Cont: School shooting Florida - pt 2
- Thread starter Dave Rogers
- Start date
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,675
It seems pretty clear that they do in fact want to reduce gun violence. In particular school shootings.
"The problem" is that guns in general, and high capacity semi-auto guns in particular are too easy to access in the USA.
Any crank that wants one can go to a Walmart and buy whatever they like off the shelf, or if they fall foul of what little paperwork checks there are, then they can go to a gun show and pick up their own private arsenal no questions asked.
In other countries the Parkland shooter would have had approximately zero chance of acquiring the weapons he used, the Columbine shooters and the Sandy Hook shooter the same. It's possible they could have got hold of them, but in the UK we put enough stumbling blocks in front of them that they tend to give up and do something else. We have just as many cranks here, they just don't have ready access to powerful weaponry. You don't need good guys with guns, if the bad guys don't have guns in the first place.
The NRA uses the same political games as everyone else does. They are interested in power and money, they pay lip service to a particular issue that
a small but very vocal set of Americans are passionate about and they use the politics of fear to spin events to get the group they 'represent' to send them money and keep them in positions of power.
The NRA frames "gun control laws" as "They want to take away your freedom!" and paints the picture of NRA members being true patriots fighting to maintain essential freedoms. The head NRA guy La Pierre isn't even a gun enthusiast. He's a politician through and through.
It's a con, an angle to get people to maintain his position of power and influence and wealth. The same way pretty much all the other politicians work. They are just better at it than most.
There will come a time where the NRA has less influence over policy, hopefully this time around that might actually happen and instead of worrying more about getting re-elected and listening to lobbyists. The politicians in the US might actually listen to the people that elected them and change the gun laws for the better.
It's possible to come up with better gun laws that respect the 2nd amendment but also greatly reduce the mass shootings that occur regularly. Why not engage in the debate about gun laws instead of trying to stifle it?
The 'kids' from Parkland actually got shot at. In school. Some of them lost friends. That gives them a insight into the debate that you don't have. Why not listen to them instead of try to marginalise them?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You say that like it's two separate things.
I see it as more like: They are very interested in reducing gun violence, and the approaches they are talking about include reducing the influence of the NRA, and repealing or amending the 2nd amendment.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I just thought I'd leave this here for your enjoyment (and to show exactly how right you are)...
Note the DISTINCT lack of blue bars on this graph!?
The kids should be rejoicing in seeing their friends being killed to water the tree of liberty!
Bw... bw.... bwhahahahahahaha.
There goes the coffee all over my keyboard
If you thought that about the post you quoted, what do you think of this?
I'd give it 9.9, dropping 0.1 for missing the parentheses around (((George Soros)))
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,675
I don't see a problem with candidates getting money from special interest groups per se. The gun issue is very partisan, perhaps the single most partisan issue in Us politics, hence the monotone graph.
The bigger issue is the influence that the NRA (and other special interest groups, though the NRA are the gold standard in lobbying) can drum up by getting their members to contact their representatives.
Nothing scares a politician more than the idea that they might get kicked out of office and have to return to a 'normal' life with less power and less influence and less wealth. So a few hundred people calling in and expressing that if you do X I won't vote for you, motivates them to act.
It's the disproportionate effect that this has on policies that's the biggest flaw in our current democratic system. A flaw that's not unique to the US. Couple that to the fact that in a lot of swing states it doesn't take much of a shift in votes for "the other side" to get in which is a total anathema to rabidly partisan politicians entrenched in a two party FPTP system and we are all stuck with a democracy that doesn't represent the people very well.
I don't know how it can be fixed. It needs a root and branch reform of the system and that runs into the turkeys voting for Christmas problem. It's also getting too far into politics outside of the politics forum.
I would love to see gun reform in the US though. It doesn't affect me directly, but it's heartbreaking seeing events like Sandy Hook and Parkland on the news knowing that it doesn't have to be that way.
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Or, more correctly, the new interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that the NRA's managed to con the people into accepting.
I'm going to directly blame the NRA for that, quite frankly. More specifically, blame it on the right-wing coup that happened a fair while ago that resulted in its change from a non-partisan organization to a highly partisan organization. That kind of thing naturally ends up making the issue into much more of a partisan one, especially when it happens with an already influential organization.
And, probably just as importantly, strongly influence their voting choices and enthusiasm.
Last edited:
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Think of it as a public service, a "save your breath" emblem like a confederate flag or a clown suit.
CaptainHowdy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2012
- Messages
- 1,819
It's not quite as simple as that. Every state has different requirements for gun ownership but in none of them is it as simple as going to Walmart and buying whatever they want off the shelf.
That's why, along with restricting certain types of guns, we need to restrict certain types of people from having access to firearm. Focusing only on the gun ignores the government policy failures and failures due to incompetence that contributed to Nikolas Cruz acquiring a gun.
That's not a hysterical way of saying that they advocate for a cause and solicit donations, no siree Bob!
So the NRA are just like the ADL, SPLC, AARP and every other advocacy group?
I think debate about the gun laws is great. But it needs to be done rationally.
These kids have an insight into what it feels like to be in an active shooter situation that I don't have. Their experience doesn't give them any particular insight into the gun control debate. They don't have any moral authority to speak on this issue that we don't have. I understand that they're been through a traumatic experience and that they're angry. I can forgive them for not being familiar with guns and gun control issues and for speaking out emotionally. But they are unfamiliar with the issue and they are in a charged emotional state. I give them the same courtesy and deference that I give anybody who is passionately arguing a position that they don't know anything about. And you should too.
It might seem complex to you but it's simple enough that every other rich country has solved this problem.
However I can understand how you could find it complex if you are struggling with reality as in the following post
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
It's also not all the much tougher than that, frequently, and Ambrosia made reference to the fact that there was a bit more to with the following bit.
You've conspicuously got no answer to the fact that the Parkland people actually do want to reduce gun violence, though?
By this point, it can can only be assumed that you're being intentionally "unaware" that gun control groups, including the Parkland students, are not focusing only on the guns and are focusing on the people, too.
Hysterical? No. Advocating for a cause and soliciting donations is fine, of course. Some methods of doing so are completely fine. Other methods are worthy of condemnation.
Are they using condemnation-worthy methods? If so, they deserve to be called out on their use of them, too.
Of course. And much of what the Parkland activists are pushing is rational. Unless you think that things like actually getting necessary information to the background check system is not rational? Perhaps you have a problem with allocating more resources to mental health research and services? Perhaps you think that it's reasonable for there to be very inconsistent restrictions between handguns and semi-automatic rifles?
Last edited:
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,675
It might as well be. As I understand it (and please correct me if I am misinformed) you can go to a gun show and buy anything you damn well please from a private seller, no questions asked. As I understand it you can buy anything that's on the shelf at WalMart (other gun shops are available) with paperwork that's effectively a rubber stamp.
Great. I agree that you need to restrict certain people from owning guns. Period. I'd suggest that you start by disqualifying anyone with a criminal record for example.
OK. Rationally then, what changes to gun legislation would you like to see?
Can we agree that there should be changes to US gun laws?
Would you support increased background checks?
Would you support a blacklist? Where if your name is on said list for <reasons> then you don't get to own a gun. What reasons would you support for adding people to such a blacklist?
Would you support restrictions on any types of guns? either banning certain categories of guns completely, or restricting them to being kept solely at a gun range?
I would argue that it does. But we can agree to disagree on that.
I think I disagree with you on lots of things. but lets move past all of that.
I'd genuinely like to hear what changes you would like to see to the existing laws, if any.
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,290
S.C. Republicans introduce bill to consider secession over gun rights
The bill, which was referred to the state House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, would allow South Carolina lawmakers to debate whether to secede from the United States if the federal government were to violate the Second Amendment.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ublicans-introduce-bill-to-consider-secession
The bill, which was referred to the state House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, would allow South Carolina lawmakers to debate whether to secede from the United States if the federal government were to violate the Second Amendment.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ublicans-introduce-bill-to-consider-secession
solfe
Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2012
- Messages
- 62
And History say's: "NOPE!"
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
That's March For Our Lives. Not quite the same thing as the Parkland students, to be clear.
I'd point to The Guardian's article for something far more directly representative of the Parkland students themselves. It also goes into significantly more detail about the reasoning involved and, shockingly enough, contains multiple points that directly relate to the people. Yes, that thing that CaptainHowdy keeps claiming is being totally ignored by them.
Even reading the first couple paragraphs is enough to show that most of CaptainHowdy's complaints are complete nonsense, though.
ETA: to add a condensed list for basic discussion.
So, bigger proposals by them in that are -
1) Ban semi-automatic weapons that fire high-velocity rounds - These weapons should be limited to the military.
2) Ban accessories that simulate automatic weapons - These things can and do dramatically increase the harm that crazies do.
3) Establish a database of gun sales and universal background checks - Basic record-keeping is the responsible thing to do and can allow for a lot of crime to potentially be prevented.
4) Change privacy laws to allow mental healthcare providers to communicate with law enforcement - Background checks should actually be getting information of relevance.
5) Close gun show and secondhand sales loopholes - Stop making it so easy for dangerous and mentally unstable people to just not have to submit to background checks.
6) Allow the CDC to make recommendations for gun reform - Research is important. Making use of it is important.
7) Raise the firearm purchase age to 21 - Handguns are restricted purchases there until age 21. Why aren't the much more dangerous semi-automatic rifles?
8) Dedicate more funds to mental health research and professionals - Fairly self-explanatory, really.
9) Increase funding for school security - Again, fairly self-explanatory.
Not even a hint of blaming it all on the weapons, unsurprisingly. Note: My summation of the arguments doesn't even try to fully convey the actual arguments made. Read the article itself for a better sense of it.
Last edited:
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
Then again, why SHOULD the school students have to be the ones to come up with policy proposals to do things like, prevent school shootings?
The rightwingers are the ones who keep saying how these are ignorant school kids, what do they know? So how can there be a complaint that they haven't come up with any plans?
I've pointed this out before. The most important thing the Parkland students are doing is to highlight the problem. OK, you don't like the solutions that have been suggested. What is your solution? Put more guns in school?
Because you can't disagree with them that school shootings are a problem, do you? Do you contend that a few school and other mass shootings are a legitimate price to pay in a free society? If you don't think that, then come up with an answer. It doesn't have to be gun control, just something that will help.
Don't leave this up to high school students to solve. Be grown ups. But, above all, do something about it!