Jump to content

Welcome to Yugioh Card Maker Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

Gun Control


113 replies to this topic

#41
Catterjune

Catterjune

    Amphoteric

  • Legendary Members
  • 10,800 posts
    Last Visit Jul 17 2018 08:33 PM

Fund mental health more.

 

Stop broadcasting news about shootings 24/7.

 

Create a nationwide registry of all guns (like cars)

 

Require a separate type of license for different types of guns

 

Require a renewal of said license and registry every X-amount of years.

 

Require training for gun use.

 

(Optional?) Require mental health screening before purchase

 

"But muh second amendment!"

It says "well regulated" militia. Better start regulating it.



#42
VCR_CAT

VCR_CAT

    Video Cassette Kitteh

  • Omnic

  • 2,776 posts
    Last Visit 15 minutes ago
  • Spouse:Pizza

I'm seeing a lot of the same perspectives here, and I feel like it could benefit this thread to have a more... international view presented, specifically from your neighbor up north with a much more different culture and set policies surrounding guns.

 

And the first thing I want to address is the idea that "stricter regulations surrounding more guns will not solve gun-based violence and rather we should focus on mental health instead" because, to be frank, that's pretty false. There's hard, empirical evidence from many states as well as dozens of other countries that show how stricter regulations surrounding fire-arms significantly reduce the amount of gun-related violence within that given space. I'm not saying "So hit guns only and ignore mental health", because how the US (and Canada) address and treat mental health and illness is very bad and more needs to be done in both of our countries to remove stigma and allow people to get the help they need to get. Both are a factor, and both need to be addressed.

 

While my ideal is that the US has gun control as harsh as, if not harsher, than Canada, that's a pretty naive ideal and it's honestly not possible at this point. However, I absolutely do think there needs to be harsher restrictions on the types of weapons sold (while I would go with a more basic definition of "Assault Weapons" being pseudo-military weapons designed to kill larger numbers of human beings efficiently and effectively, I'm not the one setting those definitions down there), more comprehensive background checks, licensing, all that good stuff Catterjune is talking about. I do not think it would be a good idea for a mass dis-arming of the United States.

 

I also think efforts need to be done to curb the violent nature of US, and by extension Canadian, culture. I don't mean necessarily creative media (there's a place for violent books/games/movies and no connection between those and actual violence is seen and honestly it's up to the parents to take care of their children, not the government), but things like the US military tweeting and bragging about how many people its new gunship can destroy is just, wow. I mean, compare advertisements for military recruitment between the USA and Canada and you'll see a stark difference. The US government needs to stop glorifying violence so much.

 

Either way, something needs to be done.


PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA PIZZA

 

giphy.gif

 

u8g1mOv.jpg


#43
Darkrai

Darkrai

  • Night's Watch

  • 13,535 posts
    Last Visit 40 minutes ago
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

Fund mental health more.

 

Stop broadcasting news about shootings 24/7.

 

Create a nationwide registry of all guns (like cars)

 

Require a separate type of license for different types of guns

 

Require a renewal of said license and registry every X-amount of years.

 

Require training for gun use.

 

(Optional?) Require mental health screening before purchase

 

"But muh second amendment!"

It says "well regulated" militia. Better start regulating it.

It also says Militia. You down for civilian armed forces taking law into their own hands?


Except then that makes the scapegoat "a majority of voters that voted for Trump", which does not explain the gun violence.

 

Proponents of gun control do not need to rationalize the gun violence for the sake of a juxtaposition against those states, because you've set a precedent where the scapegoat is "Trump won these states." You need to elaborate why whether or not Trump won in a given state is relevant to the looser gun laws of those states.

 

I repeat Dad's question: What do the voting outliers have to do with gun laws or people travelling to get guns? You've stated that this correlation exists, but what does it actually mean?

Roxas you're trying to create an argument out of nothing. Fine. Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indian, Missouri, and Ohio have very lenient gun laws. You can buy Semi-Autos and Silencers with not much hassle. People like to say Chicago is an example to why Gun laws don't work. I'm saying that's wrong, since it's surrounded by states that explain the correlation.

 

The bigger case to make is Baltimore that's surrounded by a sea of gun control, but still has massive gun violence. What does that mean? Gun restrictions laws only stop law abiding citizens. Gangs and people deranged enough will find a way regardless

 

 

R8OX2ppkv2F-E-kdC_pALjkihZMvKHHDlB2GbeOF


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Posted Image


#44
(⌭)

(⌭)

    something pretentious

  • Ace Investigator
  • 7,134 posts
    Last Visit 14 minutes ago
  • Alias:(parenthesis)
  • Spouse:cinnamon

It also says Militia. You down for civilian armed forces taking law into their own hands?

the federalist papers defined militia as regulated by congress, and it would essentially act as a per-state military force.

I'm not saying the above definition is something I want to exist, but it doesn't match what you are saying, and is pretty much completely unrelated to people using the second amendment alone to establish gun ownership as a god-given right.

The regulation of firearms and the proper balance between safety and personal liberty is a complex one, that in no way is properly defined by the Constitution of the United States. If it were, people wouldn't be arguing about it two and a half centuries later.

#45
Bernkastel

Bernkastel

    A miracle certainly will not occur.

  • Kiseki no Majo

  • 7,517 posts
    Last Visit 29 minutes ago
  • Discord:Bernkastel#7240
  • Spouse:Lambdadelta

It also says Militia. You down for civilian armed forces taking law into their own hands?

:thinking:
well I used to be at least

 

The bigger case to make is Baltimore that's surrounded by a sea of gun control, but still has massive gun violence. What does that mean? Gun restrictions laws only stop law abiding citizens. Gangs and people deranged enough will find a way regardless

Agreed. As someone who lives there, almost all of our gun crime comes from drug-related violence. It's a far bigger issue than (almost) anything else here.

 

Harsher gun control wouldn't solve anything, although I also have trouble believing it'd make it any worse. They're already here and the people in the cities are going to continue shooting themselves and each others regardless.



#46
Darkrai

Darkrai

  • Night's Watch

  • 13,535 posts
    Last Visit 40 minutes ago
  • Discord:#0196
  • Spouse:Fate

the federalist papers defined militia as regulated by congress, and it would essentially act as a per-state military force.

I'm not saying the above definition is something I want to exist, but it doesn't match what you are saying, and is pretty much completely unrelated to people using the second amendment alone to establish gun ownership as a god-given right.

The regulation of firearms and the proper balance between safety and personal liberty is a complex one, that in no way is properly defined by the Constitution of the United States. If it were, people wouldn't be arguing about it two and a half centuries later.

F29 notes that it's controlled by the states actually. Not sure if Hamilton's thoughts on the matter carry legal weight, but it's not controlled by congress. 

 

Regardless, the god given right bit comes from the second bit of the sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

Giga, I was just taking the most extreme example of Militia I could find. Cuz the state run militias is pretty much the roaming bands of lawmen that formed the CSA army


:thinking:
well I used to be at least

 

Agreed. As someone who lives there, almost all of our gun crime comes from drug-related violence. It's a far bigger issue than (almost) anything else here.

 

Harsher gun control wouldn't solve anything, although I also have trouble believing it'd make it any worse. They're already here and the people in the cities are going to continue shooting themselves and each others regardless.

It does make it worse. Northern Virginia has stricter gun laws than the rest of Virginia, and MS-13 picked NOVA as a center of their operations for a reason. 

 

When you pass gun free zones, law abiding citizens follow, and people willing to commit murder and other crimes now have prey that cannot defend itself


Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

Posted Image


#47
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Carry on

  • Legendary Members
  • 26,268 posts
    Last Visit 31 minutes ago

Roxas you're trying to create an argument out of nothing. Fine. Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indian, Missouri, and Ohio have very lenient gun laws. You can buy Semi-Autos and Silencers with not much hassle. People like to say Chicago is an example to why Gun laws don't work. I'm saying that's wrong, since it's surrounded by states that explain the correlation.

 

The bigger case to make is Baltimore that's surrounded by a sea of gun control, but still has massive gun violence. What does that mean? Gun restrictions laws only stop law abiding citizens. Gangs and people deranged enough will find a way regardless

 

I was saying that your correlations either need elaboration, or are making improper associations that neglect certain factors in favor of others, which creates an unnecessary tangent in this debate.

 

Unless I'm wrong, I believe Dad lives in or near Chicago, so I thought he was speaking from his own personal perspective. If it's surrounded by states where laws aren't as strict, then isn't that more on the gun laws of those surrounding states, rather than on them being states where Trump won? We're talking about gun control and laws relevant to that, not about who did or did not vote for Trump.

 

But your point about Baltimore is what I've wanted you to focus on, so thank you for distancing it from Trump. The argument that "People will find a way regardless" is weak. Yes, there are people who are going to find a way around them, so make the laws strong, and concentrate more effort into punishing people who violate the laws. For example, Larry Hogan seems to be dedicated to cracking down on gangs and repeated violent offenders.


U3WIwQ5.jpg


#48
Dad

Dad

    I am your monster no longer.

  • Topic Starter
  • Juice

  • 14,597 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:22 PM
  • Discord:Pops#5515
  • Alias:Dad
  • Spouse:Hip-hop

 I believe Dad lives in or near Chicago

 

I live in Louisiana.  I was only using Chicago as an example.  Most of the gun violence in New Orleans stems from drugs.  So does that make drugs the problem or guns?


Posted Image


Gangsters. Outlaws.


#49
Bernkastel

Bernkastel

    A miracle certainly will not occur.

  • Kiseki no Majo

  • 7,517 posts
    Last Visit 29 minutes ago
  • Discord:Bernkastel#7240
  • Spouse:Lambdadelta

I live in Louisiana.  I was only using Chicago as an example.  Most of the gun violence in New Orleans stems from drugs.  So does that make drugs the problem or guns?

Drugs, without question.

 

Or, well, the war on drugs.


  • Dad likes this

#50
Dad

Dad

    I am your monster no longer.

  • Topic Starter
  • Juice

  • 14,597 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:22 PM
  • Discord:Pops#5515
  • Alias:Dad
  • Spouse:Hip-hop

Drugs, without question.

 

Or, well, the war on drugs.

 

I'll stop you right there.  This is both true and false, but I do agree with you.  More drug-related debate should be taken to a separate thread if you wish to discuss it in a general spectrum.


Posted Image


Gangsters. Outlaws.


#51
Bernkastel

Bernkastel

    A miracle certainly will not occur.

  • Kiseki no Majo

  • 7,517 posts
    Last Visit 29 minutes ago
  • Discord:Bernkastel#7240
  • Spouse:Lambdadelta

I'll stop you right there.  This is both true and false, but I do agree with you.  More drug-related debate should be taken to a separate thread if you wish to discuss it in a general spectrum.

There's no debate on drugs, only people cowardly enough to not go as far as they need to, and idiots people who try to control us in ways we shouldn't be controlled while brainwashing the gullible masses into believing they have the right and/or need to do so.

 

The problems caused by the war on drugs absolutely run deeper than anything caused by guns. It's one of the things that guns make worse, sure, but taking them out of the equation wouldn't make anything better enough.



#52
Phantom Roxas

Phantom Roxas

    Carry on

  • Legendary Members
  • 26,268 posts
    Last Visit 31 minutes ago

I live in Louisiana.  I was only using Chicago as an example.  Most of the gun violence in New Orleans stems from drugs.  So does that make drugs the problem or guns?

 

Ah, I apologize for my mistake.


U3WIwQ5.jpg


#53
vla1ne

vla1ne

    The Last (A)utomata

  • Elite Members
  • 3,371 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:48 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

I believe better background checks would be a strong start for preventative measures, and i support looking at each person's past in detail, before giving them access to guns. I don't however, for a second think that banning bump stock, "assault", large capacity clips, rifles, shotguns, uzis, or any other variation of weapon or weapon accessory (bar full auto, which is already banned) would solve, or even alleviate the overall problem to any noticeable degree.

 

as far as control goes, tightening the leash won't solve the issue as effectively as loosening the rope would in these kinds of cases. gun control is, to me, a kneejerk response, until you can clearly list all ways you wish to implement them, and explain how exactly you plan to make them both cost effective, and near foolproof. (will elaborate with examples here if asked, but right now i'm not planning to.). the way i see it, allowing people who are licenced, to carry their guns with them wherever they choose to go (properly holstered and concealed of course), would do more to prevent incidents like mass shootings, than banning guns from any area. removing guns from any area, in a country that allows guns, does nothing but give potential criminals, more potential areas to attack with minimal resistance. 

 

but to go a bit deeper, let's look at the mass shootings that have occurred in the past:  https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States

 

this is a list of every shooting in american schools from the 1800's to today. looking through it, you can see that the most fatal, or high injury (where high in this case, means passing 10 people either injured or dead) of the school shootings, were usually completely unrelated to the kinds of folks you'd normally stop from having guns.

the earliest high fatality/injury shooting being in 1966 by some guy who made it to the top of an observation deck and just started a shooting.

the next one being 1968, where police were the cause,

the next being in 1970, again, police related.

the next one being 1974, where the top student on a rifle team was the culprit, low fatality, high injury only though.

later on, 1984, where a man shot up an elementary school.

1986 saw a rare husband and wife combination, in which a town marshall and his wife capped out at 74 injuries in a hostage situation at an elementary school, though only killing 2 people.

1989 was yet another elementary school, where a man who had no right to own guns, somehow got his hands on one, and killed only 6, though he put 32 in the hospital.

the next one skips all the way to 1992, where a man killed 3 and injured 10. in that same year there was a strange case of 3 different schools having shootings on the exact same day, totaling 11 injuries, but luckily no deaths.

then in 1998, two students killed 5 and injured 10, in a fire alarm they set, then we get to the next of that year, where a lone shooter killed 4 and injured 23.

we then get to columbine, where we see 15 injured and 21 killed, the pair of shooters killing themselves shortly after.

2001 had 2 dead and 13 injured. then to 2005 where we see 10 injured and 7 wounded.

2007 is virginia tech, where 33 deaths and  23 injured holds the absolute record,

then we get to 2008 and see 6 injured, and 21 injured. 

then sandy hook in 2012, where he killed his mom, took her guns, and killed 28 people (self included), and injured 2 more.

2017 is next, with a man who killed 6, and injured 18.

the next, was the marshall county shooting this year, where 2 died, and 18 were injured, followed shortly by the parkland shooting on the 14 of February, which saw 17 dead and 14 injured.

 

looking at that list, i can tell you this much, stricter gun laws, were not going to stop many of these people, hindsight is 20/20, but that 20/20 is useless until it's too late, which is why gun control, at least as far as preventing criminals from getting it, is not as viable a solution as allowing those who wish to arm themselves, to arm themselves. in many of the above shootings, the shooter(s) could have been stopped far earlier, had even a few of the victims been armed. that's not to say arming people is a foolproof solution either, but i cannot see why it would be so unfavorable as it is on many news channels, when looking at past records shows that that ounce of prevention (allowing people who are CC permitted, to CC) would have prevented more of the mass shootings than many, if any, new gun laws could have hoped to.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#54
Dad

Dad

    I am your monster no longer.

  • Topic Starter
  • Juice

  • 14,597 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:22 PM
  • Discord:Pops#5515
  • Alias:Dad
  • Spouse:Hip-hop
Do you believe a teacher at Parkland could have shot and killed the culprit through a panicking crowd of hundreds of students?

Why or why not?

Do you believe any of the armed attendees at the concert shooting of 2017 could have spotted and killed the shooter?

Why or why not?

Posted Image


Gangsters. Outlaws.


#55
vla1ne

vla1ne

    The Last (A)utomata

  • Elite Members
  • 3,371 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:48 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

Do you believe a teacher at Parkland could have shot and killed the culprit through a panicking crowd of hundreds of students?

Why or why not?

Do you believe any of the armed attendees at the concert shooting of 2017 could have spotted and killed the shooter?

Why or why not?

in the panicking crowd? no, but outside of said crowd? definitely. in order to escape, he hid inside the crowd of fleeing students, in other words, letting off shots would only blow his cover at that point. by then, it was far too late to stop him, and he managed to get away for a bit before being found by the cops. but when he started shooting? he was likely out in the wide open for a bit as he was letting off rounds, before deciding to run off before cops arrived. 4-5 staff with guns would likely have been able to stop him early on, doing at least enough damage to slow his rampage down.

 

the attendees stopping the shooter in the motel? not likely, the dude was something like 12 or 20 stories up, popping people, but he took quite a while to prepare for his debut as well, and spent quite a bit of money making sure he could get the best vantage point. on the other hand, had hotel staff heard the gunshots, i'd say if some of them happened to have a gun on them, and maybe a walkie to confirm the situation (which some hotels do have on employees, to make communication more efficient) they could have possibly capped him before he let off the amount of bullets he did.

 

 

Do you think stricter gun laws would have stopped the sandy hook shooting?

 

Why or why not?

 

Do you believe stricter gun laws would have stopped the Marshall county shooting?

 

why or why not?


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#56
Dad

Dad

    I am your monster no longer.

  • Topic Starter
  • Juice

  • 14,597 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:22 PM
  • Discord:Pops#5515
  • Alias:Dad
  • Spouse:Hip-hop

What of the four armed police officers outside of Parkland?  What prevented them from stopping an active shooter?

 

I have no opinion.  I won't take sides in a section I moderate.


Posted Image


Gangsters. Outlaws.


#57
vla1ne

vla1ne

    The Last (A)utomata

  • Elite Members
  • 3,371 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:48 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

What of the four armed police officers outside of Parkland?  What prevented them from stopping an active shooter?

cowards. and i'm not saying that to degrade them, as armed officers, one of their jobs is to uphold the law, as such, not intervening when there is absolutely zero doubt that they need to, should be grounds to fire them on the spot. i understand that they froze up, and i can't fault them on that in and of itself, but their job is one that requires them to no freeze up in those moments, and as they've shown, they cannot be trusted with that responsibility. that aside, their actions do not speak for the actions of everybody else if placed in the same situation. i don't want to turn teachers or other staff into police officers, i simply want to allow them the chance to defend themselves under circumstances like this. i've said it before, but one or two people shooting back, has been proven to be the difference between one more life lost in these kinds of situations. 
 
and before anybody points it out, yes, i know said people may well hit somebody innocent, while i'd hope it wouldn't happen, it could, but i would still say that while unfortunate, the chance of a stray bullet, is still a better option when it comes with the ability to stop school shooters before they rack up far higher numbers than any stray bullet could. i know the potential outcomes, and i'd still pick this poison over the other.
 
 

I have no opinion. I won't take sides in a section I moderate.

 

aaww, you're missing out on some fun pokes.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.

#58
Dad

Dad

    I am your monster no longer.

  • Topic Starter
  • Juice

  • 14,597 posts
    Last Visit Today, 06:22 PM
  • Discord:Pops#5515
  • Alias:Dad
  • Spouse:Hip-hop

 

aaww, you're missing out on some fun pokes.

 

As entertaining as it may be, it would be irresponsible of me to do anything other than to create conversation for the debate at hand.

 

Can you tell me your thoughts on the expenses that would come from arming and training teachers?  With the state of the Department of Education, do you think the funding will be available to accomplish these things?  What of the expense of teachers putting their own lives in danger?  Will they see an increase in pay?  Should they see an increase in pay?


Posted Image


Gangsters. Outlaws.


#59
Death Metal

Death Metal

    Meme Enthusiast

  • Senior Members
  • 8,211 posts
    Last Visit Jun 14 2018 05:05 PM
  • Discord:Doctor Dismal#1806

I own firearms so I might be a bit biased but the topic of banning guns always falls down to a scapegoat like the AR-15 instead of what it should be (better mental evaluations, putting restriction on free gun trade during shows or online without a transfer from a FFL dealer, ect). Honestly whenever I hear people say "ban the AR-15" or "ban assault weapons" I honestly don't even know what they mean by it half the time, it's so damn vague. Do they want all semi-automatics? All firearms? Just the AR-15?

I mean honestly, I hear a lot about things too like "who needs x" and "you don't need a x to hunt" but firearms are used for a variety of reasons and the only thing that makes a firearm dangerous is the person holding it and from my perspective trying to ban all firearms in a nation as diverse and as big as the US isn't gonna be feasible at this point.


FTZMd98.gif

Song of the Moment

#60
vla1ne

vla1ne

    The Last (A)utomata

  • Elite Members
  • 3,371 posts
    Last Visit Yesterday, 09:48 PM
  • Spouse:Lung Tien Lien

As entertaining as it may be, it would be irresponsible of me to do anything other than to create conversation for the debate at hand.

 

Can you tell me your thoughts on the expenses that would come from arming and training teachers?  With the state of the Department of Education, do you think the funding will be available to accomplish these things?  What of the expense of teachers putting their own lives in danger?  Will they see an increase in pay?  Should they see an increase in pay?

fine. i get you.

 

There should be no expenses on that front. the government should not be arming teachers and that's not what i mean when i say it. I disagree with anybody who believes that would be a good idea. The idea, as far as I've seen, and agree with 100%, is that teachers and faculty who are licenced to bring guns, should be allowed to do so. That way in the case of a school shooting, or other school wide threat, they would not be left as helpless as they are now. it would be their choice to fire back, as they aren't cops or anything like, but giving them the option to do so, is all that i'm advocating.

 

as for increased pay, teachers deserve that regardless. guns or no guns, teachers deserve enough to live comfortably for the shit they go through on a day to day basis dealing with kids. I could say, good teachers, but that'd semantics. the job itself deserves a higher pay grade.

 

 

that said, i agree with having national standards for gun ownership as well. that way we have a solid baseline. it's not guaranteed to be foolproof, but in combination with giving the option (not making it mandatory, but allowing the option) to faculty, you would lower mass shootings, and have a far higher chance at lowering the damage by turning once clear targets into people who may well shoot back if they see you pull out a gun.


"Watch, Listen, and Think For Yourself"

nothing of interest


My friend codes are:
ThatGuy @4957-40030345 PM me and I'll add you.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users