Teachers in Florida to be permitted to carry guns

Manic Moran · 04-05-2019 08:50PM

Faugheen wrote: »

..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.

Why should one ignore the good in favour of the bad? Is not a better course of action to look at -both- sides of the equation?

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.

.

I call it salami tactics, other people call it the slippery slope argument. Their arguments are not without merit, when legislators openly talk about a desire to ban possession of guns, even if they realize they can’t do it yet. (e.g. Feinstein, Clay, Stark, Rush, Owens, Chafee, and since he’s in the news again, even Biden is on record as saying ““Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” )

No ordinary civilian needs a military-style assault weapon, for anything.

So what is your issue with them? Not hyperbole about military design, an actual, practical effect specific to the civilian AR-15 which does not apply to other weapons for lawful use in the US. I can come up with a number of merits of a “military style assault weapon”, or what other folks call “Evil Black Rifles” or “Modern Sporting Rifles”.

You want to shoot up dozens of people, Cho showed you can do well with a pistol. You want to go hunting, pest control, defend your home, plink, maybe with other folks in the family, a single AR can do it all better than any other weapon. What you can’t easily do with it is conceal it so you can mug someone, use it in a typical gangland hit (which is why five times more people are killed with knives than rifles), or use it if you only have one hand.

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.

Then how do you explain the relative dearth of mass shootings 20 years ago when there was even easier access to guns? If a system formerly at rest is no longer at rest, there must have been an outside force. That outside force is the problem which needs to be dealt with.

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.

And they may have been right. A number of CDC researchers had stated publicly that they had anti-gun goals, even before the research had been done, and in at least 1996, the CDC was caught financially supporting the production of a gun control publication (That assistance came to a screeching halt in 1996 when Congress found out) . I guess the NRA had more faith in the Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Health and Human Services’s NiH to conduct unbiased research. The research is being done by those organizations, I don’t hear anyone on either side particularly complaining about bias from them.

steddyeddy · 04-05-2019 08:53PM

And Maniac leads me nicely into the research. Scientific American shows that more guns don't reduce crimes.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

steddyeddy · 04-05-2019 08:57PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why should one ignore the good in favour of the bad? Is not a better course of action to look at -both- sides of the equation?

.

I call it salami tactics, other people call it the slippery slope argument. Their arguments are not without merit, when legislators openly talk about a desire to ban possession of guns, even if they realize they can’t do it yet. (e.g. Feinstein, Clay, Stark, Rush, Owens, Chafee, and since he’s in the news again, even Biden is on record as saying ““Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” )

So what is your issue with them? Not hyperbole about military design, an actual, practical effect specific to the civilian AR-15 which does not apply to other weapons for lawful use in the US. I can come up with a number of merits of a “military style assault weapon”, or what other folks call “Evil Black Rifles” or “Modern Sporting Rifles”.

You want to shoot up dozens of people, Cho showed you can do well with a pistol. You want to go hunting, pest control, defend your home, plink, maybe with other folks in the family, a single AR can do it all better than any other weapon. What you can’t easily do with it is conceal it so you can mug someone, use it in a typical gangland hit (which is why five times more people are killed with knives than rifles), or use it if you only have one hand.

Then how do you explain the relative dearth of mass shootings 20 years ago when there was even easier access to guns? If a system formerly at rest is no longer at rest, there must have been an outside force. That outside force is the problem which needs to be dealt with.

And they may have been right. A number of CDC researchers had stated publicly that they had anti-gun goals, even before the research had been done, and in at least 1996, the CDC was caught financially supporting the production of a gun control publication (That assistance came to a screeching halt in 1996 when Congress found out) . I guess the NRA had more faith in the Dept. of Justice and the Dept. of Health and Human Services’s NiH to conduct unbiased research. The research is being done by those organizations, I don’t hear anyone on either side particularly complaining about bias from them.

You state that the NRA had a problem with biased research and state the NRA had more faith in the department of Health. Here's a simple question. Do you think the National Rifle Association might be slightly biased in favour of say rifles?

I take it you think we should also ignore them as they're biased.

greencap · 04-05-2019 09:03PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGjEt8Dw3iI

theres no need for 45 rounds per minute.

steddyeddy · 04-05-2019 09:16PM

I'm always amazed that US Republicans go mad when someone says health care should be a right. Yet will fight for gun ownership to remain a right.

greencap · 04-05-2019 09:49PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm always amazed that US Republicans go mad when someone says health care should be a right. Yet will fight for gun ownership to remain a right.

well there should be some guns. for living round snakes and mountain lions, for hunting and other legit reasons.

but i think they wrongly correlate being number one (not so much any more) with bearing unreasonably powerful arms.

pointing to the 2nd amendment as some holy tablet, mans greatest document, the reason for success and something which must never be changed.

even though its an amendment itself.

how do you let a nation largely composed of braggarts know that part of their culture is horribly flawed and misunderstood.

you don't, especially if theres an organization like the nra muddying any clarity.

they're fcked for the foreseeable future.

Manic Moran · 05-05-2019 05:53AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You state that the NRA had a problem with biased research and state the NRA had more faith in the department of Health. Here's a simple question. Do you think the National Rifle Association might be slightly biased in favour of say rifles?

I take it you think we should also ignore them as they're biased.

Of course they’re biased. I don’t know if anyone is relying on NRA reports, though. However, both sides seem to be in agreement that NIJ and NIH are not biased, since their reports (either the conclusions or the fact that they are doing the research to begin with) seem to be generally uncontroversial.

You will note that I have never said that more guns reduces crime. You will also note that the Scientific American article does not conclude that more guns increases crime either. Indeed, it observes that part of the reason that the legally held guns are not reducing crime is because the legally held guns tend to be held by folks who don’t live where the crime tends to be. (Whether That is cause or effect seems to be unaddressed). The argument is for damage limitation, not crime control. Crime control is mainly a matter for the criminal justice system and social policies which address the factors which cause people to turn to crime in the first place.

The general consensus seems to be that more legally held guns seems to have little statistical effect on the crime rate one way or the other. What more guns can do, however, is have an effect on the outcome on the micro level, on the level of the individual gun owner. In the case of a school shooting, for example, whether the teacher is armed or not, the crime is happening, the statistics will be exactly the same. His having a gun or not may, however, have an extremely tangible effect on whether he or the people near him survive the event.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 11:53AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

, 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)

Myself and a good few people here in Ireland actually did the NRA Range Officers course here in Ireland. There are a few NRA qualified instructors here. Unfortunately they aren't allowed to do it under the NRA guise any more due to ITAR regulations.

Pity, it was a very good safety course.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 11:55AM

Faugheen wrote: »

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

These are legal in Ireland. You need a special 'restricted' licence. When's the last time you heard of anyone misusing a legally held one of these here in Ireland. My money is on never.

steddyeddy · 05-05-2019 12:26PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

These are legal in Ireland. You need a special 'restricted' licence. When's the last time you heard of anyone misusing a legally held one of these here in Ireland. My money is on never.

Because we're not obsessed with guns. Nor do we value the right to have weapons over a reduction in gun homicides.

Charles Ingles · 05-05-2019 12:34PM

They could also reduce the minimum age for gun ownership to 16, this would allow students to also carry guns.
The cowards who carry out these school shootings wouldn't dare go near a school where all the teachers and senior pupils are armed

StinkyMunkey · 05-05-2019 12:58PM

Charles Ingles wrote: »

They could also reduce the minimum age for gun ownership to 16, this would allow students to also carry guns.
The cowards who carry out these school shootings wouldn't dare go near a school where all the teachers and senior pupils are armed

Don't forget the janitors, give them Rpg's.

Or better yet, have snipers on the roofs.

steddyeddy · 05-05-2019 01:15PM

Don't forget you're arguing with posters on this thread that previously said they wouldn't restrict gun ownership even if it meant a reduction in gun deaths. You might as well be arguing with a born again Christian about God. It's an ideology, not a position bourne out of facts. They have different goals to us. Our primary concern is to see a reduction in gun crime (I work in America) but their primary concern is to prevent restrictions on guns.

StinkyMunkey · 05-05-2019 01:25PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Don't forget you're arguing with posters on this thread that previously said they wouldn't restrict gun ownership even if it meant a reduction in gun deaths. You might as well be arguing with a born again Christian about God. It's an ideology, not a position Bourne out of facts. They have different goals to us. Our primary concern is to see a reduction in gun crime (I work in America) but their primary concern is to prevent restrictions on guns.

There are basically two sides to this argument:

The people in favour of stricter gun control = less guns and tighter guns controls are the most important thing here, they will lower gun deaths.

NRA/people who love their guns = we need more guns, bigger guns and that's all that matters, what I want, not what's good for society.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 01:35PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

There are basically two sides to this argument:

The people in favour of stricter gun control = less guns and tighter guns controls are the most important thing here, they will lower gun deaths.

NRA/people who love their guns = we need more guns, bigger guns and that's all that matters, what I want, not what's good for society.

Eh, not quite.

I'm actually in favour of stricter gun control, and I'm saying it as a gun owner.

But in my mind gun control does not equal banning guns.

I don't believe everyone should have access to guns. I'm totally against that. People with a mental illness, drug use, criminal records etc. should not have access to firearms.

That said, I'm in no way in favour of a ban on guns either. I believe that if you are a law abiding citizen and are of sound mind, then yes, you should be allowed to get a gun.

I have done a NRA safety training course here in Ireland in the past. It was very good, very thorough and in my mind, every gun owner should have to do some sort of safety training course. I am not advocating for people to join the NRA by the way, I'm not a member myself. I just availed of it seeing as it was the best safety course available at the time.

So which of the two groups you mentioned do I fit into?

steddyeddy · 05-05-2019 01:36PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

There are basically two sides to this argument:

The people in favour of stricter gun control = less guns and tighter guns controls are the most important thing here, they will lower gun deaths.

NRA/people who love their guns = we need more guns, bigger guns and that's all that matters, what I want, not what's good for society.

That's it exactly. On a previous mass shooting thread two of the gun proponents bragged about what guns they had. On a thread about a mass shooting.......

StinkyMunkey · 05-05-2019 01:51PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Eh, not quite.

I'm actually in favour of stricter gun control, and I'm saying it as a gun owner.

But in my mind gun control does not equal banning guns.

I don't believe everyone should have access to guns. I'm totally against that. People with a mental illness, drug use, criminal records etc. should not have access to firearms.

That said, I'm in no way in favour of a ban on guns either. I believe that if you are a law abiding citizen and are of sound mind, then yes, you should be allowed to get a gun.

I have done a NRA safety training course here in Ireland in the past. It was very good, very thorough and in my mind, every gun owner should have to do some sort of safety training course. I am not advocating for people to join the NRA by the way, I'm not a member myself. I just availed of it seeing as it was the best safety course available at the time.

So which of the two groups you mentioned do I fit into?

No one is mentioning banning guns, but less guns certainly would not be a bad thing.

Obviously there are 2 sides, which I infinitely over simplified.

Your in the second group, you believe your right to own a weapon of war is the most important thing here. No guns would mean no gun deaths or mass shootings - but that's never going to happen.

I respect the fact you see that tighter gun controls are needed.

The NRA have one simple agenda - sell more guns, regardless of the consequences. And I don't care how many gun safety classes they promote.

More guns = more gun deaths

greencap · 05-05-2019 02:01PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

No one is mentioning banning guns, but less guns certainly would not be a bad thing.

Obviously there are 2 sides, which I infinitely over simplified.

Your in the second group, you believe your right to own a weapon of war is the most important thing here. No guns would mean no gun deaths or mass shootings - but that's never going to happen.

I respect the fact you see that tighter gun controls are needed.

The NRA have one simple agenda - sell more guns, regardless of the consequences. And I don't care how many gun safety classes they promote.

More guns = more gun deaths

the pro gun side intentionally confuse restriction of certain gun types with an outright ban on all firearms.

then they use the various, legitimate arguments about unarmed people throughout history.

also they wont ever admit their real reasons for having certain models, and understandably so, because their real story is that of a grown man engaging in cos-play and fantasy.

Manic Moran · 05-05-2019 02:02PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

That's it exactly. On a previous mass shooting thread two of the gun proponents bragged about what guns they had. On a thread about a mass shooting.......

That wasn’t bragging, that was a practical demonstration by example as to how a proposed solution advocated by a number of thread members did not work as they suspected it might.

I.e. “They should ban assault weapons. That way, the weapons like ARs will not be available to use in shootings”
“I live in a place where such a ban exists, and despite that, I lawfully own the following AR type weapons. It does’t work because it is basically impossible to define weapon like an AR in legislation as “military style weapons” do not exist as a category. QED”

TeaBagMania · 05-05-2019 03:28PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

No guns would mean no gun deaths or mass shootings - but that's never going to happen.

wouldn't make a notable difference
crazy gonna do what crazy wants to do, if there are no guns than crazy gonna find an alternative, pipe bombs, big truck into crowd, airplane, etc

StinkyMunkey · 05-05-2019 03:53PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wouldn't make a notable difference
crazy gonna do what crazy wants to do, if there are no guns than crazy gonna find an alternative, pipe bombs, big truck into crowd, airplane, etc

You being serious?!

By your logic, it's perfectly fine to give a crazy person a gun, because they are going to find some way of killing multiple people anyway.

Why bother having any gun restrictions at all so, give people any type of weapon they want. According to you it won't make a difference, people will just grab planes, pipe bombs or us big trunks.

I can see the headlines tomorrow, America bans all guns, so disgruntled 16 year old hi jacks a 747 plane and crashes it into his school.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 04:52PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Your in the second group, you believe your right to own a weapon of war is the most important thing here. No guns would mean no gun deaths or mass shootings - but that's never going to happen.

Where have I ever called for the right to have firearms? You certainly didn't get that from any of my posts. I've never ever said I have a right to have a weapon of war or any kind of gun. Saying I don't want to give up my legally held guns that are exclusively used for legal activities isn't the same as saying I've a right to a weapon of war.

I'm not talking about anybody else's right/desire to access guns. I'm talking about myself. I see no purpose in me giving up my guns to make the world safer because my guns are no danger to anybody.

I respect the fact you see that tighter gun controls are needed.

We agree on something.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 05:05PM

greencap wrote: »

the pro gun side intentionally confuse restriction of certain gun types with an outright ban on all firearms.

From experience here in Ireland and in other countries, it's clear to see that the Authorities keep on restricting what types of firearms you can have, what you are allowed to do with them etc.

It's sniping away at a sport a bit at a time. And that's why so many gun owners don't want to give an inch, because a mile gets taken every time.

then they use the various, legitimate arguments about unarmed people throughout history.

Some people do, but if you notice from any of my posts, I don't really advocate for people to have guns for self-defence because the law doesn't allow that here.

also they wont ever admit their real reasons for having certain models, and understandably so, because their real story is that of a grown man engaging in cos-play and fantasy.

Sorry, I have to call you on that one. That's bullsh1t. My reason for having certain models of guns is to allow me to do certain types of shooting. If I want to enter a pistol competition, I have to have a pistol. If I want to shoot M1 Carbine Gallery Rifle competitions, I must have an M1 Carbine. We aren't running around with Rambo style grenade launchers strapped to our rifles.

TeaBagMania · 05-05-2019 05:18PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

You being serious?!

By your logic, it's perfectly fine to give a crazy person a gun

Really??? thats your takeaway from my post?

The point was that if there are NO guns its not going to stop someone from doing what they want to do, they will just find an alternative solution to mass killing

StinkyMunkey · 05-05-2019 05:36PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Where have I ever called for the right to have firearms? You certainly didn't get that from any of my posts. I've never ever said I have a right to have a weapon of war or any kind of gun. Saying I don't want to give up my legally held guns that are exclusively used for legal activities isn't the same as saying I've a right to a weapon of war.

I'm not talking about anybody else's right/desire to access guns. I'm talking about myself. I see no purpose in me giving up my guns to make the world safer because my guns are no danger to anybody.

We agree on something.

A gun is a weapon.

Gun:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun

Weapon:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

A gun is not a toy and a person has no business owning a weapon that was designed to kill. It is a weapon of war, no matter what you call it.

Guns will never leave America, the best Americans can hope for is stricter gun control.

Try get over the fact no one is calling for a ban on guns and asking you to give up your precious guns.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 05:46PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

A gun is not a toy and a person has no business owning a weapon that was designed to kill. It is a weapon of war, no matter what you call it.

Try get over the fact no one is calling for a ban on guns and asking you to give up your precious guns.

Can you see any problem with those two paragraphs from your last post? The ones you typed.

The first paragraph is calling for a ban on guns (what else could you call it if nobody should be allowed guns?) and the second paragraph where you say no one is calling for a ban on guns.

You are contradicting yourself at this stage.

evolving_doors · 05-05-2019 11:30PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wouldn't make a notable difference
crazy gonna do what crazy wants to do, if there are no guns than crazy gonna find an alternative, pipe bombs, big truck into crowd, airplane, etc

How many pipe bombs, big trucks and airplanes have gone into Irish schools ?

TeaBagMania · 06-05-2019 01:22PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

How many pipe bombs, big trucks and airplanes have gone into Irish schools ?

give you immigration policy time to work

evolving_doors · 06-05-2019 03:02PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

give you immigration policy time to work

Yup cos it's all the immigrants in the US shooting up the classrooms!

ToddyDoody · 06-05-2019 07:09PM

An eye for an eye, as they say.

Teachers in Florida to be permitted to carry guns

Comments