After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

According to whom?


Some parents feel their children are better protected with armed faculty and security.

 

You haven't noticed? I doubt that to be honest. According to those people themselves. At least the far majority I took notice of.
Sure, probably not all of them. But we have already concluded people have to mind other peoples concerns and deadly fears. Tikoo's suggesting might help as well, but frankly the real solution remains clear.

 

Liberal logic= If the demographic for gun ownership leans to black male, it would be called racist. However Liberal logic= "US the demographic for gun ownership leans to white male and right wing" it isn't racist.
As it pertains to this thread I don't think anyone is denying that the predominant race for mass shootings is a white male. Predominant means more than others. There have been other races and genders that have done so, but I won't dispute the facts.
And I won't dispute that the NRA hates the Democrats. So logically it stands to reason that its going to be filled with Republican membership. And probably more white than any other race since that is demographically still a majority of the population. So if you believe the NRA is the only voice out there for gun rights than I will agree. And I don't have any problem with how the demographics flow in your logic.

Lets see how many Democrats want to turn in their guns. Surely you won't expect us to be so ignorant as to assume that Democrats don't own and use firearms? I'd bet that if we took away the guns from 15% of our nations population, overall national crime would drop by a HUGE number as well. But that will never be a different thread for a different day. Yeah whites own guns. Yeah the NRA is a Republican activist group. Yeah they are mostly white. I guess you win and this will surely fix our problems when we take away their guns.

 

I personally think it’d be a good idea and a social experiment to end the concealed-carry-in-schools argument once and for all. Will it stop and/or minimize the casualty count in school shootings? Or will teachers aim guns at students who misbehave?

 

Not

So you partially answer the question - yes – you want guns so you can kill law enforcement officers if you so desire.

To kill those you don’t like if they don’t do as you wish.

You need guns as a means of threating anyone with death if things don’t go your way.

But the question still stands – when would you start killing the police officers and your enemies?

You’ve admitted you would do so now can you tell me when exactly that would happen, what would be the trigger?

 

Just listened to a message sent out from the principal at my daughter's school, that said he had authorities remove a student that threatened to kill other students, school staff members, and himself. Sigh.......

 

Its a cultural and societal issue. It's not a racist issue, or primarily a political issue.

 

Not

So what’s your rational argument against prudent gun control in this rant?

 

How about WACO Tx. As far as I know that cult and that compound did nothing illegal that led up to the FBI deciding they were going to raid them. They had a legal Texas gun dealer license and they as far as I know did not illegally buy or own any illegal weapons. Yet the FBI decided they were a risk to "someone" yet they never defined whom and "they" were. As far as I know had no crimes that the group had ever committed against another. They were practicing their religion as they saw fit. Not hurting anyone else. I think they used the "We have to protect those innocent kids that are becoming victims" ploy.

Needless to say they raided and were met with a hail of bullets by the group resulting in multiple officers being killed. They were held off for what some 60 days until such time as something like 70 innocent women and children were killed as a result of a fire that still seems to be argued as to how it got started. It also resulted in the first domestic terrorist attack against his own government when Tim McVeigh blew up the federal building in OK City. By his own testimony it was to avenge the deaths of the government slaughter.

The other example being the cattle rancher that the govt argued couldn't graze his cattle on disputed federal land. There was a group of armed militia that came to the ranchers aid and the government backed off.

So those were some tipping points that occurred by an armed militia protecting themselves. I'm not saying I personally would have done the same. But I'm not them.

 

I don't get it. A demographic would be called racist? One of the problems with your analogy is that race has to do with perceived biological characteristics, while "right wing" is an ideological preference. Not all white males in the U.S. are gun advocates, but those who are tend to be right wingers. As such, their position is open to challenge through argument. And are we back to "turning in our guns" instead of adopting sensible gun control measures? Only a third of the population in the United States owns guns, and there is good reason to suspect that this tends disproportionatly to coincide with Trump's base.

 

The problem I'm seeing is the "turn them in" option is being actively discussed in many state legislatures. In my state, for example, a bill is currently being discussed that would make the sale and ownership of ARs, along with any magazine with a capacity greater than 7 rounds, illegal. These are the "sensible" measures we are faced with.

 

I have never strayed from a sensible gun control policy. The argument is what is sensible? I believe an assault weapon such as an AR-15 should be available to a higher license level as automatic weapons are.

When that doesn't appear to be on the table expressed by our leaders, we are left discussing the merits of arming teachers and hardening schools. When that doesn't fit the lefts agenda or even those that don't even have guns in their country, that gets argued away as we can't do that way, it's better to simply do away with the guns.

Demographics can reveal a lot of characteristics. My point was when a Demographic discloses a black result in it isn't genetics its about identifying a demographic result. That identifier is in part a racial fact. Has nothing to do with genetics unless the demographics is specifically geared towards a genetic test. Yet the left always screams its racist if it reflects a racial demographic result. But if the same demographics shows it be a white result, its golden. I am in no way disagreeing that the Demographics of mass murderers is per-dominantly white males. I don't think its racist. Its the truth.

I simply added that with the left's logic if we take away the guns from the white right wingers, we would now solve the problem of mass shootings. Simple enough. Not racist at all when we try to implement such a plan now is it?

 

Why do you think ARs should require a higher license level? What is it about them, specifically, that justifies the higher level?

 

Great, so you have a kid and let your kid be the test subject.

 

Whatever prevents mass shootings.

 

This gets at an important underlying issue raised by Second Amendment ideologues: the alleged right to resist the government. You say "As far as I know had no crimes that the group had ever committed against another. They were practicing their religion as they saw fit. Not hurting anyone else." But the ATF had obtained a warrant from a court on a showing of probable cause they had committed weapons violations. The Branch Davidian resisted the warrant, leading to an intense gun battle. Later the FBI got into the act, leading to a 51-day seige and tear gas attack. The causes of the resulting fire are still disputed. Ruby Ridge involved a situation of armed resistance against US Marshalls trying to make a lawful arrest of a person who refused to appear in court to answer charges of firearms violations. We saw more recently the spectacle of armed self-styled "patriots" led by the Bundy Brothers occupying federal lands in Oregon and taking over a federal building. The Posse Comitatus,, closely tied to the Christian Identity Movement, appointed to itself the right of ultimate interpreters of common law, organized armed militias, encouraged tax resistance, and terrorized its opponents, including government officials, with false liens. The notion that you or the cult members are entitled to make the ultimate determinations of what is lawful and to use armed force against government authorities is a dangerous attitude that, in my opinion, can't be tolerated in civil society. These people are nuthouse vigilantes and a danger to civil society. We should be as alarmed about them as we should also be about Antifa and any other group that claims the right to take the law into their own hands. And if such people are armed, they are dangerous.
https://foac-pac.org/uploads/Henigan-Arms Anarchy & 2nd-Anti-gun.pdf
Constitutional Myth #6: The Second Amendment Allows Citizens to Threaten Government
Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever
The Right's Second Amendment Lies

 

To appease the left wingers. It doesn't take away the right to legally own one. And they are the weapon of choice by many killers. Automatic weapons and assault weapons really don't need to be in the hands of most anyone in the population. We don't really have that much of a need for them as the average citizen. If you can provide proper evidence you do, you have a license that allows for it.

If the NRA and some on the right would just shut up and not agrue that an AR-15 isn't much different than a hunting rifle with a different stock then we could put one argument to bed. It doesn't help to try and educate a left sider that has their view that an AR-15 is some special gun made for killing masses. When it really isn't much different than a long list of other perfectly legal guns that aren't in the news. So stop trying to educate them. Some people are immune to being educated. Lets just let AR-15s be categorized as a controlled weapon. Let them feel like they won or at the least can find some compromise that our schools are suddenly safer now.

Then we can start all over again when a kid takes dad's 30.06 deer rifle to school and kills a dozen more. Then they can attack deer hunting rifles next.

I'll be long dead by the time we ever settle gun control arguments. I'm just weary of it. Bad people use guns to kill people. We have no way of ever recovering the millions that are out there, so lets just give up something to the left to let them feel safer. I'm fine with that. Let them blame the fucking hunters for those damn hunting rifles next round.

 

Not really. You're jumping to (your favored) conclusions here

Its not just the left. Plenty of right leaning american liberals see the real solution as well.

I don't think anyone was arguing it is a racist issue? Its mainly you making it a discussion point in this thread.
You say when its a crime or shooting with mainly black victims or even culprit it is always made a racist issue. I think this is arguable. It just is more often a what is called a hatecrime. But not always. And who labels/perceives it as racist in those cases? You love to make it about the left everytime. I think this is arguable as well. Both left and right leaning people seem to do this.

 

"Its not just the left. Plenty of right leaning american liberals see the real solution as well."

And what prey tell is the REAL solution according to you?

 

It seems that to most people who actually have been subject to these tragedies (directly or indirectly) it is clear the solution lies in better gun control. I noticed you were for better gun control too (wether that means just better enforcement of existing rules, or changing them).
What that exactly entails depends on a lot of details. That's why it should be (and is) actively discussed.
Some great lists of possible improvements have been made and stated in this thread.