Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Teachers in Florida to be permitted to carry guns

12357…11

Comments

  • #122
    Robert ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭Robert ninja


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Our" children? You in the US or elsewhere?
    Does it matter? Security should be a standard at any place with children, especially if it's state-funded. Can't think of anything more important for the government to invest in. Much better than what they're wasting it on right now.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    We (as most western societies outside of the US) don't need security systems
    This is on another level of naivety and self destruction. Shocking.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    How many mass school shootings have there been IN the US, compared to OUTSIDE the US? And why?
    School shootings or indeed any mass/random shootings are not a huge concern for most people. It's an incredibly unlikely situation to find one's self in even in the US. But none of this means security should be discounted from schools. "Hey we're not the US" is not an excuse.. for anything.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    And why?
    Why is for psychology and economic fields to study. While they do, schools should to be secured. I've seen better security in Tesco. Businesses seem invested in security staff and systems throughout the working day. Good luck convincing them it's not a worthwhile investment.
    Or are €2 packets of crumpets more important than the future blood of this country?


  • #123
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    Fiery mutant wrote: »
    “There is no ****ing way I would allow my kids into a school where the teachers carry guns, not under any circumstances.”
    frag420 wrote: »
    Fook no, what the hell are you smoking?

    Just to add that teaching is one of the most stressful jobs out there, you really want someone under daily stress to be carrying a gun in the vicinity of your child, really?

    It's the best solution, given that people are always going to have the right to own/carry guns in the US. A potential disastrous situation in a synagogue near San Diego was avoided last weekend because the patrons were carrying guns and they were able to shoot the attacker. Allowing trained teachers to carry them is the best solution.
    alchemist33 wrote: »
    So you're a student with a grudge and a lot of anger and you want to shoot someone, but for some reason you can't get a gun. Now, praise be to the NRA, Mrs O'Reilly has one. Problem solved!

    Not getting a gun is not going to happen. Any chance you could come up with a viable solution to the problem? You've more of a chance of closing every pub in Ireland and banning alcohol on Paddy's day.


  • #124
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Robert ninja wrote: »
    Does it matter? Security should be a standard at any place with children, especially if it's state-funded. Can't think of anything more important for the government to invest in. Much better than what they're wasting it on right now.
    um... actual education??
    This is on another level of naivety and self destruction. Shocking.
    In context, I was referring to schools specifically.
    School shootings or indeed any mass/random shootings are not a huge concern for most people. It's an incredibly unlikely situation to find one's self in even in the US. But none of this means security should be discounted from schools. "Hey we're not the US" is not an excuse.. for anything.

    Actually it is. We have a society where people are far less likely to go off on mass murder rages and are less likely to have stashes of guns with which to do it. We may as well spend money on making schools meteorite-proof. Or on planning for alien invasions.

    This is not niave. This is proven statistical reality.

    You can argue that US schools are preparing and still unlikely to have to deal with it, but fact is that in the US the societal environments and availablilty of weapons makes it much more likely to happen in any given US community.
    Why is for psychology and economic fields to study. While they do, schools should to be secured. I've seen better security in Tesco. Businesses seem invested in security staff and systems throughout the working day. Good luck convincing them it's not a worthwhile investment.
    Or are €2 packets of crumpets more important than the future blood of this country?

    Perhaps we already have.

    As for Tesco - well, why not Tesco? Why is a mass shooting less likely to occur at a Tesco in Ireland than at a school?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #125
    Robert ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭Robert ninja


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    um... actual education??
    Already taken care of. (not without problems ofc)
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    IActually it is. We have a society where people are far less likely to go off on mass murder rages and are less likely to have stashes of guns with which to do it.
    Again, "we're not the US" is not an argument, especially for something as despicable as excusing the lack of protection of the most vulnerable and important lives.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    This is not niave. This is proven statistical reality.
    You're arguing with nobody. I already said it's an unlikely thing to happen, even in the US. And it doesn't matter.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    As for Tesco - well, why not Tesco? Why is a mass shooting less likely to occur at a Tesco in Ireland than at a school?
    I already agreed that shootings are a very unlikely thing to happen. Tesco aren't worried about mass shootings either, yet they and many other business invest in security solutions. Less net guns in the country doesn't mean there aren't things to protect your children from and no excuse for having no/weak security.
    There are worse things one can imagine happening to your child than a swift bullet to the head. https://find.globalmissingkids.org/


  • #126
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Robert ninja wrote: »
    Already taken care of. (not without problems ofc)

    Again, "we're not the US" is not an argument, especially for something as despicable as excusing the lack of protection of the most vulnerable and important lives.

    You're arguing with nobody. I already said it's an unlikely thing to happen, even in the US. And it doesn't matter.

    I already agreed that shootings are a very unlikely thing to happen. Tesco aren't worried about mass shootings either, yet they and many other business invest in security solutions. Less net guns in the country doesn't mean there aren't things to protect your children from and no excuse for having no/weak security.
    There are worse things one can imagine happening to your child than a swift bullet to the head. https://find.globalmissingkids.org/

    My argument isn't "we're not the US", my argument is "we're not a fear-ridden trigger-happy gun-culture" and THIS is a far more effective and reliable way of protecting not just children in schools but pretty much the entire population from mass shootings. Security can only react AFTER a threat appears and people are killed, prevention operates BEFORE and is always going to be a much safer tactic.

    Beyond that - exactly what levels of security in schools are you advocating?

    Tesco do not hire trained and armed guards to protect against mass shootings.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,955 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Good guys with guns, yippie!


  • #128
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    So the hypothesis again after this event seems to be gun control won't work in America even if it works elsewhere. Even if it did work we don't care.


  • #129
    Robert ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭Robert ninja


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    My argument isn't "we're not the US", my argument is "we're not a trigger-haopy gun-culture"
    Which is the same thing so yes it is your argument. Keep repeating it.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Security can only react AFTER
    No that's Garda Síochána. Private security staff and systems are in place throughout the working day (and even after).
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    prevention operates BEFORE and is always going to be a much safer tactic.
    You're arguing exactly my point. Security staff, technology and utilities are the strongest deterrents against the unsavory.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Beyond that - exactly what levels of security in schools are you advocating?
    Security manager and office with robust, non-net based camera system would be an ideal minimum in my opinion. That's what I've seen at some colleges. The managers usually assign more security staff from there and the IT departments usually help for technical support.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Tesco do not hire trained and armed guards to protect against mass shootings.
    How many times do I need to say shootings are not a bloody issue for the overwhelming majority of the population? There's businesses all over the EU who have trained security professionals; unarmed, non-lethal or lethal gear. It all depends on the businesses' budget and what they're protecting. For us it's government budget and children. We should do better. I'm sure our politicians are loving your excuses though. More money for them to spend on private aircraft and premium lifestyle.


  • #130
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Robert ninja wrote: »
    Which is the same thing so yes it is your argument. Keep repeating it.
    Interpret as you wish. You still haven't countered it though - you just said it was "niave" without saying why.
    No that's Garda Síochána. Private security staff and systems are in place throughout the working day (and even after).

    You're arguing exactly my point. Security staff, technology and utilities are the strongest deterrents against the unsavory.

    No this is reaction. If someone wants to go on a shooting spree they're going to take out several people even before the best security staff are going to be able to react.
    Security manager and office with robust, non-net based camera system would be an ideal minimum in my opinion. That's what I've seen at some colleges. The managers usually assign more security staff from there and the IT departments usually help for technical support.
    The infinitestimal low level of risk involed makes this pointless.

    The problem here is that you haven't evaluated risk management. If the threat was there, I'd totally agree with you. And if the money is there, I'd put it into areas where children are more likely to be killed.

    How many kids have been killed on Irish roads v how many are killed in schools? How many are likely to be killed in the next five?
    How many times do I need to say shootings are not a bloody issue for the overwhelming majority of the population? There's businesses all over the EU who have trained security professionals; unarmed, non-lethal or lethal gear. It all depends on the businesses' budget and what they're protecting. For us it's government budget and children. We should do better. I'm sure our politicians are loving your excuses though. More money for them to spend on private aircraft and premium lifestyle.

    The government is not going to fund Tesco's security costs to what you advocate. As for schools - taxpayers don't even like funding teacher salaries let along security staff! And if there ARE the funds, put them where the risk is.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #131
    Berserker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    So the hypothesis again after this event seems to be gun control won't work in America even if it works elsewhere. Even if it did work we don't care.

    Gun control isn't an option in the US. It's just not going to happen. That's the reality of guns and life in the US.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Guns in the classroom. Unruley child gets the choice of detention or a knee capping.

    This will end well.


  • #133
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Berserker wrote: »
    Gun control isn't an option in the US. It's just not going to happen. That's the reality of guns and life in the US.

    The same was said about a lot of things in America. It's not going to happen isn't helpful dialogue.


  • #134
    Robert ninja
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,878 ✭✭✭Robert ninja


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Interpret as you wish. You still haven't countered it though - you just said it was "niave" without saying why.
    It's naive to think we don't need security solutions for the most vulnerable and precious lives in our country because "we're not as bad". It's naive to think we don't need security because we're a western society, as if that makes us a utopia. Oh wait which country was it that had generations of sickening abuse of children at the hands of of an unsupervised organisation?
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    No this is reaction. If someone wants to go on a shooting spree they're going to take out several people even before the best security staff are going to be able to react.
    Unlikely to happen so not concern for most of Irish people. If you feel that worried about it though then you're only arguing for stronger security.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    The problem here is that you haven't evaluated risk management. If the threat was there, I'd totally agree with you.
    No threat to children? You're something else mate. Where is this utopian country because I'm moving there ASAP.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    The problem here is that you haven't evaluated risk management. If the threat was there, I'd totally agree with you. And if the money is there, I'd put it into areas where children are more likely to be killed.
    You're getting into specifics of a fantasy situation. I simply want a minimum standard of security for this country's children. You're waffling about uneven spending that isn't even happening. How about we get some security before we worry about the possibility of disproportionate geographic funding.


  • #135
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Robert ninja wrote: »
    It's naive to think we don't need security solutions for the most vulnerable and precious lives in our country because "we're not as bad". It's naive to think we don't need security because we're a western society, as if that makes us a utopia. Oh wait which country was it that had generations of sickening abuse of children at the hands of of an unsupervised organisation?
    Strawman. Never said that.
    Unlikely to happen so not concern for most of Irish people. If you feel that worried about it though then you're only arguing for stronger security.

    Isn't shooting sprees exactly what you're trying to secure people against? Or have I misunderstood you? If I have then apologies - but what are you trying to protect people from?
    No threat to children? You're something else mate. Where is this utopian country because I'm moving there ASAP.

    Again, strawman.
    You're getting into specifics of a fantasy situation. I simply want a minimum standard of security for this country's children. You're waffling about uneven spending that isn't even happening. How about we get some security before we worry about the possibility of disproportionate geographic funding.

    I'm talking about risk evaluation. Or are you deeming that unnesecary?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #136
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    an american solution to an american problem. it might work.


  • #137
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,967 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    I mean why not what's the worst that could happen ? FFS I mean my memories of school is that some of the teachers would get very stressed very easily. My point the last thing some of the teachers in my secondary school needed was a gun.


  • #138
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,565 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    So I presume they're expected to act as a form of defense in mass shootings. That's a lot of pressure to put on someone.


  • #139
    handlemaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    On a matter of time that the very guns been used by the teachers will somehow be used on the kids. This is america after all


  • #140
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    The NRA solution with everything is more guns, and more guns mean more gun deaths, just like more cars on the roads mean more traffic accidents.

    Better gun control or less guns will lower gun deaths.

    The logic behind arming everyone so no gets shot is pure insanity. Your essentially adding more fuel to a fire in an effort to but it out.


  • #141
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    The NRA solution with everything is more guns, and more guns mean more gun deaths, just like more cars on the roads mean more traffic accidents.

    Better gun control or less guns will lower gun deaths.

    The logic behind arming everyone so no gets shot is pure insanity. Your essentially adding more fuel to a fire in an effort to but it out.

    More gun deaths mean more people buy guns to protect themselves.

    More gun deaths also mean more scare-mongering from the NRA that people's guns will be taken away, so people end up going out to buy as many guns as they can.

    The NRA are one of the worst organisations on the planet.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    So I presume they're expected to act as a form of defense in mass shootings. That's a lot of pressure to put on someone.

    How much pressure is on a teacher who is in a mass shooting incident to begin with? Even if they just hunker down, kids behind them, with the gun permanently aimed at the door, that is a much better survival chance for the people in that room than not.
    Faugheen wrote: »
    More gun deaths mean more people buy guns to protect themselves.

    More gun deaths also mean more scare-mongering from the NRA that people's guns will be taken away, so people end up going out to buy as many guns as they can.

    The NRA are one of the worst organisations on the planet.

    When one gets past the hyperbole being spouted at the leadership levels, on the ground they do still do quite a lot for shooters. Not many organizations will teach firearms safety for free if you just call up and ask (but people who go “ugh NRA” don’t think or want to ask). 2017 tax year (the most recent available), they spent $3m on political support, $22m on lobbying, legal cases etc, and $140m on services. People only ever hear about the first two. I’m not a member because I disagree with the idiocy at the top and don’t wish membership to be confused with support of their stance, but the organization itself has much to commend it.


  • #143
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    Are they actively arming and training teachers, or just making it legal for a teacher to have a gun in school.
    Was this illegal beforehand. My impression of some American states is you can virtually carry your gun anywhere.
    I don't know so can stand to be corrected


  • #144
    greencap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    Berserker wrote: »
    Gun control isn't an option in the US. It's just not going to happen. That's the reality of guns and life in the US.

    but it already is in legislation, and working.

    there are certain types of guns you cant buy.

    so the realisation is there. its just down to lack of will or inability now.

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #145
    greencap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    an american solution to an american problem. it might work.

    lol. nope. this will end in horrible disaster(s).

    discussion/2058195983/russia-threadbanned-users-in-op/p3135

    😁



  • #146
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    When one gets past the hyperbole being spouted at the leadership levels, on the ground they do still do quite a lot for shooters. Not many organizations will teach firearms safety for free if you just call up and ask (but people who go “ugh NRA” don’t think or want to ask). 2017 tax year (the most recent available), they spent $3m on political support, $22m on lobbying, legal cases etc, and $140m on services. People only ever hear about the first two. I’m not a member because I disagree with the idiocy at the top and don’t wish membership to be confused with support of their stance, but the organization itself has much to commend it.

    Like give them the ability to buy guns so they can shoot up schools?

    Like scare-monger people into thinking everyone’s guns are going to be taken away when there’s any suggestion of gun control when it’s absolutely not the case?

    Like lobbying for the ability to use military style weapons such as AR15s which no ordinary civilian needs to have?

    They can give out all the free safe-use lessons they want, but when that organisation looks at the survivors of school shootings in the face and say this isn’t the fault of guns, they lose all credibility.

    The fact the NRA kicked up a massive fuss when Obama wanted the CDC to study gun violence tells me everything I need to know about them. Why, if they’re so concerned about the health and safety of Americans, would they be so angry about the idea of studying gun violence?

    They’re a scummy organisation.


  • #147
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,884 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Like give them the ability to buy guns so they can shoot up schools?

    Or do whatever lawful things may be done with a firearm. A substantial more firearms are bought to not shoot up schools, much as a substantial number of vehicles are not purchased as getaway cars, no matter how much Ford advertises the performance and handling of the Mustang.
    Like scare-monger people into thinking everyone’s guns are going to be taken away when there’s any suggestion of gun control when it’s absolutely not the case?

    Not everyone’s, no, it seems to be a case of salami tactics. Fortunately, the courts aren’t on board, so the California ban on anything other than limited capacity magazines was invalidated because it violated the Takings Clause, for example. That said, they do occasionally. cross into hyperbole. They are far from the only organization or opinion to do so, however. There have been a few posters in this thread putting forth a parade of horribles, without realizing that much of their parade is already legal and the horribles have not resulted.
    Like lobbying for the ability to use military style weapons such as AR15s which no ordinary civilian needs to have?

    There are many things which you probably don’t need to have. The reason that the AR-style firearm is the most popular rifle in the US yet is responsible for such a minuscule portion of firearms deaths is that it is the most universally suitable single firearm for a large variety of lawful roles. One AR can replace a few other rifles.
    They can give out all the free safe-use lessons they want, but when that organisation looks at the survivors of school shootings in the face and say this isn’t the fault of guns, they lose all credibility.

    What is incorrect in saying that though the number of families with firearms has decreased, though the restrictions on firearms have increased, that the number of spree shootings have also increased indicates that the problem is not the guns? Something changed societally in the US in the last two decades, and it was not the guns which have been there before the era of school shootings, and have been there afterwards.
    The fact the NRA kicked up a massive fuss when Obama wanted the CDC to study gun violence tells me everything I need to know about them. Why, if they’re so concerned about the health and safety of Americans, would they be so angry about the idea of studying gun violence?

    They aren’t. There is a common perception that the NRA has managed to get congress to prohibit the CDC from studying gun violence. There is not, and has never been such a prohibition and the CDC has published studies on anything from the effect of the 1994 assault weapons ban in 2003 to the most recent piece being a study on firearms homicides and suicides in major metropolitan areas, released November 2018. The prohibition, emplaced in 1996 after indications that the CDC had a goal of firearms control, is on the CDC from using funds advocating a political position on the subject. (The exact verbiage is “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control”).

    They can research the hell out of firearms violence, nobody is stopping them. The brouhaha about 2013 over it was the attempt to remove this verbiage. The attempt failed, and Obama directed the CDC study anyway. It is also worth observing that though the CDC will claim issues that their funding is insufficient to do a lot of gun violence research and that they have to prioritize actual disease (Ebola, measles, the things they are good at), that is not a problem that the National Institute of Justice (Part of the DoJ) faces, and one can very well argue that that is the department which is supposed to be doing the research on criminal misuse of firearms to begin with. They certainly are making them, there is one undergoing right now (at the cost of a half million dollars) entitled “The Nature, Trends, Correlates and Prevention of Mass Shootings in the United States 1976-2018”, and there are over 20 other ongoing studies on firearms if you go the the NIJ’s Gun Violence page. Do you hear the NRA (or anyone else) objecting to the DoJ doing research on this or on any other firearms matter?


  • #148
    AllForIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,681 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    As long as any nutter can easily get their hands on a gun then teachers may as well have them as well. I really don't see why one would think it's better for nutter to have them and at the same time teachers not have them. That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

    Obviously the better solution is that civilian can't own guns but that is not the case in the US.


  • #149
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,610 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    AllForIt wrote: »
    As long as any nutter can easily get their hands on a gun then teachers may as well have them as well. I really don't see why one would think it's better for nutter to have them and at the same time teachers not have them. That seems like the worst of both worlds to me.

    Obviously the better solution is that civilian can't own guns but that is not the case in the US.

    Being a teacher and being a nutter are not mutually exclusive.


  • #150
    Charles Ingles
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Charles Ingles


    Great news Florida just became the safest place to send your children to school in America.
    Florida will be a state free of mass shooting now


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Or do whatever lawful things may be done with a firearm. A substantial more firearms are bought to not shoot up schools, much as a substantial number of vehicles are not purchased as getaway cars, no matter how much Ford advertises the performance and handling of the Mustang.

    ..and allow maniacs to get their hands on them to shoot up schools.

    You can say ‘but look at the good things that happen’ all you want, but NRA policies and lobbying allow for the loss of human life, sometimes by the dozen.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Not everyone’s, no, it seems to be a case of salami tactics. Fortunately, the courts aren’t on board, so the California ban on anything other than limited capacity magazines was invalidated because it violated the Takings Clause, for example. That said, they do occasionally. cross into hyperbole. They are far from the only organization or opinion to do so, however. There have been a few posters in this thread putting forth a parade of horribles, without realizing that much of their parade is already legal and the horribles have not resulted.

    That has nothing to do what I said.

    The NRA keeps telling people that their guns are being taken away anytime there’s any hint of gun control talk post a mass shooting, to stir up trouble.

    Then their policies allow maniacs to shoot up schools, rinse and repeat.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    There are many things which you probably don’t need to have. The reason that the AR-style firearm is the most popular rifle in the US yet is responsible for such a minuscule portion of firearms deaths is that it is the most universally suitable single firearm for a large variety of lawful roles. One AR can replace a few other rifles.

    No ordinary civilian needs a military-style assault weapon, for anything.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    What is incorrect in saying that though the number of families with firearms has decreased, though the restrictions on firearms have increased, that the number of spree shootings have also increased indicates that the problem is not the guns? Something changed societally in the US in the last two decades, and it was not the guns which have been there before the era of school shootings, and have been there afterwards.

    The problem is guns because people have such easy access to guns.

    You take away that extremely easy access to guns and these rates go down. It’s that simple.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    They aren’t. There is a common perception that the NRA has managed to get congress to prohibit the CDC from studying gun violence. There is not, and has never been such a prohibition and the CDC has published studies on anything from the effect of the 1994 assault weapons ban in 2003 to the most recent piece being a study on firearms homicides and suicides in major metropolitan areas, released November 2018. The prohibition, emplaced in 1996 after indications that the CDC had a goal of firearms control, is on the CDC from using funds advocating a political position on the subject. (The exact verbiage is “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control”).

    They can research the hell out of firearms violence, nobody is stopping them. The brouhaha about 2013 over it was the attempt to remove this verbiage. The attempt failed, and Obama directed the CDC study anyway.

    And why hadn’t the CDC done any research before then? Because the NRA accused them of being biased and in favour of gun control.

    You’re clearly not going to be convinced so I’ll leave it there.


Advertisement