Gun Control Debate #5

[rosemadderlake]

I cannot agree with that. Every country in the world has these disaffected and violent young men.

But not every country has a handle on it, do they? When comparing it's good to remember the stats... Evil is evil no matter the method.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

I'm a Dad as well. I support the NRA. They are indeed defending the 2nd Amendment on behalf of all Americans. You don't have to thank them.

The NRA promotes the firearm industry and has successfully politicized the second amendment, imo. I have nothing to thank them for.

 

[bluesneakers]

I actually cannot believe that some people have suggested that the children who participated in the walk out are not able to think for themselves or should not have political beliefs. For a start the majority of these children are either a couple of years away from being able to vote, and some already can. So I think it's awesome that they have a political viewpoint, it is never too early to teach children about society and social responsibility. Secondly, young people have changed so many things in this world that simply saying that they shouldn't protest is just laughable. Do you think any human rights would have changed without young people dissenting to the ongoing culture and saying things need to change? The civil rights movement had children protesting, and gun control is just as big an issue. The lack of gun control is killing so many people it cannot be ignored. Yes, there are other issues, such as mental health issues, poverty etc, but the fact that someone can get access so easily to guns that are either sold to them without a care, or their parents buy them, and then don't store them safely is the biggest factor. Without the guns there are no mass shootings. FACT! I have said all along I am for gun control, not gun prohibition. Surely new legislation that means that guns are not as easily available for all and sundry who wants to pick one up, shouldn't affect responsible guns owners.

Also, you'd be surprised how independently children can think. The majority of these kids don't want to go to school scared, and yet some detractors are happy to put their fingers in their ears and say "lalala just kids, their views don't matter". Kids want to get an education, without having to worry about ANY guns in their schools.
​

You'd think as many gun owners own guns because they're terrified they would understand how these kids feel.

 

[Blef]

That may be true but it should be obvious that tweet was put out for supporters of the NRA, and not to offend those people who find guns offensive. It’s like eavesdropping on a private conversation and then being offended when you hear something said that you don’t agree with.

So why coincide it with the demonstrations. The timing was done so that it was deliberately provocative. And twitter is public, so the eavesdropping thing is ridiculous. You can't shout something in public and then be upset if others hear it and disagree.

 

[bluesneakers]

But not every country has a handle on it, do they? When comparing it's good to remember the stats... Evil is evil no matter the method.

Certainly not the USA. We're a long way from having any of this handled.

 

[Jennifer17]

But not every country has a handle on it, do they? When comparing it's good to remember the stats... Evil is evil no matter the method.

Where else are there regular school shootings?

 

[Blef]

The NRA promotes the firearm industry and has successfully politicized the second amendment, imo. I have nothing to thank them for.

Yup. They are funded by the gun industry, they have a vested interest in sales in the firearms industry. They don't care about the 2nd amendment, they care about cold hard cash.

 

[bluesneakers]

That may be true but it should be obvious that tweet was put out for supporters of the NRA, and not to offend those people who find guns offensive. It’s like eavesdropping on a private conversation and then being offended when you hear something said that you don’t agree with.

It was an unprotected tweet. Eavesdropping? It was a public tweet. If they didn't want others to see it they could have limited the audience to followers only. No, they wanted everyone to see it.

Also it makes zero sense that they would send that message to gun owners. It was a message from the NRA to anyone who suggests any sort of gun control. We all know this.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

Bumpity bumpity [emoji235] [emoji195]

In 2002, under GHW Bush, the Department of Defense issued the Army a directive. It restricted the use of firearms on bases to personnel performing law enforcement, security duties and in areas where “a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried.”

Even the DoD believed in protecting the very Americans with the most training and knowledge of the safety and dangers of these weapons from unnecessary gun violence.

Imagine that! Seems sensible and responsible to me.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/alarming-disarming/



In 2016, Pentagon-issued guidelines were issued allowing certain other, approved military personnel the ability to carry personal firearms in limited situations.

They also face potential liability for anything that happens with the firearm, can’t have current or pending discipline issues and cannot be under the influence of alcohol, etc. They also make st be 21 or older.

Wow. Our military gets it. More guns means more safety measures — more accountability.

All this sounds perfectly reasonable.

Our lawmakers would do well to consider these facts as they speak of fortifying our schools and public spaces. IMO




DoD Releases Plan to Allow Personnel to Carry Firearms on Base (2016 story)

https://www.military.com/daily-news...plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html

Commanders, O-5 and above, "may grant permission to DoD personnel requesting to carry a privately owned firearm (concealed or open carry) on DoD property for a personal protection purpose not related to performance of an official duty or status," the document states.

Applicants must be 21 years of age or older, the age many states require an individual to be to own a firearm, according to the document. Proof of compliance may include a concealed handgun license that is valid under federal, state, local or host-nation law where the DoD property is located.

"Written permission will be valid for 90 days or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate and will include information necessary to facilitate the carrying of the firearm on DoD property consistent with safety and security, such as the individual's name, duration of the permission to carry, type of firearm, etc.," according to the document.

Until now, DoD personnel have not been authorized to carry personal firearms on military installations, a policy that has come under scrutiny in the wake of "active-shooter" attacks at U.S. military bases resulting in the deaths of service members.

(snip)

The directive states that personnel authorized to carry privately owned firearms must "acknowledge they may be personally liable for the injuries, death, and property damage proximately caused by negligence in connection with the possession or use of privately owned firearms that are not within the scope of their federal employment."

The eligibility requirements also state that applicants should not be subject to past or pending disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or in any civilian criminal cases.

Personnel carrying firearms "will not be under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance that would cause drowsiness or impair their judgment while carrying a firearm," the document states.

 

[bobcat]

Where else are there regular school shootings?

Mass shootings at schools are actually extremely uncommon here in the United States. A person probably has a higher chance of being killed by lightning.

 

[Blef]

Where else are there regular school shootings?

Not Australia, not the UK. And we know why. The last time they happened (22 years ago in the uk) gun control was tightened up et voila, no school shootings since. Yet we still have mental health issues and poverty in these countries. I wonder what the factor in the equation that America is missing is? Hmmmmmmmm

 

[Blef]

Mass shootings at schools are actually extremely uncommon here in the United States. A person probably has a higher chance of being killed by lightning.

Maybe in schools, but 46 mass shootings so far this year in the USA. And we aren't even through March yet.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

 

[bluesneakers]

Mass shootings at schools are actually extremely uncommon here in the United States. A person probably has a higher chance of being killed by lightning.

Where else do they happen as frequently?

 

[Jennifer17]

Mass shootings at schools are actually extremely uncommon here in the United States. A person probably has a higher chance of being killed by lightning.

Extremely rare? No, they are not. I don't know how anyone can say that with a straight face.

 

[flourish]

That may be true but it should be obvious that tweet was put out for supporters of the NRA, and not to offend those people who find guns offensive. It’s like eavesdropping on a private conversation and then being offended when you hear something said that you don’t agree with.

No, actually, it's not at all like that. It's a public tweet and they had to know it would be publicized. It was on many news sites and channels.

 

[bobcat]

It was an unprotected tweet. Eavesdropping? It was a public tweet. If they didn't want others to see it they could have limited the audience to followers only. No, they wanted everyone to see it.

Also it makes zero sense that they would send that message to gun owners. It was a message from the NRA to anyone who suggests any sort of gun control. We all know this.

Okay, well I admit I'm unfamiliar with how Twitter works. But either way I personally don't understand why some people are offended simply by a photo of a gun.

 

[flourish]

Mass shootings at schools are actually extremely uncommon here in the United States. A person probably has a higher chance of being killed by lightning.

They are very preventable. Lightening is not the same as there is no person behind it.

 

[Blef]

Mass shootings at schools are actually extremely uncommon here in the United States. A person probably has a higher chance of being killed by lightning.

11 school shootings in the first 23 days of this year. That's actually frightening. That is more than I had imagined.

​

https://globalnews.ca/news/3986676/us-school-shootings-2018-donald-trump/

 

[bobcat]

Maybe in schools, but 46 mass shootings so far this year in the USA. And we aren't even through March yet.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

That number is inaccurate. It includes shootings that most reasonable people would not consider to be a "mass school shooting." I think the true number is closer to 3.

 

[Jennifer17]

That number is inaccurate. It includes shootings that most reasonable people would not consider to be a "mass school shooting." I think the true number is closer to 3.

Even three belies the statement that they are extremely uncommon.