Gun Control Debate #1

[Deleted member 39678]

I think this qualifies them to have an opinion and their concerns taken seriously.

SBM
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just don't have to agree with it.

 

[Betty P]

I agree, it doesn't make sense. Anything with the word "teen" after it means someone is still a teenager up to the age of at least 20, IMO.

I've read the policies they're proposing and they're of better quality and sound judgment than those promoted by industry lobbyists and political donors.

The content is good, they've done their research. In legislative advocacy, I've always found it helpful to take a close look at those details.

They're also old enough to vote, so they have more rights to petition Congress than a corporation.

 

[Inthedetails]

Yea. All the politicians are going to tell the lobbyists and donors to keep their money because some high school kids are protesting for some undefined gun control and they have to do what they say. LOL

Mothers Against Drunk Driving made big changes. They were laughed at too,

I applaud the students for speaking up.

jmo

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

rbbm

I second your emotion, Kaen. It makes sense to me, too.

RSBM. Interestingly enough, these kids sat in a room with an assault rifling being fired on them. I think they do know what they are talking about more so than anyone can know. Maybe someone has trained an assault weapon on you? Then, you are in the same boat as they are. They are demanding change for safety---including better mental health availability, controlling semi-automatic weapons, increased school security with funding, and for all the "adults" in the government to stop screwing around in order to get something done. Makes sense to me.

ALL INCREDIBLY GRAPHIC AND HORRIFYING-----DON'T WATCH IF YOU DON"T WANT TO BE UPSET--
If you want to know what it is to be in a room with a semi-automatic gun trained on you, watch this graphic horrific video from Parkland. It was shared by a student. You see dead people as the SWAT team is clearing the injured before they clear the rest of the living student after the shootings. There is terror. https://www.facebook.com/xavier.truestory/posts/10208927223696621?pnref=story

This is video when the classroom was being shot up and their peers being killed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEKf1qdCFk0 (from the Guardian)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j7-WFa2AJM (from CNN)

I think this qualifies them to have an opinion and their concerns taken seriously.

 

[Karinna]

Poor kids are very worried for their own safety at school now after such a traumatic event, and have very good reason to do so. I would think the very real issue right now for students & parents is how best to keep their children safe. All the gun control issues can be dealt with in due course, but today the kids definitely need some real safety measures to make them feel better about going to school in the here & now, IMO.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Excellent example!

Mothers Against Drunk Driving made big changes. They were laughed at too,

I applaud the students for speaking up.

jmo

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Mothers Against Drunk Driving made big changes. They were laughed at too,

I applaud the students for speaking up.

jmo

They where laughed at? I don't recall that happening.

 

[Inthedetails]

Excellent example!

It would be awesome if some of the early MADD organizers could meet with the students and offer some advice, encouragement, etc.

jmo

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Gun safety regulations help parents keep these children safe now. As in, in the immediate future.

The gunman's in jail.

Granted, there's the valid argument that, while working through the lawmaking process, they're still in danger from another act of gun violence, imo.

No time like the present!

Poor kids are very worried for their own safety at school now after such a traumatic event, and have very good reason to do so. I would think the very real issue right now for students & parents is how best to keep their children safe. All the gun control issues can be dealt with in due course, but today the kids definitely need some real safety measures to make them feel better about going to school in the here & now, IMO.

 

[kaen]

SBM
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just don't have to agree with it.

The quoted post was that they did know what they were talking about. Given their experiences, they do know what they are talking about, more so than many people in this country. They have had a gun trained on them,been shot at with someone attempting to murder them ---just like Gabby Giffords and others who survived terror. You can certainly have an opinion and not agree. But, they do know what they are talking about--I bet they would trade anything to not know. They are desperate to not have other kids join their club.

 

[Inthedetails]

They where laughed at? I don't recall that happening.

Seriously? I sure do! They were hysterical mothers reacting to the emotion of losing a child - not a group that knew what they were doing in changing legislation. But they did know - they knew they had to change public opinion about drunk driving and they set out to do that. And succeeded.

You really don't remember them being dismissed? It left quite an impression on me.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The quoted post was that they did know what they were talking about. Given their experiences, they do know what they are talking about, more so than many people in this country. They have had a gun trained n them,been shot at with someone attempting to murder them ---just like Gabby Giffords and others who survived terror. You can certainly have an opinion and not agree. But, they do know what they are talking about--I bet they would trade anything to not know. They are desperate to not have other kids join their club.

I agree that they know about fear.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Stop Blaming School Shootings on Mental Illness, Top Psychologist Warns

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/ar15-mass-shootings-guns.html

“Framing the conversation about gun violence in the context of mental illness does a disservice both to the victims of violence and unfairly stigmatizes the many others with mental illness,” she said. “More important, it does not direct us to appropriate solutions to this public health crisis.”

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Seriously? I sure do! They were hysterical mothers reacting to the emotion of losing a child - not a group that knew what they were doing in changing legislation. But they did know - they knew they had to change public opinion about drunk driving and they set out to do that. And succeeded.

You really don't remember them being dismissed? It left quite an impression on me.

Candy Lightner started MADD in Sacramento. Guess where I live. I remember it well.

 

[Inthedetails]

I agree that they know about fear.

And they know they want to prevent it from happening to others. That's powerful - to know that fear and be called to do something so others don't needlessly have to face that fear.

I hope they keep their drive because plenty of people are going to tell them to be quiet. I hope they keep their voices loud.

jmo

 

[kaen]

I agree that they know about fear.

They know more than fear as they have lived through an experience. They have researched their position (one that a number of policy groups support) on gun control. They have researched their state governments failures in mental health as well as the actions of their politicians. Belittling their positions as fear and carrying less weight than others you agree with is faulty but certainly you right.

 

[Inthedetails]

Candy Lightner started MADD in Sacramento. Guess where I live. I remember it well.

Great!

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Many, if not most, schools already have these here in the U.S.

Maybe a good start to the issue would be to place metal/gun detectors through the schools that kids have to walk through before entering the actual school itself? They do that at Airports anyway so why not have something similar at schools.

 

[Betty P]

As a first step, I favor restoring the Federal Assault Weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 and allowed to expire in 2004. It should have been renewed, as the majority of Americans wanted. It worked very well. Some of the weapon models and types banned would need to be updated, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

The Act prohibited the manufacture, transfer, or possession of "semiautomatic assault weapons" as defined by the Act. "Weapons banned were identified either by specific make or model (including copies or duplicates thereof, in any caliber), or by specific characteristics that slightly varied according to whether the weapon was a pistol, rifle, or shotgun" (see below).[11] The Act also prohibited the transfer and possession of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" (LCAFDs). An LCAFD was defined as "any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date [of the act] that has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition".[11]

From the 1994 description
Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Detachable magazine.

Probably need to include bump stocks now

Renewing the ban on assault weapons will have a significant impact on the number of mass killings, including a reduction in the number of victims in each. Despite many new precautionary measures, the number of people killed in mass shootings is increasing due to the fatal efficiency of these weapons in killing the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time.

 

[TooCurious]

As a first step, I favor restoring the Federal Assault Weapons ban that was enacted in 1994 and allowed to expire in 2004. It should have been renewed, as the majority of Americans wanted. It worked very well. Some of the weapon models and types banned would need to be updated, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban



Probably need to include bump stocks now

Renewing the ban on assault weapons will have a significant impact on the number of mass killings, including a reduction in the number of victims in each. Despite many new precautionary measures, the number of people killed in mass shootings is increasing due to the fatal efficiency of these weapons in killing the maximum number of people in the shortest amount of time.

Kind of a stretch to say the majority of Americans wanted it.