Jump to content
Westside Steve

Okay kiddies here's your inevitable gun control thread

Recommended Posts

They really should be able to lock all the doors of schools at the push of button.  In fact, when the bell rings the doors lock, period.  If your late, you sit in detention until your next class starts.  When the class is over, the halls must be clear and exterior doors locked, then classroom doors get unlocked.  Of course, bathroom breaks become an issue unless you section it into corridors or something along those lines.  The point is, this isn't that complicated.

I've always marveled at the complete lack of willingness to do anything other than go after gun legislation.  That's fine, but really that's it.....thats all you care?  You think this Cruz kid wouldn't have done anything else?  What if he plants a Boston Marathon style bomb in the halls?  I think people really don't understand what a psychopath is.  

It just seems to be disingenuous to solely target guns when there is so many plausible and inexpensive safety precautions we've never attempted to employ.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My middle school didn't even have doors on the classrooms

 

You say some people don't have a willingness to look at anything that isn't gun legislation. There is the flip side where people refuse to look at any type of gun control. Everything should be discussed and looked at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaconHound said:

What were the popular weapons in 1789?  Can't we simply have a logical discussion without rabid nationalism.

 

The brilliance of the US Constitution is it was never meant to be absolute, you have the Bible for that.  The authors had the idea that governance must change with the times and although not easy to do, it is necessary.  I have no issue with private citizens owning guns but believe intelligent people can agree on moderation.  

Exactly. It was designed to be a living document because the founders understood times change. There is a clear means to update it, like we've done in the past. But there are people today that will fight tooth and nail to see that it never changes. Because some how, to them, keeping legislation written 200 years ago and applying it to today makes more sense 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

My middle school didn't even have doors on the classrooms

>>>That's stupid on so many levels.

You say some people don't have a willingness to look at anything that isn't gun legislation. There is the flip side where people refuse to look at any type of gun control. Everything should be discussed and looked at.

>>>I believe John Oliver calls that whataboutism.

Certainly reform of some sort is warranted, but confiscation will never happen.  Not in Texas anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/02/22/even-more-astounding-warnings-missed-in-florida-school-shooting

sounds more and more like... they wanted this to happen? "Let no crisis go to waste?"

like fast and furious? making it able to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In elementary school we had drills to hide under our desk in case of a nuclear attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

I don't think anyone on here has seriously been suggesting confiscation. 

No? why not? How many lives are worth saving? So if they just ban assault weapons raise the mandatory age to 21 and insist on a background check for every single purchase that will be enough for you? Then what will the left want on the next mass shooting happens? With a sawed off shotgun or a hunting rifle or handgun?

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan said:

In elementary school we had drills to hide under our desk in case of a nuclear attack.

Was that in 1945?:lol:

Actually I would like to know because our family left for Venezuela so early that we actually had a stop in Havana on the way flying in a 4 prop DC-7. 

I do recall the B-52s always out in their spots just off the main runways at Bergstrom AFB SE of Austin as we went to our grandfather's farm out Texas 71. He was a retired Col. so we actually got to see them relatively close and were even allowed to get inside an F 101 Voodoo with one of the pilots showing us how it worked. And when I was very young I think I recall seeing a B-36, that backwards facing 6 prop bomber.

I found this under it's history as an AFB which explains to me why I can recall fighters at a SAC base at one point and maybe the B-36s in an earlier era:

Strategic Air Command 21 March 1949 – 1 July 1957

Tactical Air Command 1 July 1957 – 1 October 1958

Strategic Air Command 1 October 1958 – 1 July 1966

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic at hand. When Australia implemented their policy it was done with a government buy back policy. 

From wiki:

Australia had mandatory buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were temporary and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed.

The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Program" took 660,959 firearms out of private hands[2] comprising long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. Because the Australian Constitution requires the Commonwealth to pay "just compensation" for private property it takes over, the Government increased the Medicare levy from 1.5% to 1.7% of income for one year to finance the buyback program. The buyback was expected to cost $500 million.[3] The payments from the Commonwealth were conditional on the States and Territories introducing firearms laws and regulations consistent with the National Firearms Agreement.

In 2003 new handgun laws made illegal target pistols of greater than .38 calibre and handguns with barrels less than 120mm (semi-automatic) or 100mm (revolvers) such as pocket pistols. With an exception for persons participating in International Shooting Sport Federation events, which count as Olympic and Commonwealth Games qualifiers, to access highly specialised target pistols which fail to meet the new barrel restrictions. The Coalition of Australian Governments agreed to this restricted use on the grounds that these highly specialised target pistols are large, visually distinctive and not readily concealable due to their overall size.[4]

In 2017, Australia had a national firearms amnesty, the first since 1996, in which individuals could surrender illegal firearms for destruction.[5]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Was that in 1945?:lol:

Actually I would like to know because our family left for Venezuela so early that we actually had a stop in Havana on the way flying in a 4 prop DC-7. 

I do recall the B-52s always out in their spots just off the main runways at Bergstrom AFB SE of Austin as we went to our grandfather's farm out Texas 71. He was a retired Col. so we actually got to see them relatively close and were even allowed to get inside an F 101 Voodoo with one of the pilots showing us how it worked. And when I was very young I think I recall seeing a B-36, that backwards facing 6 prop bomber.

I found this under it's history as an AFB which explains to me why I can recall fighters at a SAC base at one point and maybe the B-36s in an earlier era:

Strategic Air Command 21 March 1949 – 1 July 1957

Tactical Air Command 1 July 1957 – 1 October 1958

Strategic Air Command 1 October 1958 – 1 July 1966

My father was lucky He got drafted in 1945, but opted to go in the Marines.  Was at Parris Island when Japan surrendered.  He ended up at Norfolk for awhile, then Washington DC.  They honorably discharged him after 13 months due to the massive cutback in the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are why not beef up the security measures in all schools.

Metal detectors

X number of police officers per X number of students.

The only way into the school is through security, have more and better security cameras.

Doors that can only be opened if triggered by a emergency alarm or security. I think this is the only way to prevent things like this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Erie Dawg said:

My thoughts are why not beef up the security measures in all schools.

Metal detectors

X number of police officers per X number of students.

The only way into the school is through security, have more and better security cameras.

Doors that can only be opened if triggered by a emergency alarm or security. I think this is the only way to prevent things like this. 

Great in theory but are you aware some school districts are so poor they have classes 4 days a week instead of 5 because they cannot afford the electric bills?

My son is lucky to be a middle school teacher where they actually do keep doors locked and have an armed security guard on duty with an office near the only open entrance where visitors are screened when they sign in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2018 at 7:13 PM, tiamat63 said:

I fail to see at all where I've tip-toed around any issue.  But to answer your question, it would echo the things DH said.    Given the amount of red flags these shooters raise with their social media use I wonder if that could somehow be reviewed as well.  Granted the phrase 'slippery slope' comes to mind. 

As for your follow up question - I asked that very same one to a co-worked.  She's orginally from Nigeria, total sweetheart and can't wrap her head around civilians being able to own weapons.  She uses the phrase "assault weapons" because, of course, she has no idea what that even means.    Basically admitted she would feel a giant sense of relief if AR's were banned.  To which, almost word for word I asked "so when this happens again, and it will, will you ban the shotguns and handguns next?".     Because clearly she is content with the AR's somehow being the problem. 

Finally - simply because I recognize a device for what it was created for doesn't preclude me from owning one or believing In responsible use.  In fact I feel that makes me respect the item even more.  Guns aren't toys or a joking matter....   that satisfy your question?

As far as any of us dancing around the issue I repeat that there is only one hardcore solution that will make even the slightest dent in the mass shootings. But nobody wants to support that idea. And frankly nobody really cares about saving a few lives if we did there would be many things against the law. If your position that guns are meant to kill as opposed to my position but they are not meant to murder then I have to point out the idea that you still want to own one. Or two. Or three. 

And when we point out that even though drunk driving crack cocaine underage drinking at et cetera Etc are against the law and yet happen thousands of times a day remember that those particular lawbreakers are basically normal people not one in ten million psychopaths.

But you are certainly correct that guns are not toys.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assault-Weapon-768x537.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Great in theory but are you aware some school districts are so poor they have classes 4 days a week instead of 5 because they cannot afford the electric bills?

My son is lucky to be a middle school teacher where they actually do keep doors locked and have an armed security guard on duty with an office near the only open entrance where visitors are screened when they sign in.

I totally understand that, and funds would have to be allocated from local, state and federal levels to achieve it. If child safety is what they or anyone wants.

It would need to be administrated so the allocation goes to these measures only. Not a pension assessment or  other frivialis activity.

Reducing the clip size or age restriction on owning a fire arm isn't going to stop anything.

I'm just throwing my thoughts out there on what could be done with what I think would be with the highest success rate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if government actually passed a ban on firearms, would there be sanctuary cities for gun owners that completely ignore federal law? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, htownbrown said:

I wonder if government actually passed a ban on firearms, would there be sanctuary cities for gun owners that completely ignore federal law? 

the dems would oppose it, and demand the letter of the law be followed. OF course, that ban would be in violation of our 2nd Amendment. I've explained this before in my own words, but here it is in the words of Tench Coxe - Madison's ally and delegate to the Continental Congress to Pennsylvania:

**********************************************

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/22/12559364/second-amendment-tyranny-militia-constitution-founders

"Explaining the proposed Second Amendment, Madison’s ally Tench Coxe, a delegate to the Continental Congress for Pennsylvania, wrote: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Madison thanked Coxe for the newspaper essay.

and Hubert Humphrey nailed it, also. How far the democratic party has fallen into marxist globalism tarpit.

Democratic Vice President and Minnesota Sen. Hubert Humphrey, the congressional leader of the civil rights movement, expressed a similar sentiment nearly two centuries later. For three decades after World War II, he was the embodiment of a liberal Democrat. In 1960, Humphrey wrote: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

liberals thrive on misleading crap and fake narratives - anything that gets them a bit of power is their emotional knee-jerk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

liberals thrive on misleading crap and fake narratives - anything that gets them a bit of power is their emotional knee-jerk.

Like a photoshopped picture of the president they don't like designed to make him look bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

So the two main points I bring up regarding most of the right wing data posted here

 

1) Assuming a direct causation when two trends of data are just correlated

2) Using data from a clearly biased "think tank". 

 

I'm fine being critical of the claim and data in that link if posters on here show the same awareness towards data they want to post from the Heritage Foundation or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing your point here. PolitiFact is generally regarded as a left-wing site. But I think a lot of the hyperventilation about school shootings is, like as was pointed out in another thread, the bread and butter of a media that enjoys hyperbole.

They know that the school shooting gets a lot more attention and sells a lot more ad space that a thousand handgun murders in the ghetto. And calling something an assault rifle just sound so exciting... and unfortunately Congress and the White House linking arms singing Kumbaya and banning assault weapons doesn't really change anything even according to Obama's justice department study.

But if your point is that you think PolitiFact or something else is biased I can't help you. Bias is pretty commonplace these days.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

So the two main points I bring up regarding most of the right wing data posted here

 

1) Assuming a direct causation when two trends of data are just correlated

2) Using data from a clearly biased "think tank". 

 

I'm fine being critical of the claim and data in that link if posters on here show the same awareness towards data they want to post from the Heritage Foundation or something

Politifact is right wing?

When did THAT happen Woody?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I think you missed the point. Or didn't read the link

 

That politifact link is stating that the "200% increase" is probably false, or a statistical stretch at best (which is a conclusion against the "left"). 

And we have those on the right here pointing this out. That conclusion is sketchy at best for the same reason their right wing conclusions are sketchy at best when they post "studies" on here. The two reasons I posted above. 

 

I'm pointing out that they're agreeing with this data being false for the same reasons I state data in the conservative studies they post are false. Just that whole political bias thing causes them not to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/protect-kids-confiscate-guns/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6f2b6af81d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-6f2b6af81d-20770865#axzz57x49N2MA

The NRA was not responsible for the system-wide failure from Douglas High to the FBI. As the NRA's Dana Loesch told CPAC Thursday:

“The government can't keep you safe and some people want us to give up our firearms and rely solely upon the protection of the same government that's already failed us numerous times to keep us safe.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/tougher-background-checks/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6f2b6af81d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-6f2b6af81d-2077086

For one, I have no tolerance for intellectual dishonesty, nor double-standards, nor “emotional reasoning.

If this current generation of demoniac gun-haters displayed even a glimmer of intellectual honesty, we might be able to have a conversation. But as we see, they don’t.

“People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart, which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide reasoning that will defend it.” ~ Anthony de Mello

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×