Florida High School Shooting

[realibrad]

That is all fine. But you need to disabuse yourself of the straw man idea that anyone is arguing that guns are literally the only factor in violence or that restricting guns will make all of it go away. Obviously there is an overall correlation between gun ownership and violence, but the correlation is uneven across countries because other factors are in play.

Show me where I have built a straw man. What I have done is say yes, reduce guns but lets also do more. There are, however, people that really do think guns are the only issue, or at the very least that is their argument. All I have done is say its more than guns. People have been responding to me trying to disagree with me, and yet agree with me.

Here is an example.

Simple, look at other countries that have less guns and few mass shootings, what are the differences. Better healthcare? Non starter here because reasons.

I then respond with...

Yes, its likely due to better healthcare as well as differences in society. I also notice that you ignored your original stance that less guns means less violence. Again, we have had guns in this country from the start, and this mass shootings thing is recent. It seems silly to just focus on the tool that makes it easier to kill which has been around for 100% of the time in this country, and not look at what drives people here.

Ask yourself this, why does Switzerland not have the same gun problem that the US has given AR15s are legal there?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-countries-with-the-most-guns/

From this article, it says that Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 people, yet they are not even close to what we see in the US.

He then takes an opposing stance. My stance is Guns and Culture.

You can always find an outlier, Switzerland’s population is what?

Does the average Swiss gun owner have 17 guns or more like the typical US gun owners.

So what is he disagreeing with here? Is sure seems like he is disagreeing with mental health, but also not.

 

[realibrad]

I've already said. Get rid of guns that can kill so many people so quickly. AND let's help out them mentally ill folks.

Yes, that means MORE funding for mental health programs. Universal Health Care would be a great start.

It also means emulating other countries that have successfully regulated guns. 2A must be amended so that a person's "right" doesn't include guns the composer's of 2A could not have conceived of.

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment...But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”

― Thomas Jefferson

So great, you and I are in agreement here. So why are you telling me to stop? People post to me, and I respond. If people want to talk to me, then I will respond. I'm sorry that you do not like that people talk to me, but who are you to tell me to stop, and why? Just ignore my posts, or find something else to do with your life. Its super strange that we agree and for you to tell me to stop responding to people. Am I taking up too much room on the internet?

 

[zzyzxroad]

Because you're pretending that statistical outliers disprove a relationship between gun ownership and gun violence, and your outliers aren't very good examples because none of them are even close to US gun ownership. I thought since you mentioned those four countries that the actual ownership statistics should be in the thread.

Number of guns per 100 residence is misleading though isn't it? it's my understanding that there are a small number of individuals who hoard guns thus throwing off the number. I would like to see some data based on percentage of gun owners but haven't had time to dig around.

 

[soundforbjt]

Show me where I have built a straw man. What I have done is say yes, reduce guns but lets also do more. There are, however, people that really do think guns are the only issue, or at the very least that is their argument. All I have done is say its more than guns. People have been responding to me trying to disagree with me, and yet agree with me.

Here is an example.



I then respond with...



He then takes an opposing stance. My stance is Guns and Culture.



So what is he disagreeing with here? Is sure seems like he is disagreeing with mental health, but also not.

I’m not disagreeing that mental health is not a problem, there’s no way you can compare Switzerland with the US, poverty levels, etc make this impossible. Mental health improvements would require funding from the government, good luck getting any money from the conservatives for that.

 

[woolfe9998]

Show me where I have built a straw man. What I have done is say yes, reduce guns but lets also do more. There are, however, people that really do think guns are the only issue, or at the very least that is their argument. All I have done is say its more than guns. People have been responding to me trying to disagree with me, and yet agree with me.

Here is an example.



I then respond with...



He then takes an opposing stance. My stance is Guns and Culture.



So what is he disagreeing with here? Is sure seems like he is disagreeing with mental health, but also not.

I didn't read the totality of his comments as arguing that guns are the sole factor. He even threw out the issue of healthcare but dismissed it because it's politically non-feasible in this country. He has a point. Conservatives oppose not only gun control. They don't want the government spending money on healthcare either, including mental health.

Edit: in the post above mine, he said the same thing.

 

[woolfe9998]

I mean, its super complex. Look at it like this, South Korea has a drastically higher suicide rate. Imagine what it might be like if they also had a gun culture, scary right? The US has a culture that grew up with guns. The country was founded by people whom picked up guns to fight. We had guns for a very long time before having mass shootings. I'm not going to pretend I have any answers, but I do believe that it has something to do with the fact that we started seeing rates go up around the time state mental heath systems went away. The US has to do a lot more than reduce guns for this problem to really get dealt with.

This reflects my view on the subject pretty well:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/violence-the-american-way-of-life/5318698

Violence is in our cultural DNA.

 

[realibrad]

I’m not disagreeing that mental health is not a problem, there’s no way you can compare Switzerland with the US, poverty levels, etc make this impossible. Mental health improvements would require funding from the government, good luck getting any money from the conservatives for that.

I am comparing society vs society. If the argument is that guns are the issue, then it should be an issue there. Yet, we do not see that. Guns can exist in that society and not be a major factor because it's society does not have the problem(s) we have.

 

[realibrad]

I didn't read the totality of his comments as arguing that guns are the sole factor. He even threw out the issue of healthcare but dismissed it because it's politically non-feasible in this country. He has a point. Conservatives oppose not only gun control. They don't want the government spending money on healthcare either, including mental health.

Edit: in the post above mine, he said the same thing.

And that is not an unreasonable stance. Republicans are against both and have been the main factor we do not have both.

 

[pmv]

Yes, its likely due to better healthcare as well as differences in society. I also notice that you ignored your original stance that less guns means less violence. Again, we have had guns in this country from the start, and this mass shootings thing is recent. It seems silly to just focus on the tool that makes it easier to kill which has been around for 100% of the time in this country, and not look at what drives people here.

Ask yourself this, why does Switzerland not have the same gun problem that the US has given AR15s are legal there?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/mapped-the-countries-with-the-most-guns/

From this article, it says that Switzerland has 45.7 guns per 100 people, yet they are not even close to what we see in the US.

But as I understand it, Swizerland has a large army of reservists, and most of those guns are the government-issued one those reservists keep at home (indeed, I think they are _obliged_ to do so). In fact they tightened up the rules on that considerably after one such reservist went postal with his government-issued weapon.

So the guns are held by people who have been subject to some degree of military discipline and training.

The whole 'well regulated militia' business would seem to fit much better for Switzerland, as that's pretty much what their gun owners are.

The above is what I remember (from past internet arguments on the topic), a quick google turns up this, which seems consistent with it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

Also, I wonder about your comment about having had 'guns in the country since the start'. Got any figures for that? How many guns? I know there was a debate between historians a while back over the idea that the ownership of firearms in the US only really became widespread after the civil war. But I don't know what the verdict was.

 

[realibrad]

This reflects my view on the subject pretty well:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/violence-the-american-way-of-life/5318698

Violence is in our cultural DNA.

Its weird. Most of you agree with me, but the first reaction seems to be to disagree and even some that try to shut me down. This is a forum for discussion and yet far too many are talking at people. I wonder how many more discussions I could have with people if they were not so quick to judge me. I get that places the onus on others, but I have been saying the same thing from post 1 in this thread, and yet just about everyone that started to disagree with me now seems to agree with me. So if I say the same thing over and over, and people come around to agree with me, I'm not sure what else people want me to do.

I will have to read over that link, it seems interesting.

 

[realibrad]

But as I understand it, Swizerland has a large army of reservists, and most of those guns are the government-issued one those reservists keep at home (indeed, I think they are _obliged_ to do so). In fact they tightened up the rules on that considerably after one such reservist went postal with his government-issued weapon.

So the guns are held by people who have been subject to some degree of military discipline and training.

The whole 'well regulated militia' business would seem to fit much better for Switzerland, as that's pretty much what their gun owners are.

The above is what I remember (from past internet arguments on the topic), a quick google turns up this, which seems consistent with it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21379912

Yes, that is part of the reason someone took issue with the numbers I posted. It included private and government guns. I included it because as we have seen in the US, government guns can be used to hurt civilians.

Discipline and training would probably help a lot, but again, I think mental health comes in to play. If you are suffering in Switzerland with mental health, you have far more avenues to take to get help.

Also, I wonder about your comment about having had 'guns in the country since the start'. Got any figures for that? How many guns? I know there was a debate between historians a while back over the idea that the ownership of firearms in the US only really became widespread after the civil war. But I don't know what the verdict was.

I'm not sure I understand your question. The US used guns to defeat the British, and those guns were never taken away. We then had a constitution that explicitly gave the right of gun ownership to the people. So yes, as long as this country has been here guns have been here. I might not be understanding your question though.

 

[jpeyton]

Even with the warning signs, current gun laws weren't enough to keep an AR-15 out of Nikolas Cruz's hands: http://registerguard.com/rg/news/36...un-laws-targeting-threatening-people.html.csp

We need a stronger background check system, that integrates state and federal data from multiple agencies, and includes data on threatening individuals (school expulsions, law enforcement tip lines, social services, mental health records). Due process can still be followed to either rescind or make permanent a temporary restriction of gun ownership rights.

We need to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

We need to raise the age to buy any type of firearm to 21.

We need to close the private sale loophole and require a background check for any purchase.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Even with the warning signs, current gun laws weren't enough to keep an AR-15 out of Nikolas Cruz's hands: http://registerguard.com/rg/news/36...un-laws-targeting-threatening-people.html.csp

We need a stronger background check system, that integrates state and federal data from multiple agencies, and includes data on threatening individuals (school expulsions, law enforcement tip lines, social services, mental health records). Due process can still be followed to either rescind or make permanent a temporary restriction of gun ownership rights.

We need to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

We need to raise the age to buy any type of firearm to 21.

We need to close the private sale loophole and require a background check for any purchase.

I'll go along with the background check.
Not the magazine capacity limited to 10. Possibly 20.
Age is something i could agree on (21)
I like private/family sales.

 

[Younigue]

So great, you and I are in agreement here. So why are you telling me to stop? People post to me, and I respond. If people want to talk to me, then I will respond. I'm sorry that you do not like that people talk to me, but who are you to tell me to stop, and why? Just ignore my posts, or find something else to do with your life. Its super strange that we agree and for you to tell me to stop responding to people. Am I taking up too much room on the internet?

I didn't tell you to stop I asked if you would be stopping. I've watched your posts and yes, we agree but you appear to be the one confusing the issue. You're the one perpetuating the issue that gun regulation people ONLY see regulation as the solution but that is not what I am seeing from the people trying to talk with you. I've seen few people believe that mental health in America isn't a true concern yet you keep talking to people like they are fundamentally disagreeing with you. As I've watched I've become convinced that what you are truly trying to do is to get people to agree with you verbatim rather than in their own words. I know if you think about it you'll see what I'm talking about because I think you are aware that you do this.

But hey, I asked if you were going to stop. Your answer is no. Power on dude... debating with people who are mostly agreeing with you except of course those who are dead set against any new gun regulations (and that idea takes a certain level of insanity, so good luck).

 

[realibrad]

I didn't tell you to stop I asked if you would be stopping. I've watched your posts and yes, we agree but you appear to be the one confusing the issue. You're the one perpetuating the issue that gun regulation people ONLY see regulation as the solution but that is not what I am seeing from the people trying to talk with you. I've seen few people believe that mental health in America isn't a true concern yet you keep talking to people like they are fundamentally disagreeing with you. As I've watched I've become convinced that what you are truly trying to do is to get people to agree with you verbatim rather than in their own words. I know if you think about it you'll see what I'm talking about because I think you are aware that you do this.

But hey, I asked if you were going to stop. Your answer is no. Power on dude... debating with people who are mostly agreeing with you except of course those who are dead set against any new gun regulations (and that idea takes a certain level of insanity, so good luck).

Lol, so now it was just a question and not a request. Come on.

If we want to save lives, and America is the outlier with a bunch of psychopaths hoarding guns, then the answer is to probably remove guns rather than to wish away the sick depravity of many individuals. I mean, what's a greater loss of freedom, restriction on personal property, or forcible reeducation?

I'm not sure how anyone imagines that we'd "fix" these people's minds. Especially not with the bill of rights.
Seems to me, gun control is a lesser sacrifice.

How do you read that? Sure seems like the person is calling for gun control and not mental health. So what is it sweetie, am I misunderstanding what the person is asking for? Sure seems like it's not me.

Going back, come on with that BS that you were not telling me to stop.

Will you stop now with your... well, whatever it is you're trying to accomplish with your on and on-ness

Don't be dumb, that was you asking me to stop.

 

[evident]

What kind of sick fuck thinks it's ok to mock people by using the death of others? I wonder if they wore shoes coverings while walking around in the blood trying to make some silly point?

u honestly offended by that flash game?

 

[Bird222]

Even with the warning signs, current gun laws weren't enough to keep an AR-15 out of Nikolas Cruz's hands: http://registerguard.com/rg/news/36...un-laws-targeting-threatening-people.html.csp

We need a stronger background check system, that integrates state and federal data from multiple agencies, and includes data on threatening individuals (school expulsions, law enforcement tip lines, social services, mental health records). Due process can still be followed to either rescind or make permanent a temporary restriction of gun ownership rights.

We need to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

We need to raise the age to buy any type of firearm to 21.

We need to close the private sale loophole and require a background check for any purchase.

I can go with the background check but the devil is in the details. I might could go for the background check on private sale. I don't know about the rest.

 

[soundforbjt]

Well Fox News has the answer... bring back praying in school.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Why are they not protesting against the FBI and others that let this obvious danger to society roam around and execute his plan of mass violence?

And this guy probably owns several handguns. The warm fuzzies never stop coming

 

[Younigue]

Lol, so now it was just a question and not a request. Come on.



How do you read that? Sure seems like the person is calling for gun control and not mental health. So what is it sweetie, am I misunderstanding what the person is asking for? Sure seems like it's not me.

Going back, come on with that BS that you were not telling me to stop.



Don't be dumb, that was you asking me to stop.

Oh, did I forget the question mark? Ooopsies! Here, here's one for you ----> ?. Am I paid on full now?

But which was it... was I asking you to stop? Telling you to stop or asking if you would be stopping?? I doubled up on my question marks because I'm banking one for later. Don't think I won't withdraw it if the need arises. You of course will honor it because ya know, you're just that kind of guy, right? My typing finger was itching just then to bank another one but I chose instead to show some restraint... Ahh, fu*k it, bank this one (?) too. <--- I'm telling you to NOT asking you to OR asking you if that's something you'll consider doing all on your own.

We good? We in the clear? Do you want instead to debate another subject we agree on? If you choose the last option I'mma hafta let you do the leg work on figuring out what that subject is.

As I said before, Power on! Good day sir. I SAID GOOD DAY SIR!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

When arsonists become the problem that gun nuts are their "rights" should be trampled on as well. The argument that they want to take ALL your guns is ridiculous. I want to take your fucked up guns away. There is absolutely No GOOD Reason for any one to own a gun that can kill so many people all at once. Name a good reason to own such a gun? Seriously I don't give one iota about the fact that you're responsible. If you were truly a responsible human being you'd want these kinds of guns out of the hands of civilians.

Collectors can collect Beanie Babies. Let them try to kill 17 people throwing those at them.

OOOOH, you made her swear. Damn.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Why do you have the dumbest solution for solving gun violence? People didn't do their job in reporting and investigation the Parkland kid but you keep crying about assault gun ban.

lol, ok bullboy. my suggestion is to look at the 2a and maybe realize it was written when the fastest shooter could fire 2 rounds a minute, maybe.So much derp.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What kind of sick fuck thinks it's ok to mock people by using the death of others? I wonder if they wore shoes coverings while walking around in the blood trying to make some silly point?

may want to ask slow why he thought this thread was appropriate to pledge his nra allegiance yet again.

 

[Younigue]

OOOOH, you made her swear. Damn.

LOL! Yeah Puff, ya did.

It's more like I forgot the asterisk. It takes next to nothing to make me swear.

Note: Fixed it. All better now.

 

[Younigue]

may want to ask slow why he thought this thread was appropriate to pledge his nra allegiance yet again.

Culties gonna cult.