Don’t get me wrong. I know it is their right to voice their opinions whether I agree with their point of view or not. I just believe people should bring solutions to the table and work towards that solution. Advertising the problem is not fixing anything.
My thoughts on today...
- Thread starter oneforthebus
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
At our school it was organized by students. Students negotiated the terms with the administration. Students promoted it as non-partisan, with all points of view welcome to participate. What they wanted was action. Inaction, the status quo is just not acceptable. I think we should all be able to agree on that.
As far as "new gun laws" there's a broad range of ideas from banning all guns to doing nothing. While personally I think it's useless to ban specific types of guns or sizes of magazines, I do think at a minimum there has to be some measures in place to prevent people with long histories of violent fantasies and actions from walking into Walmart and buying guns. I don't know exactly what that type of law would look like, it's a complex problem to get it right without trampling on the rights of innocent people. But I do think something has to be done about that. (This particular kid should have been confined somewhere under constant supervision a long time ago.)
I also think there are plenty of ways to get around anything for those who are willing to break laws, but we don't need to make it so dang easy for them.
Both of my sons participated - the primary reason was it was an excuse to get out of class.
The younger really didn't understand the issue, is just washed up in the "don't you think gun restrictions could work?" argument. I spoke with him.
My older son, I fear, soon off to college, has been brainwashed to a degree by the very liberal school system he's been in here in MD. I asked if he was going, he said yes. I asked if he understood the issues, he said yeah. I said are you sure? It led to a long discussion. He kept saying "17 people died dad."
So I made sure to lay some facts on him.
I hope it had some effect.
The younger really didn't understand the issue, is just washed up in the "don't you think gun restrictions could work?" argument. I spoke with him.
My older son, I fear, soon off to college, has been brainwashed to a degree by the very liberal school system he's been in here in MD. I asked if he was going, he said yes. I asked if he understood the issues, he said yeah. I said are you sure? It led to a long discussion. He kept saying "17 people died dad."
So I made sure to lay some facts on him.
- Son, are you aware that of the last 17 school shootings, 2 involved an AR15? One was stolen, one was legally obtained. The laws proposed wouldn't have prevented these shootings?
- Son, are you aware that all of these shooters were under the age of 18? The age limit restriction wouldn't have prevented these shootings.
- Son, do you know about the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994? That gun violence ROSE when it went into effect?
- Son, do you realize every time the Government starts talking about putting in new gun laws, gun sales sky rocket because of those efforts? It puts more guns on the street?
- Son, do you realize the deadliest schools shooting was at VA Tech, 32 dead, 17 injured and he used pistols and regulation size clips? No law would have prevented that.
- Son, the answer isn't gun laws. He said yeah well it worked in Australia. Yes gun violence went down, but overall violence did not. Next?
- Son, are you aware that every courthouse and every Federal building is protected by armed guards? Ever notice there's not mass shootings?
- Son, are you aware that after 9/11 we reinforced the **** pit doors, armed the pilots, and put an armed air marshall on every plane. There's been no hijackings.
- Son, why is it that our Government deems those who work in Federal buildings, Courthouses, and Airports are worthy of armed protection, but students are not? It works to deter shootings there. It's a proven deterrent to mass shootings. That is your answer. No law is going to prohibit a criminal (who doesn't follow laws) from getting their hands on guns. Period.
- Son, are you aware that 650 people died from gun violence alone in Chicago last year, in a jurisdiction that has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. Maybe you and the other students should protest those lives too?
I hope it had some effect.
blitzburghv5
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 745
- Points
- 113
Tell me your criteria for qualifying who is employed at protests and who is not....you have this figured out, so do share your analysis. I'll be intrigued.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
When 30K plus American citizens are killed by gun each and every year, nothing has to be force fed. Gun deaths are on their phones, TV and computers each and every day.
Some of you seem to think gun deaths are a rare occurrence rather than a daily occurrence.
Some of you seem to think gun deaths are a rare occurrence rather than a daily occurrence.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,475
- Reaction score
- 17,460
- Points
- 113
But what also needs to be considered is who is committing these crimes. It isn't good upstanding, law abiding people. A **** ton of those 30K plus shooting deaths happen in the inner city, among gangs and **** like that. Some of you seem to think that taking my guns will solve that problem.
When you guys get serious about cleaning that ******* mess up, then I will try to take you serious when you talk about restricting the rights of people who aren't out murdering each other over the color of a rag.
blitzburghv5
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 745
- Points
- 113
Protesting is not action ? Sitting around a virtual room in dialogue is inaction.
Protests are a civil uprising that bring focus to a cause and usher in change ?
Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has.
Im trying to figure out why folks are critical of these kids' actions and debating whether they are being used...And ? So what if they are being used....the pro-gunners use the "threat" or fear of home invasion, car jacking, assault, robbery, rape and trespassing as motivation for demanding the right to gun ownership, right ? Washington wont do ****....too many of them are in the pockets of the NRA. They have morals, im sure...they have hearts and empathy, im certain of. But the money and fear of being abandoned by pro gun advocates keep them in check. That's a fact non-debatable.
Kids shouldn't have to do the bidding for what we adults should be figuring out. Our culture is over-****** right now. We value the wrong ****.
blitzburghv5
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 745
- Points
- 113
Strikes are a form of protest...are they not ? Protest are a disruption of the norm. Stop spinning bruh....
Typical.
There's 33,000 or so per year. The VAST majority are suicides. They will still kill themselves.
13,000 a year are homicide related.
650 of those annually are in Chicago, the bastion of peace with some of the strictest gun laws in America, where people are safe to walk the streets because gun laws save lives.
Getting paid by Soros to riot does not equate to full time employment.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,475
- Reaction score
- 17,460
- Points
- 113
Can't imagine how that happened.
blitzburghv5
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 745
- Points
- 113
What other nations on the planet have gangs ? Japan for example, has mental illness issues...just like the US. They have video gaming consoles that project violent imagery just like here in the US. They have social discord in Japan...just like we do.....they share most of the same issues we do, yet they dont have the number of gun deaths we do...they haven't had more than 10 in a year in over a decade. Whats the outstanding difference ? They dont have open access to guns the way we do. Access to guns tip the balance towards the deadliest outcome on the planet.
We have more deaths than any other nation by guns with:
Homicides
Murder- suicides
Suicides
Killing of spouse in domestic violence situations
mass public shootings
school shootings
accidental shootings
police shootings
And folks want to say its not a gun problem.............please. Theres other factors at work but I guarantee you if you address THOSE issues and you limit access to guns we wouldn't see the amount of gun-related deaths we see today. When we bring up Chicago, or gang violence, whats the chief element in that equation ? Guns.....spin it how you wish, but guns are the issue. No one else on the planet sees anywhere near the level of gun violence we do
blitzburghv5
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 745
- Points
- 113
Go ahead and deflect blame toward some group opposite of yours...I know youre good for it......its the only way, right ? Blame "them"....lol
blitzburghv5
Registered
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,576
- Reaction score
- 745
- Points
- 113
Question....im not talkin **** but I seriously wanna know....are you a conspiracy theorist or do you by chance subscribe to InfoWars or Breitbart or Mark Levin.....
You aren't going to limit guns in this country. You're just not. What happened in Australia cannot happen here. It will never happen here.
I suggest Blitz and other read this great article from the Bezos Liberal Washington Post. Can't attack the source, so go to the material.
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United Statesevery year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
I suggest Blitz and other read this great article from the Bezos Liberal Washington Post. Can't attack the source, so go to the material.
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gunowner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, arocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United Statesevery year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
No, I am a realist.
Then there's this. The argument FOR guns. Can't argue with the data.
CNN Admits: U.S. Town Where Guns Are Required Has Had Only 1 Murder in 6 Years
CNN admitted in a report on March 6, 2018, that a Georgia town requiring gun ownership has only seen one murder in six years and maintains a violent crime rate of less than two percent.
CNN reports that Kennesaw, Georgia, adopted an ordinance in 1982 requiring the head of every household to “maintain a firearm.”
CNN suggested the law requiring gun ownership is not actually enforced, but it simultaneously reported that the town of Kennesaw has only witnessed one murder in the past six years. In other words, just the common knowledge that guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens appears to restrain the actions of criminals.
Kennesaw Police Department Lt. Craig Graydon said, “It was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent.”
advertisement
At the same time, Graydon noted that widespread private gun ownership is just part of the reason for the town’s violent crime rate of less than two percent. He described the requirement to own a gun as part of “the whole picture.”
But Mayor Derek Easterling (R) focused on armed law-abiding citizens, stating, “If you’re going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you’re the criminal — are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?”
CNN Admits: U.S. Town Where Guns Are Required Has Had Only 1 Murder in 6 Years
CNN admitted in a report on March 6, 2018, that a Georgia town requiring gun ownership has only seen one murder in six years and maintains a violent crime rate of less than two percent.
CNN reports that Kennesaw, Georgia, adopted an ordinance in 1982 requiring the head of every household to “maintain a firearm.”
CNN suggested the law requiring gun ownership is not actually enforced, but it simultaneously reported that the town of Kennesaw has only witnessed one murder in the past six years. In other words, just the common knowledge that guns are in the hands of law-abiding citizens appears to restrain the actions of criminals.
Kennesaw Police Department Lt. Craig Graydon said, “It was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent.”
advertisement
At the same time, Graydon noted that widespread private gun ownership is just part of the reason for the town’s violent crime rate of less than two percent. He described the requirement to own a gun as part of “the whole picture.”
But Mayor Derek Easterling (R) focused on armed law-abiding citizens, stating, “If you’re going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you’re the criminal — are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?”
The strike is the action . The picketing is not. Marching is basically picketing. Thanks for making my point.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,475
- Reaction score
- 17,460
- Points
- 113
I'm not spinning ****. The issue is people. A gun is nothing without the hands and the brain that operate it.
Like I said, get the criminals first. Take their guns. Then maybe, we can talk about mine.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,475
- Reaction score
- 17,460
- Points
- 113
Some group opposite of mine? You haven't been around here much lately apparently. Read some of the threads. I don't really have a group.
All those white NRA members in Chicago killing each other every day.
I hope they care about bullying as much as gun violence. A 14 y.o. in my school district just took his life. How many of these school attacks are the root cause of bullying?
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 5,836
- Reaction score
- 4,780
- Points
- 113
Man it's so tough to pinpoint. Kids aren't really sure what bullying is themselves so it muddies the water of actual bullying. I have to explain to middle school kids every single day about what is NOT bullying. I get bullying reported to me at minimum 3 times a day. In 95% of the cases, they are annoyed with something somebody has done or said and are classifying it as bullying. It makes it hard to weed through the 40 bogus bullying claims to find the 1 actual bullying case. Also many times the kids never even report it to anyone at school or at home for fear of reprisal from the bully in question, so they keep silent.
The other problem is that almost every bit of actual bullying is not done at school or in person at all......it's almost all done over social media. For schools that is an impossibility to regulate because it's happening outside of school. The parent is the only one who can legislate that effectively. I've come to realize that the majority of parents don't have a clue what their kids are up to online. Plenty of Elementary school and middle school aged kids have free reign on social media and everyone has access to terrorize them anonymously if they choose.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
I think it's very hard to say bullying "causes" these attacks. Are some of these kids bullied? Probably. But they may be bullied or ostracized because of their bizarre antisocial behavior. Is the mental illness caused by the bullying or vice versa? Hard to say.
It's all well and good to say people should befriend these kids...in some cases, kids have tried and they aren't receptive to it. Sometimes kids aren't bullying them, they avoid them because they're just plain scared of them. Would you encourage your child to befriend a kid who is fascinated with violence, kills animals for fun, attacks other kids and brings weapons to school? It's not as easy as it sounds.
Some people are just severely disturbed and it's not necessarily anyone else's fault.
Saw a Republican representative on one of the morning shows. He was very measured on the gun issue. Trying to show empathy to the victims while staying firm to his 2nd amendment position. Then the topic turned to the dog that died in the overhead compartment on the flight. All of a sudden his entire tone changed to hyper charged. He knew the dogs name and all the relevant facts. How 80 percent of pet deaths occur on United (I believe it was). How they are moving to pass legislation. Im like **** you cant make this **** up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
