School shooting Florida

[MikeG]

You're not making any sense.

Yes he is. It couldn't be clearer what he is saying. Dave is suggesting that banning AR-15s alone would be wrong because there are lots of similar weapons, and thus discriminating against only one of them would be perverse. The suggestion is to ban the entire category of weapons to which the AR-15 belongs. I'm really struggling to see how anyone could be confused by that.

 

[GlennB]

So you want to take away all guns?

I very strongly suspect he means take away guns with similar capability to AR-15s.

 

[Meadmaker]

You're not making any sense.

Everyone else understood it.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

It’s pretty obvious why those people might be restricted from owning a gun.



It’s not so obvious why being foreign-born or poor should restrict someone from owning a gun. At least from a non-xenophobic, non-racist standpoint. Thus, dog whistle.

Nobody said foreign-born or poor. I said "non-citizen" and "on public assistance." Big difference.

Also, your original argument wasn’t that you had to be a citizen to own a gun. It was that you had to be native-born. You explicitly argued that naturalized citizens should not be allowed to own guns. This deceptive pivot away from your original, more xenophobic position only bolsters my argument regarding your agenda.

Restricting gun rights to citizens only isn't xenophobic. It's insanity to do otherwise. Would the French like millions of armed Germans living freely inside their borders? Do you think Mexico would like it if 13 million armed Americans were roaming around their country? They won't even let non-citizens buy real estate in their country!

 

[Checkmite]

So you’re arguing that the number of guns in circulation and their availability to ordinary citizens isn’t a problem, as long as the government keeps better records?

I don't believe my post contained a single word even addressing the number or availability of guns, let alone any arguments involving them.

 

[Meadmaker]

The key phrase is "with practice"


With practice, the longbow had a faster rate of fire or better effective range than any weapon used by the British army until breach loading rifles, yet armies chose muskets in preference to longbows.

And anyone who doesn't understand the difference in the rate of fire between longbows and muskets is unqualified to have an opinion on bow control legislation.


I actually kept a longbow in my cubicle at work for a while. A friend of mine lived next door to our workplace, and he had an archery range in his yard. I would go there and shoot at lunch. I kept it in my cublcle because I didn't want to subject my bow to the temperature extremes of the hot car during the summer. Then one day I was informed that my bow violated the company weapons policy. I tried to explain that if they ever saw me start stringing it in my cubicle, they would know I had gone off the deep end, but they had plenty of time before I started shooting, but they didn't make an exception.

I suspect that they just didn't think it was "businesslike" to be wandering in and out of the office with a bow and arrows.

 

[MikeG]

.......Would the French like millions of armed Germans living freely inside their borders?.........

The French don't want millions of armed French living inside their borders. Not in the sense that you mean armed.

Have you grasped Dave Rogers' point yet?

 

[crescent]

Nobody said foreign-born or poor.

Here's what you said:

The idea is to get guns off the streets. Make being a citizen a prerequisite to gun ownership. Immediately, thirteen million people in this country wouldn't be able to possess a gun. Extend that rule to only native-born citizens to make naturalized citizens ineligible so something like 20 million or so more people couldn't own a gun. Make housing projects gun-free zones. Require anybody on public assistance to give up their guns. There are hundreds of ways of making our cities safer that will work better than demanding laws that have already been passed or banning guns that are already banned.

 

[smartcooky]

It’s not so obvious why being foreign-born or poor should restrict someone from owning a gun. At least from a non-xenophobic, non-racist standpoint. Thus, dog whistle.

Also, your original argument wasn’t that you had to be a citizen to own a gun. It was that you had to be native-born. You explicitly argued that naturalized citizens should not be allowed to own guns. This deceptive pivot away from your original, more xenophobic position only bolsters my argument regarding your agenda.

Indeed. In this country, anyone can own firearms (handguns are forbidden) so long as are able to obtain a Firearms Licence. This includes, all citizens, residents and immigrants over the age of 16. All they need do is...

1. Pass the "fit and proper" person test (which excludes criminals, ex-cons, the mentally ill, drug addicts, people with a history of violence, people with a restraining order against them, etc)

2. Pass the firearms safety test

3. Meet the criteria for safe and secure storage of firearms

4. Pay the fee for a firearms licence.

In our history, we have two spree shootings...

Kowhitirangi 1941 (Stan Graham)
Aramoana 1990 (David Grey)

...and the Firearms Regulations were considerably more lax at those times. We have not had a spree shooting in 28 years, and we've never had a school shooting. This is what good firearms licensing and regulation can do.

 

[LTC8K6]

The key phrase is "with practice"


With practice, the longbow had a faster rate of fire or better effective range than any weapon used by the British army until breach loading rifles, yet armies chose muskets in preference to longbows.

It's hard for a noob to use a longbow well, easy for a noob to point a gun. Armies are mostly noobs.

 

[LTC8K6]

Indeed. In this country, anyone can own firearms (handguns are forbidden) so long as are able to obtain a Firearms Licence. This includes, all citizens, residents and immigrants over the age of 16. All they need do is...

1. Pass the "fit and proper" person test (which excludes criminals, ex-cons, the mentally ill, drug addicts, people with a history of violence, people with a restraining order against them, etc)

2. Pass the firearms safety test

3. Meet the criteria for safe and secure storage of firearms

4. Pay the fee for a firearms licence.

In our history, we have two spree shootings...

Kowhitirangi 1941 (Stan Graham)
Aramoana 1990 (David Grey)

...and the Firearms Regulations were considerably more lax at those times. We have not had a spree shooting in 28 years, and we've never had a school shooting. This is what good firearms licensing and regulation can do.

Do they actually test to see if the applicant is mentally ill, or do they just look at the medical records?

I think several of our spree shooters had no record of mental instability until their fuse blew, such that looking at their medical records wouldn't have revealed what was coming later.

 

[Nessie]

Enough is enough, apparently, as 3000 schools see walk outs by pupils in protest at the Florida shooting and gun control.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/14/walkout-students-gun-violence-parkland-florida

The thing is, there were 131,890 schools in the USA in 2014;

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

so 2.3% of schools took part. That is no where near enough to make any difference, especially when you consider what some think of the protestors;

http://www.kmir.com/story/37724035/...candidate-attacks-parkland-teen-emma-gonzalez

"A Republican candidate for the Maine House of Representatives has used Twitter to attack two students who survived a mass shooting at a Florida high school, calling one of them, who is openly bisexual, a "skinhead lesbian" and the other a "bald-faced liar."
“There is nothing about this skinhead lesbian that impresses me and there is nothing that she has to say unless you're frothing at the mouth moonbat,” Leslie Gibson wrote about 18-year-old Emma Gonzalez..."

 

[LTC8K6]

Enough is enough, apparently, as 3000 schools see walk outs by pupils in protest at the Florida shooting and gun control.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/14/walkout-students-gun-violence-parkland-florida

The thing is, there were 131,890 schools in the USA in 2014;

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84

so 2.3% of schools took part. That is no where near enough to make any difference, especially when you consider what some think of the protestors;

http://www.kmir.com/story/37724035/...candidate-attacks-parkland-teen-emma-gonzalez

"A Republican candidate for the Maine House of Representatives has used Twitter to attack two students who survived a mass shooting at a Florida high school, calling one of them, who is openly bisexual, a "skinhead lesbian" and the other a "bald-faced liar."
“There is nothing about this skinhead lesbian that impresses me and there is nothing that she has to say unless you're frothing at the mouth moonbat,” Leslie Gibson wrote about 18-year-old Emma Gonzalez..."

And not all of the students in each of those schools walked out.

 

[crescent]

so 2.3% of schools took part.

It might have been higher - I don't know where they got the 3000 number from. I know there was a protest at the middle/junior high near my house, I could see and hear it from here. I know every high school in this school district had one as well. despite active discouragement from the district administration.

Nothing at my kid's elementary school. There are a lot more elementary schools than high schools. I am guessing that participation in the protests correlates with age, older kids more likley to participate. I would not be surprised if there were events in at least 50% of the high schools in the nation. I have not seen a single article about any high school that didn't have a protest.

 

[johnny karate]

Nobody said foreign-born or poor. I said "non-citizen" and "on public assistance." Big difference.

crescent already established you explicitly referred to foreign-born people.

Also, this:

I’m trying to prevent people who have no business owning a gun from owning a gun. People who can’t afford rent or food have no business owning a gun.

So yeah, no guns for the foreign-born or poor. You explicitly made those arguments.

Restricting gun rights to citizens only isn't xenophobic. It's insanity to do otherwise. Would the French like millions of armed Germans living freely inside their borders? Do you think Mexico would like it if 13 million armed Americans were roaming around their country? They won't even let non-citizens buy real estate in their country!

I like how you continue to pretend that you didn’t move the goal posts and expect me not to notice.

 

[Nessie]

It might have been higher - I don't know where they got the 3000 number from. I know there was a protest at the middle/junior high near my house, I could see and hear it from here. I know every high school in this school district had one as well. despite active discouragement from the district administration.

Nothing at my kid's elementary school. There are a lot more elementary schools than high schools. I am guessing that participation in the protests correlates with age, older kids more likley to participate. I would not be surprised if there were events in at least 50% of the high schools in the nation. I have not seen a single article about any high school that didn't have a protest.

In such a divided country as the USA, even 50% is no where near enough to create a tipping point where real change takes place.

 

[MikeG]

.......I have not seen a single article about any high school that didn't have a protest.

I have. (Some? All?) Texan schools have made it a disciplinary offense to join in the protest, with a 3 day suspension for any student who walks out. One guy posted about him being the only student in the school who walked out, so I'd be guessing that there were quite a few schools in Texas where no-one protested.

Indi.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They get it from a concerned relative for self protection.

Given as a present or inherited?

 

[Andy_Ross]

That would include rifles such as the Ruger 10/22.

Yes it would. Why is that a bad thing?

 

[Andy_Ross]

OK, so let's ban the millions of AR-15s out there. Now, what do we do about the millions of other guns out there that can do exactly what an AR-15 can do?

Ban them as well. Why does anyone need them outside of the military?