We've done this too many times now

Okay, so in recent years, people at concerts, schools, churches, and other places have been shot at and killed. Even congressmen have been shot at and some killed. In the past even presidents have been shot at (and some killed). What then do you think would have to happen before America changes its attitude toward guns?

This is obviously a response to the school shooting in Parkland, Florida where at the moment 17 people have been killed. Read more about it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43066226

Esper said:

Okay, so in recent years, people at concerts, schools, churches, and other places have been shot at and killed. Even congressmen have been shot at and some killed. In the past even presidents have been shot at (and some killed). What then do you think would have to happen before America changes its attitude toward guns?

This is obviously a response to the school shooting in Parkland, Florida where at the moment 17 people have been killed. Read more about it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43066226

Click to expand...

Okay, but what attitude of America's are you implying needs to change. Cause last I checked, not everyone American had the same opinion on guns and also that the debate is still a thing.

I'm not giving my opinion or what not on the debate in general (cause I honestly don't care to), I just want to clarify what is you meaning/point you want to say. since the "change in attitude" is pretty vague and even then it's more on a weapon rather than the policies regarding it.

Esper said:

Okay, so in recent years, people at concerts, schools, churches, and other places have been shot at and killed. Even congressmen have been shot at and some killed. In the past even presidents have been shot at (and some killed). What then do you think would have to happen before America changes its attitude toward guns?

This is obviously a response to the school shooting in Parkland, Florida where at the moment 17 people have been killed. Read more about it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43066226

Click to expand...

I think a definite change in the attitudes of the gun control groups needs to happen. When will they recognize that disarming the law-abiding only makes more victims?

Vragon said:

Okay, but what attitude of America's are you implying needs to change. Cause last I checked, not everyone American had the same opinion on guns and also that the debate is still a thing.

I'm not giving my opinion or what not on the debate in general (cause I honestly don't care to), I just want to clarify what is you meaning/point you want to say. since the "change in attitude" is pretty vague and even then it's more on a weapon rather than the policies regarding it.

Click to expand...

The attitude toward guns, i.e., gun laws, gun accessibility, and general feelings and attitudes regarding guns.

LDSman said:

I think a definite change in the attitudes of the gun control groups needs to happen. When will they recognize that disarming the law-abiding only makes more victims?

Click to expand...

Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those victims of gun violence in Australia, Japan, England, and elsewhere. When will the senseless violence end?

As a high school student, this is terrifying.

The schools need better preparation for this kind of thing. We've been briefly instructed on what to do if this kind of thing happens to us, and the plan is for us to hide under a desk and wait it out.

It's become so common now, and there's no way to know when or where the next will happen. It feels like an endless cycle.

I keep my stance on gun control and I think that regular people shouldn't have guns.

Just a few things...

1.) The NRA needs to be labeled as a terrorist organization like ISIS.
2.) Anyone who has accepted donations from the NRA needs to be named and shamed in public, because that money is soaked with the blood of children.
3.) No more selling of assault rifles. Period. To anybody.

EvilChameleon said:

Just a few things...

1.) The NRA needs to be labeled as a terrorist organization like ISIS.
2.) Anyone who has accepted donations from the NRA needs to be named and shamed in public, because that money is soaked with the blood of children.
3.) No more selling of assault rifles. Period. To anybody.

Click to expand...

1) The NRA is not a terrorist organization. Just because they lobby for policy against something you disagree with does not make them a terrorist organization. And to even compare them to ISIS is absolutely disgusting. You saying this would be the equivalent of a pro-lifer arguing that any lobbying organization that gives money to politicians to vote in favor of abortion is also a terrorist organization because babies are killed.

I personally know NRA members (and other gun owners that may not be associated with the NRA) who are (obviously) gun owners are 1) law-abiding and 2) very loving and kind people. These same people have also had to use their guns (without actually having to shoot someone, thankfully) to defend themselves. You are painting NRA people as these evil monsters, but in reality, they are just like you or me.

2) The money is not soaked in the blood of children. Again, there are many arguments on both side of the debate and to claim that you have a moral high ground or that the other side is evil for a political stance is wrong. There are many arguments that suggest the opposite, and a pro-NRA or pro-guns rights advocate can make the exact same statement in reverse. It's not evil to support a policy that you believe will reduce mass shootings, regardless if that is less or more gun regulation.

3) I have no qualms here.


I have classmates that have friends or family that were shot yesterday, or attended that school. It's very scary to think that there was a shooting relatively close to where I live (I'm in South Florida). Schools are highly vulnerable to these attacks and something certainly needs to be done, at least in the short-term. There were extra cops at my school today. They will probably be there tomorrow and maybe for a week at max. Then what? There are a bunch of unarmed students and very few people that can actually defend themselves in these situations. It's weird to think that we are essentially sitting ducks, but its true. And how is school policy going to change regarding fire alarms? They were previously used for safety, but yesterday they were taken advantage of and used as an instrument for terror. One of the more comforting things is that gun murders are a tiny portion of deaths in the US, and mass shootings are a tiny portion of that.

I think that until something else changes that greatly reduces the risk and possibility of these things happening, schools should be hiring professional pentesters to find ANY flaws in the school's security when facing an attack like this. Pentesting is not only computer-based, there are people that do this kind of stuff for a living, where they basically pretend they're a bad guy and try to get access to various things in a facility.

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but even better would be for teams of these people to volunteer their work for a school. As added incentive, there's a nice thing they can put on their resume: 'I helped protect a school with my work'.

As I said, until something else changes, this seems like a good route to go for now.

Ok comparing the NRA to ISIS is sickening. The NRA may be a bunch of cucks who think "MOAR GUNZ" will solve everything, but they are not child hanging mass murduring jihadist.

As far as me, I have a more contradictory view for this group of people. I think that More stringent and intense checks need to be put on buying a weapon, but I think if you can prove you're not some nut job you should have access to the full range of small arms. Make some serious hoops to jump through to have access to weaponry, but let those who are mature and mentally stable enough and who are proven to safely store weapons, have access to heavily restricted armaments.

I don't think people against guns will find the removal they are looking for. From The EU to America America the very most basic ideology is completely different. It's "why should you have this" vs "why shouldn't you have this"

string555 said:

I think that until something else changes that greatly reduces the risk and possibility of these things happening, schools should be hiring professional pentesters to find ANY flaws in the school's security when facing an attack like this.

Click to expand...

A typical public school doesn't have a lot of security to begin with. Giving one high quality security will cost a high fee which the school would partially put on the parents of the students. The students would also lose a lot of their freedom for the sake of security which would make school life more stressful.

LDSman said:

I think a definite change in the attitudes of the gun control groups needs to happen. When will they recognize that disarming the law-abiding only makes more victims?

Click to expand...

It's called 'gun control' not 'gun purge'. Gun control is focused on limiting the type of guns people have access to and making them more difficult to get, not taking them all away. Someone who wants a gun for self defense doesn't need a submachine gun or a sniper rifle.

Kai Ai said:

Someone who wants a gun for self defense doesn't need a submachine gun or a sniper rifle.

Click to expand...

Rrrrr.... please do a little research before talking.



And before it's though I'm here trying to prove your wrong, I'm not. I saw incorrect information and sought to inform so that you might be more versed in the subject of which you are also discussing. I hope if I made mistakes in my info above (or below) that someone would do the same for me.

Arsenic said:

Rrrrr.... please do a little research before talking.

Spoiler:

Weapons like a sniper rifle (Or hunting rifle) are pretty much the only types of weapons Anti-Gun wants us to be able to get our hands on. Bolt action with no detachable magazine. Also no sane person would purchase one of these for the sole purpose of home defense anyways, much too long, if you miss you're pretty much boned, and the rifle round has too much penetration and could hit someone not intended through something else. These are much more likely to be owned for hunting or such.

Submachine guns (and machineguns) on the other hand are already rather hard to get. Owning one made after I believeeee (and I'm just going off memory so I might get the year wrong) 1982 is for most people illegal. That means the pool of machineguns that people can own is very finite and getting lower every day. This also means that SubMGs and MGs are rather expensive, which is very probational to most looking to procure one. You also have to be in possession of a Class III license/permit, which is free to apply for but requires a crazy detailed background check AND the personal signature of a chief law enforcement officer in your area (Chief of police, high judge, etc and so forth.). To finish it off you have to get a $200 tax stamp (And probably another $200 because your subMG will probably also qualify as a Short-barreled Rifle). TLDR, It's pretty hard to get a hold of a SMG short of illegal robbery

And before it's though I'm here trying to prove your wrong, I'm not. I saw incorrect information and sought to inform so that you might be more versed in the subject of which you are also discussing. I hope if I made mistakes in my info above (or below) that someone would do the same for me.

Click to expand...

Just to add to this, most guns used in crimes are handguns, not snipers or machine guns. In addition, I think its 90% of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained. Part of this reason are people that resell their guns illegally to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify for purchase. The government has failed to crack down on these type of sellers. There are very few actual prosecutions, which is unfortunate at a high level because I'm sure there are deaths that could have been prevented if the government actually enforced the law and stopped the illegal sales.

Esper said:

The attitude toward guns, i.e., gun laws, gun accessibility, and general feelings and attitudes regarding guns.

Click to expand...

Okay sure, but that doesn't answer my question. What perspective or viewpoint on guns and all the add ons needs to change? What specific mindset, like the gun owners or something? I don't say this to act stupid, I'm genially curious as to how far of whatever mindset you are talking about needs changing.

But if you're saying this in a generalist term, then please elaborate on what in particular. Many opinions and views are out there on guns, so which ones do you think need to change?

honestly at this point its just corrupt senators paid off by the NRA that are keeping this from moving forward

what a horrible way to govern

BadSheep said:

In addition, I think its 90% of guns used in crimes are illegally obtained.

Click to expand...

However 80% of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally

BadSheep said:

Part of this reason are people that resell their guns illegally to people that wouldn't otherwise qualify for purchase. The government has failed to crack down on these type of sellers. There are very few actual prosecutions, which is unfortunate at a high level because I'm sure there are deaths that could have been prevented if the government actually enforced the law and stopped the illegal sales.

Click to expand...

I think a very important factor to take into account is that all guns start out legal. Guns don't come into existence as illegal items. Better laws and enforcement around the buying and selling of guns (especially at gun shows), like requiring evaluations and actual training, would definitely make things better. Both because you're ensuring guns only pass hands legally but also increasing the bar of entry and amount of effort required to get one

Kai Ai said:

A typical public school doesn't have a lot of security to begin with. Giving one high quality security will cost a high fee which the school would partially put on the parents of the students. The students would also lose a lot of their freedom for the sake of security which would make school life more stressful.

Click to expand...

schools aren't hardened military facilities so it would be difficult to keep people out.

It's called 'gun control' not 'gun purge'. Gun control is focused on limiting the type of guns people have access to and making them more difficult to get, not taking them all away. Someone who wants a gun for self defense doesn't need a submachine gun or a sniper rifle.

Click to expand...

Shall I link to quotes by gun control advocates to ban all firearms?

AC1245
Gun shows aren't the problem. All gun shows have law enforcement on site. Studies have shown that felons acquire their firearms from family, friends or on the street.
Firearm ownership is a Right and calls to bar non-criminals through "evaluations and training" would be illegal.

Vragon said:

Okay sure, but that doesn't answer my question. What perspective or viewpoint on guns and all the add ons needs to change? What specific mindset, like the gun owners or something? I don't say this to act stupid, I'm genially curious as to how far of whatever mindset you are talking about needs changing.

But if you're saying this in a generalist term, then please elaborate on what in particular. Many opinions and views are out there on guns, so which ones do you think need to change?

Click to expand...

The viewpoint that guns make us safer. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that guns don't make us safer. And please don't anyone ask for me to provide the proof just so you can ignore it. I'm not falling for that tactic. The evidence is readily available. Just google "gun violence statistics" and steer away from political websites.

Also, the viewpoint that guns are a right, which is a conflation of the right to defend oneself with the above misconception, i.e., that guns are the best way to protect oneself.

Esper said:

The viewpoint that guns make us safer. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that guns don't make us safer. And please don't anyone ask for me to provide the proof just so you can ignore it. I'm not falling for that tactic. The evidence is readily available. Just google "gun violence statistics" and steer away from political websites.

Also, the viewpoint that guns are a right, which is a conflation of the right to defend oneself with the above misconception, i.e., that guns are the best way to protect oneself.

Click to expand...

So you're in a debate/discussion hall but you don't want to provide proof to back your claims? Interesting.
Many of the groups that provide gun violence statistics tend to lie or mislead people. Usually by adding in suicides or changing how events are classified to pad the count or even adding the shooters name to the list of victims.
Guns are a Right. It's listed right there in the Constitution. Guns usually are the best way to defend yourself. Studies have shown that people who use guns to defend themselves against attack suffer fewer injuries than those that don't. Not everyone is physically strong enough to fight back or they are outnumbered.

Esper said:

The viewpoint that guns make us safer. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that guns don't make us safer. And please don't anyone ask for me to provide the proof just so you can ignore it. I'm not falling for that tactic. The evidence is readily available. Just google "gun violence statistics" and steer away from political websites.

Also, the viewpoint that guns are a right, which is a conflation of the right to defend oneself with the above misconception, i.e., that guns are the best way to protect oneself.

Click to expand...

1) Okay, so show and tell why that's the case. It isn't enough to just say something, you need to back up your claims in this. Now I get if peeps disregard what you've researched, but making sure you've got a good bit of evidence that does support you is something that shouldn't honestly been not taken advantage of. I like others would treat it with scrutiny, but at the same time that doesn't mean it would be ignored. If you are talking about peeps that would cause you bring things that they don't agree with, you're still adding to your inventory of backup.
2) Google search "gun violence" isn't an argument, it's a dismissal. I can understand not liking an opposing opinion, but saying "do your research" with showing an intent of not supplying either isn't ideal for debating or your point. Plus, information isn't just a google search away. Stuff on the web needs to be scrutinized and reviewed to determine it's validity. Comparing stuff and finding patterns is also important.
3) And some evidence shows that guns make us safer. I mean, if you wanna argue that it doesn't then support the position. "Overwhelming evidence" isn't a rebuttal to any argument unless you show it, or direct it, display it and walkthrough it or prove it.
4) Okay so how is the viewpoint of the right to bear arms a misconception? Elaborate on why you think this way and stuff that would support it/or show that the current mindset regarding it isn't as reasonable as yours. Also

conflation:
noun: conflation; plural noun: conflations
the merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one

Click to expand...

How is the viewpoint that guns are a right a conflation?
5) How aren't guns the best way? I mean, sure they aren't great in all scenarios, but how are they not a good if not best option for self defense?

I'm not trying to come off as condescending or honestly even trying to refute you. I'm just pointing out my own thoughts on stuff and overall why I think your argument is a) Vague and b) Weakly supported.

I wish you well.