Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread

[Prevenger17]

Lads stop feeding Adversus, the weird little dweeb

 

[Pettifogger]

Well, we'd have to translate that to more specific, objective types of goals and standards, but our schools can do much more. Of course, we'd have to fund them effectively to do so, but we have to start with the goal.

I agree with you. I'm not sure what the proposal he's suggesting is.

As for school funding, America spends more than most developed countries on schooling. To the extent you're saying we don't do so effectively, I certainly agree with that.

 

[Prevenger17]

I notice how the 2nd amendment lads don't even bother extending their sympathies anymore, it's sleeves up, set-the-SJWs-straight time, as they prepare for another solid week of internet arguments. The tragedy is an afterthought to whatever bigger cultural war they think they're fighting

 

[Pettifogger]

I notice how the 2nd amendment lads don't even bother extending their sympathies anymore, it's sleeves up, set-the-SJWs-straight time, as they prepare for another solid week of internet arguments. The tragedy is an afterthought to whatever bigger cultural war they think they're fighting

"Your thoughts and prayers are insulting, you bloodthirsty killers!"

"I notice how 2nd amendment lads don't even bother extending their sympathies anymore."

 

[Hogwild]

I don't have statistics on this limited question, but my guess is that that a fairly large percentage of American hunting occurs with semi-auto rifles. This would include semi-auto deer rifles, auto-loading shotguns (duck, geese, etc.), .22 caliber semi-auto rifles (small game), and the more hated semi-auto rifles (AR-15s and the like), which are commonly used for invasive species control (coyotes, etc.) and hogs.

Banning AR-15s, for example, would not do much to limit one's ability to hunt (although ARs are used for deer, hogs, etc.). But banning all semi-autos is a huge category. Bolt actions are very popular, but you're still talking about a large swath of hunting rifles.

Fair enough, I would suggest then that a ban of AR 15s (and the like) would not be of major consequence to the hunting crowd. Let's start there and perhaps look at a capacity cap on the others (say 10 rounds, which we used to have i believe).

That way it is not a return to bolt or pump action, but it starts the process.

I understand that alone this will not solve the problem, but it seems like a reasonable part of a larger plan. We in the US are 51 times more likely to be killed by gunfire than our brethren in the UK. To say we don't have a problem here in the states with guns (and violence in general) is not reasonable. We of course will have to address the other issues as well, which may require sacrifices from other parts of the populace as well.

One thing is for darned sure - doing nothing is not an option.

 

[Prevenger17]

"Your thoughts and prayers are insulting, you bloodthirsty killers!"

"I notice how 2nd amendment lads don't even bother extending their sympathies anymore."

Took that one personally did you mate?

 

[Prevenger17]

One thing is for darned sure - doing nothing is not an option

You would think that. But as has been proven time and time again, that will be the option they choose

 

[riddick]

It's completely true that "gun control will not accomplish anything".


I prefer the status quo of "not doing anything and attempting to 'pray' it away". It's been working well since 1999, why change it now?

 

[Pettifogger]

Took that one personally did you mate?

Not at all. I don't feel the need to express my condolences to the universe. I just find these little political set-ups to be amusing.

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

Look I think we've had enough debate to summarize that:

People who fight for the 2nd Amendment, while they realize there is an issue with mass shootings, are more concerned about preserving the liberties of those who don't kill anyone than in the potential benefits that a limit on assault weapons, gun control laws, etc, etc might bring.

It's that simple.

I remember the days of going to the airport before 9/11. Boy was it easy. Get to the airport a half hour before my flight. Friends and family and walk me to the gate.

Things change. Times change.

 

[Prevenger17]

Not at all. I don't feel the need to express my condolences to the universe. I just find these little political set-ups to be amusing.

Aye, people trying to sort through their thoughts after more kids have been senselessly murdered is amusing stuff isn't it? Get in the bin you utter joke

 

[LinekersLegs]

I'm not repeating anything. I'm not a member of the NRA. My views are my own. The "you're regurgitating" stuff is true of many conservatives and many liberals on many issues. However, it is not true of me with regard to firearms issues.

I'm not saying nothing can be done. A ban and confiscation could theoretically take place, and if that happened, gun deaths would decrease. America has no appetite for that. In other words, it's a possible solution to the problem. It's politically unrealistic and I oppose it, but it's a potential solution.

Magazine restrictions are a a feel-good measure that won't make a difference. That's the contrast I'm point out.

If America wants to solve this problem on the gun side, let's talk about what the real solutions look like. Then people in favor of them can sell their case, and those opposed can sell theirs. But the pandering and ignorance doesn't do anything to move toward a solution. It just allows some people to look busy in the midst of tragedy.

Am interested in your reasoning on this as it is something that some of my pro 2nd-amendment friends feel is both possible and would make a difference.

 

[Pettifogger]

Look I think we've had enough debate to summarize that:

People who fight for the 2nd Amendment, while they realize there is an issue with mass shootings, are more concerned about preserving the liberties of those who don't kill anyone than in the potential benefits that a limit on assault weapons, gun control laws, etc, etc might bring.

It's that simple.

I remember the days of going to the airport before 9/11. Boy was it easy. Get to the airport a half hour before my flight. Friends and family and walk me to the gate.

Things change. Times change.

I think you're largely correct. I think a lot of gun owners are probably willing to do "something" to try and limit these incidents if they can be persuaded it will be both impactful as to lives saves and as low-impact as possible on the liberties of gun owners.

 

[Charlie Sweet]

Even as a relatively liberal person, I grew up hunting and own two rifles and two shotguns. I don't look to them for personal protection, but I do still hunt on occasion. .

Maybe 'liberal' by an American definition!

 

[Pettifogger]

Am interested in your reasoning on this as it is something that some of my pro 2nd-amendment friends feel is both possible and would make a difference.

I'm basing my opinion on restrictions we've seen before. 10 rounds, 15 rounds, etc. Banning 30 round AR mags probably won't make a big difference, IMO. Any semi-competent user can quickly change magazines, so we're really talking about some small interruptions in shooting that I doubt will be impactful in most of these incidents. And of course, they can be similarly defeated by multiple weapons (including multiple handguns).

If I was playing devil's advocate for magazine restrictions, my argument might be that for the random disgruntled person who isn't a "gun guy," that fumbling with magazines could make a real difference. I don't think that's particularly realistic, but that's the best argument I've got.

Of course, if we limited magazines to 3-4 shots or something of that sort, that may be different. You would come close to banning semi-auto firearms outright. I don't think that would get traction, and that's not what people tend to talk about in terms of mag restrictions. But I figured I'd include it as a caveat.