Coward Murders Children in Florida

[PointOfViewGun]

Again, that will do nothing in regards to reducing gang crime, will cost tremendous amount in taxpayer money and accomplish 0. If anything, there shouldn't be "banned" weapons at all.
The only way to tackle gun crime is what I mentioned earlier in regards to de-criminalizing and de-regulating drugs to put violent gangs out of business.

Sigh... There is no indication that having proper background checks will cost tremendous amount in taxpayer money or that it will have no effect at all. You're just making stuff up as you move along. What you say about gangs and drugs is no substitute for sensible gun regulation. You're just using it to shift the focus away.

I'm a gun rights advocate.
Background checks? Yes, we already have this and they should be strengthened.
Gun registry? No, I don't want the government to know who's a gunowner and who isn't. I don't trust the government with that information.
Bump stocks? Yes.
How's that?

The background checks we have is in large ineffective. There has to be a uniform and exhaustive background check that's not dependent on the state or the fair you're in.

Gun regulation without gun registry is an invalid idea. It makes no sense to be against it. Government knowing who owns what guns is not a threat. On the other hand, gun registry is a major requirement for law enforcement to solve crimes. The only purpose of an arms owner not wanting to register a gun is to make sure law enforcement don't know if that particular gun is used.

[Aexodus]

If you call two decades recent. These teenagers grew up with this crap and are saying they're tired of it.

I understand that, I'm just trying to point out that these shootings are a recent development in real terms, with almost all major school shootings happening this century, when guns have been legal for many many years. Again, why are some mentally ill students only picking up guns now in such a widespread manner?

[Heathen Hammer]

Tell me, how's the solution to the Opiate Crisis coming along? Will making heroin legal make it better?

Yes, it will. Of course, the underlying issue behind opiate crisis is doctors prescribing addictive medicine as well as big pharma. But a person addicted to smack will still try and acquire it, might as well have them buy it from a store instead of buying it from some thug.

Sigh... There is no indication that having proper background checks will cost tremendous amount in taxpayer money or that it will have no effect at all. You're just making stuff up as you move along. What you say about gangs and drugs is no substitute for sensible gun regulation. You're just using it to shift the focus away.

No, I'm talking about legislature that would help tackle gun crime in US. Thing is, people who promote gun control don't want to reduce gun violence, they just want... more laws for guns, that would only affect law-abiding citizens and do nothing to prevent gun violence. So who is shifting the focus away now?

[Gaidin]

I understand that, I'm just trying to point out that these shootings are a recent development in real terms, with almost all major school shootings happening this century, when guns have been legal for many many years. Again, why are some mentally ill students only picking up guns now in such a widespread manner?

Look up the timeline of events. It's been happening a lot longer than that. Columbine is just when people started noticing and the nineties was when pacing started picking up whether it was three people shot or twenty.

[PointOfViewGun]

No, I'm talking about legislature that would help tackle gun crime in US. Thing is, people who promote gun control don't want to reduce gun violence, they just want... more laws for guns, that would only affect law-abiding citizens and do nothing to prevent gun violence. So who is shifting the focus away now?

There you go. You're just making stuff up. At this point you're not even trying to make it sound at least a little bit sensible. Yes, you are trying to shift the focus away.

[Gaidin]

Yes, it will. Of course, the underlying issue behind opiate crisis is doctors prescribing addictive medicine as well as big pharma. But a person addicted to smack will still try and acquire it, might as well have them buy it from a store instead of buying it from some thug.

Hmmm...yea...

All those medical uses around the world. That'll stop the black market. Just like it stopped our black market when it was just standard opiate pain killer pills. I think you really need to think through to the end here. Because while the other countries have proven their are uses, whether "just making it legal" will help is a completely different question. Because even you should be smart enough, that if it's legal, it's not going on store shelves.

[Derpy Hooves]

Sigh... There is no indication that having proper background checks will cost tremendous amount in taxpayer money or that it will have no effect at all. You're just making stuff up as you move along. What you say about gangs and drugs is no substitute for sensible gun regulation. You're just using it to shift the focus away.




The background checks we have is in large ineffective. There has to be a uniform and exhaustive background check that's not dependent on the state or the fair you're in.

Gun regulation without gun registry is an invalid idea. It makes no sense to be against it. Government knowing who owns what guns is not a threat. On the other hand, gun registry is a major requirement for law enforcement to solve crimes. The only purpose of an arms owner not wanting to register a gun is to make sure law enforcement don't know if that particular gun is used.

Yes they're ineffective, largely because of human error as we've seen demonstrated in some of the most recent shootings.
I don't want the government having a gun registry because I don't want them to know who has a gun when the government turns tyrannical.
And NB4 the common response "YOu're insane if you think the US government is going to become tyrannical." Yeah, tell someone a few years ago that Trump would be president, and you'd be called a retard.

[Aexodus]

Look up the timeline of events. It's been happening a lot longer than that. Columbine is just when people started noticing and the nineties was when pacing started picking up whether it was three people shot or twenty.

Can you provide me a source for that? Sorry but as far as I am aware, school shootings have increased in frequency in the last two decades.

Edit: upon looking it up on Wikipedia, there have been 223 incidents in the past 20 years, and 94 in the previous 20. That's from 112 deaths 1978-98 to 288 deaths in the last 20 years, which is horrific. The outrage of these students isn't rightly warranted, as you have said. But what is pushing this change, is what I want to know. Fatality rate has also increased slightly, from 1.19 to 1.29 per shooting.

[Heathen Hammer]

Hmmm...yea...

All those medical uses around the world. That'll stop the black market. Just like it stopped our black market when it was just standard opiate pain killer pills. I think you really need to think through to the end here. Because while the other countries have proven their are uses, whether "just making it legal" will help is a completely different question. Because even you should be smart enough, that if it's legal, it's not going on store shelves.

Prohibition of drugs generates millions in profits for drug traffickers, just ask CIA.
If you are 18, you should be able to buy drugs, like any drugs. Most importantly, it would put organized crime out of business, thus reducing gun violence.

There you go. You're just making stuff up. At this point you're not even trying to make it sound at least a little bit sensible. Yes, you are trying to shift the focus away.

I'm not making stuff up, I'm making conclusion based on what gun control advocates are saying. So far I'm yet to see how further regulation for already well-regulated legal firearms are going to tackle gang-related violence. Pro-tip - it won't. Its not me shifting the focus, it is gun control advocates.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes they're ineffective, largely because of human error as we've seen demonstrated in some of the most recent shootings.
I don't want the government having a gun registry because I don't want them to know who has a gun when the government turns tyrannical.
And NB4 the common response "YOu're insane if you think the US government is going to become tyrannical." Yeah, tell someone a few years ago that Trump would be president, and you'd be called a retard.

Background checks are ineffective because they can easily be circumvented. Without a federally streamlined background check it as good as nonexistent.

That's a moot argument about the gun registry. The same logic could work against car registry but we don't have people being against it. In the case of tyranny it has little effect. It's not feasible for a tyrant to go through 100 million citizen's possessions to catch the guns. It's also not logical that just because there is no registry you will get away with your gun. You're basically trying to trade of a huge benefit for the law enforcement to track down crime for the sake of a fantasy.

All such measures increase the price of entry (not exactly in monetary terms but in principle). If you're a law abiding citizen you have nothing to worry about.

I'm not making stuff up, I'm making conclusion based on what gun control advocates are saying. So far I'm yet to see how further regulation for already well-regulated legal firearms are going to tackle gang-related violence. Pro-tip - it won't. Its not me shifting the focus, it is gun control advocates.

Oh, yes you are, and you're doing it blatantly as I highlighted. The least you could do would be to own up to it... Saying that firearms are well-regulated defies the reality on the ground.

[Gaidin]

Can you provide me a source for that? Sorry but as far as I am aware, school shootings have increased in frequency in the last two decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

[Aexodus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States

I did look at that, but since I edited my earlier post after you replied, I'll repeat it here.

Upon looking it up on Wikipedia, there have been 223 incidents in the past 20 years, and 94 in the previous 20. That's from 112 deaths 1978-98 to 288 deaths in the last 20 years, which is horrific. The outrage of these students is rightly warranted, as you have said. But what is pushing this change, is what I want to know. Fatality rate has also increased slightly, from 1.19 to 1.29 per shooting.

[Gaidin]

But what is pushing this change, is what I want to know. Fatality rate has also increased slightly, from 1.19 to 1.29 per shooting.

Like I said, they're tired of the culture of fear and a government that won't do about it. People that grow up with this, in this, interpret it differently than people that observe from the sidelines, and rightly so.

[Aexodus]

Like I said, they're tired of the culture of fear and a government that won't do about it. People that grow up with this, in this, interpret it differently than people that observe from the sidelines, and rightly so.

Indeed, they should absolutely have their say, they'll be voting in a couple years, but the media shouldn't use them to control the narrative.

[Prodromos]

If you call two decades recent. These teenagers grew up with this crap and are saying they're tired of it.

And before anybody brings up their age and lack of experience again, remember the leadup to the 26th Amendment. The fastest Amendment to both be passed and ratified in United States history. These people will change something. It may take five to ten years. And it may not be a constitutional amendment. But 's getting stirred up because them and people like them and people younger than them are just tired of going to school wondering why the hell it feels like they're going to a daily prison and if today's the day THEIR school gets shot to . If you're too old to realize what kind of a change of culture that is than that's just sad. They're a voting block unto themselves and any politician naive enough to not realize it is going to lose their god damn job if they're pissed enough to become activists before they can vote, register people to vote at protests instead of just merely protest, and provoke a dozen god damn advertisers to jump ship from one of Fox News' biggest voices in the space of a god damn day.

Anybody here really think they won't remember to vote?

Young people are actually the demographic most in favor of gun rights. These people don't speak for their generation nor even for this incident's victims and their families, many of whom, such as Kyle Kashuv, and Meadow Pollack's family, are fairly reasonable and don't believe that more right infringements would do any good. And school rampage killings are extremely rare and have been decreasing in frequency over the years, "despite" a broad liberalization in gun laws. It's a non-issue. Most of these teenagers are frankly just obnoxious and trying to get famous, and Democrats are willing to provide that for pushing their agenda. Everyone said and did cringey things when they were 17. It is nothing to be celebrated.

[Heathen Hammer]

Oh, yes you are, and you're doing it blatantly as I highlighted. The least you could do would be to own up to it... Saying that firearms are well-regulated defies the reality on the ground.

Except that they are and regulations proposed by mass media (for which those teenagers were used) are irrational and can't address actual gun-related crime even in theory. So I proposed legislation that could tackle gun crime and you called it shifting the focus, since your focus is not to decrease gun crime but to repeat same anti-gun talking point over and over.

[PointOfViewGun]

Except that they are and regulations proposed by mass media (for which those teenagers were used) are irrational and can't address actual gun-related crime even in theory. So I proposed legislation that could tackle gun crime and you called it shifting the focus, since your focus is not to decrease gun crime but to repeat same anti-gun talking point over and over.

Sigh... You can't really keep on building your premise on ignoring or outright altering what people say. What you proposed is not a substitute. It can at most be complimentary. By trying to shut down discussion over one for the sake of your own premise is a clear attempt to shift the focus indeed. It's quite apparent from the fact that you're unable to address anything they or I say. Do not project your own premise's shortcomings on others. It's mind boggling how self-destructive your position is with your arguments.

[Infidel144]

Background checks are ineffective because they can easily be circumvented. Without a federally streamlined background check it as good as nonexistent.

How are they easily circumvented?
What would would a federally streamlined background check consist of?

[PointOfViewGun]

How are they easily circumvented?
What would would a federally streamlined background check consist of?

Arizona vs California. Arizona does not require a background check in a number of conditions, including private sales. California does, and requires the sale to be done through a dealer. In fact, Arizona governor signed a bill banning background checks of any kind for private sales. The two share a border. Just drive a few hours and you're done without breaking any law.

Federally streamlined background check means that there would be a well-maintained single database for all as if it was one country, since the open borders, ensuring that a person's criminal background is not not accessible for other parts of the union. This system would be used for all sales, no loopholes. The idea is to be exhaustive and accurate. Right now its spotty and full of holes.

[Gaidin]

Indeed, they should absolutely have their say, they'll be voting in a couple years, but the media shouldn't use them to control the narrative.

The media's not controlling the narrative. People are doing a BS job of responding to the teenagers' narrative. When a Fox Talking Head shouts out an ad hominem and the teenager fires back at her money source a dozen of her sponsors leave her for the hills because the teenager won the twitter war with the god damn Fox Talking Head and the Fox Talking Head is now suddenly taking a vacation, who in the god damn hell is controlling the narrative. The teenagers or the media?

What you need to do is realign how you think of this sir.

Remember, Fox has the most viewers, when you try to talk about who's controlling the narrative. He shouldn't be able to control Fox's talking head. If your conservative news channel can't retort to him properly they've got the wrong god damn narrative and something they're saying needs to be fixed.