very passive on gun violence. For the record they can all be improved. Much like guns car deaths can be reduced with improved technology, as Chico mentioned. Abortions will come down with improved access to preventative measures. I find the argument that gun violence shouldn’t be a priority because deaths from these issues are greater is a red herring argument. We are competent enough to reduce deaths from all of these issues.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

No it's about the deaths caused by guns. And the fact that more people are killed by cars then guns, and the fact that order of magnitude more people with no voice are killed because they have no voice. Gun violence creates fear, and fear motivates politicians to make bad laws. Car deaths are accepted because of the necessity of cars is seen as greater then the necessity of guns. Death by abortion is accepted because the murdered party can't defend themselves with twitter accounts #inutero

If you're going to do the cars/guns argument I'm going to rebuke with the "let's treat guns the same way we treat cars" argument. You need a license to drive, you have to attend a class and take a test at the end of class to prove you are worthy to drive. You have to get your license renewed every 5 years, and your license can be suspended or revoked for any number of reasons.

Deal? deal.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by mooby

If you're going to do the cars/guns argument I'm going to rebuke with the "let's treat guns the same way we treat cars" argument. You need a license to drive, you have to attend a class and take a test at the end of class to prove you are worthy to drive. You have to get your license renewed every 5 years, and your license can be suspended or revoked for any number of reasons.

Deal? deal.

Don't forget ,............age (must be 16/17) and must have Insurance on your car .

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Don't forget ,............age (must be 16/17) and must have Insurance on your car .

I don't think 15 year olds can legally buy guns anywhere.

How would insurance work for guns, just curious.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

If you're going to do the cars/guns argument I'm going to rebuke with the "let's treat guns the same way we treat cars" argument. You need a license to drive, you have to attend a class and take a test at the end of class to prove you are worthy to drive. You have to get your license renewed every 5 years, and your license can be suspended or revoked for any number of reasons.

Deal? deal.

I think background checks are fairly equivalent to the licensing and renewing a DL is a joke, you don't retest, you don't even go in anymore, all you need is your eyesight checked (if you want to make sure all gun owners have 20/20 vision, makes hitting the target easier). Background checks and DL both ensure that you are legally allowed to own a gun/drive a car.

I think most responsible gun owners have gun safety classes, but if it was required to take gun safety courses, as long as it's not used as a permanent bar, (unless you are incapable of understanding how to use a safety because then you're an idiot)

You already can lose your right to gun ownership if you recklessly use your gun just like you can a license, by committing a felony (reckless driving, dui, etc) in fact any felony causes you to lose your right to bear arms, but you can murder someone and still drive a car (once you finish your life sentence).

So deal!

YAY

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I don't think 15 year olds can legally buy guns anywhere.

How would insurance work for guns, just curious.

Gun shows , I don't know if it was legal or illegal but I know and saw a 14 year old buy a gun, a shot gun.In VA.