Shooting at a Florida high school

[essguy_]

He makes sense ???

Gun control and the NRA is not a political ideology. Granted a few extremist nutbars and private militia groups on the extreme right would legalise rocket launchers but the majority of NRA households support increased background checks and a majority support an assault weapons ban. This has nothing to do with handguns or hunting rifles - it has everything to do with military assault weapons designed to kill people and keeping guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed people.

Democrats as well as Republicans have lined up to the NRA trough for political donations and opposing them is political suicide in many states. Politicians are controlled by special interest groups not by the interests of the people that they serve. It's a sad commentary but a political reality in the states. That people can be banned from commercial airlines as a terrorist threat but still purchase firearms is ridiculous. No background checks at gun shows is nuts.

The NRA as other special interest groups doesn't follow party guidelines. Pharmaceutical, Petroleum, Cable and Tobacco companies .... all corrupt the government. It's a fuckeed system that needs an overhaul.

No, he doesn't make sense (which I'll explain later). But worse - he's inconsistent and has morphed within this thread alone. He began with deflections away from Trump. If you've read his posts in other threads, this is par for the course. THEN, when it appeared that this shooter may have trained with some white extremists, Butler then deflected to the shooter's mental state - blaming pills, or perhaps his lack of taking pills. It was only later in the thread that Butler started to focus on the weapons aspect. Why not right from the beginning? His inconsistency reduces his credibility and is illustrative of the moving target, shrill arguments which fall on deaf ears when the NRA is vilified.

Anyway, he doesn't make any sense because he's proposing nothing new. The NRA has been vilified for years. The old saying: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results" applies here. Both sides need to work together, find some common ground (even if it is minimal) and work from there. The anti-gun lobby has to find areas that are free of any reasonable objection. Banning certain weapons is FULL of holes as a solution - so continued discussion is beyond useless because objections are easy. And as a historical example, FOPA (signed into law by Reagan in 1986) banned fully automatic weapons. Did that make the US safer? Of course not. Arguably, the give up for the machine gun restriction (looser rules on where guns can be sold - less power for the ATF to enforce gun laws) have made things worse. So I believe that the cost of bargaining for a gun ban are too high. Far better to negotiate a deal to take bans off the table BUT make regulations (licensing, background checks, restriction on where guns can be sold) MUCH stricter and Nationally enforced.

 

[Butler1000]

Wait, you don't think they've been vilified before? Seriously? And again - you talk about harmful to life and you actually were silly enough to bring up cigarettes. Don't even go there because cigarettes have killed FAR more people in the United States than any type of gun yet they are still sold in every convenience store. Now if you were to be consistent and propose a ban or restriction on gun advertising or where and to whom they could be sold - then I'm with you. But a ban, and a proposal to vilify the opposition? Let me remind you - that another topic you were silly enough to bring up in a related thread - the Vietnam war - protesters used to vilify returning soldiers too - calling them "baby killers". Tell me - were they all in fact "baby killers"? Do you think all Vietnam veterans deserved to be vilified - as they WERE and as you are proposing to do to everybody who supports the NRA?

It's a long game.

Take my smoking example. It's a good example. 40 years ago 50%+ of the population smoked. It was allowed everywhere. Children could buy cigarettes(I did np) and there was minimal criticism.

Now? About 20% of the population smoked. It's banned in all workplaces. Severe fines for selling. Removal of the "power walls" in stores. Banned or removed in many. Even movies and tv go out of their way not to show it. The only reason it's legal is govts still love the taxes.

I'd say a campaign started by activists, taken up by govts was quite successful in reducing the problem to a fraction of what it was.

The same tactics should be used on guns. Vilify it's proponents. Shame those who accept it's money. Ban it's advertising.

A federal law banning open carry. And restrictions on transport. Add on lots of regulations and checks.

Make it a big pain in the ass to obtain them, sell them and own them. And expensive.

And keep pressing. That's how smoking is being killed off. The same CAN be done.

Finally as a side note. The protesters who went after the veterans were wrong. They were victims of the Draft. Forced to fight and kill against their will.

And the Draft was ended as a result.

My mind was changed on the Draft several years ago on this argument I read. It is a form of slavery. It is giving the govt the right to force citizens to kill against their will. A leftover of serfdom. And it won't be back.

I think that covers it.

 

[Butler1000]

No, he doesn't make sense (which I'll explain later). But worse - he's inconsistent and has morphed within this thread alone. He began with deflections away from Trump. If you've read his posts in other threads, this is par for the course. THEN, when it appeared that this shooter may have trained with some white extremists, Butler then deflected to the shooter's mental state - blaming pills, or perhaps his lack of taking pills. It was only later in the thread that Butler started to focus on the weapons aspect. Why not right from the beginning? His inconsistency reduces his credibility and is illustrative of the moving target, shrill arguments which fall on deaf ears when the NRA is vilified.

Anyway, he doesn't make any sense because he's proposing nothing new. The NRA has been vilified for years. The old saying: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results" applies here. Both sides need to work together, find some common ground (even if it is minimal) and work from there. The anti-gun lobby has to find areas that are free of any reasonable objection. Banning certain weapons is FULL of holes as a solution - so continued discussion is beyond useless because objections are easy. And as a historical example, FOPA (signed into law by Reagan in 1986) banned fully automatic weapons. Did that make the US safer? Of course not. Arguably, the give up for the machine gun restriction (looser rules on where guns can be sold - less power for the ATF to enforce gun laws) have made things worse. So I believe that the cost of bargaining for a gun ban are too high. Far better to negotiate a deal to take bans off the table BUT make regulations (licensing, background checks, restriction on where guns can be sold) MUCH stricter and Nationally enforced.

I'm quite consistent here. The topic has morphed from the individual(Who I blame) to overall gun control.

It's called thread drift.......

 

[Occasionally]

Wait, you don't think they've been vilified before? Seriously? And again - you talk about harmful to life and you actually were silly enough to bring up cigarettes. Don't even go there because cigarettes have killed FAR more people in the United States than any type of gun yet they are still sold in every convenience store. Now if you were to be consistent and propose a ban or restriction on gun advertising or where and to whom they could be sold - then I'm with you. But a ban, and a proposal to vilify the opposition? Let me remind you - that another topic you were silly enough to bring up in a related thread - the Vietnam war - protesters used to vilify returning soldiers too - calling them "baby killers". Tell me - were they all in fact "baby killers"? Do you think all Vietnam veterans deserved to be vilified - as they WERE and as you are proposing to do to everybody who supports the NRA?

The difference between smoking and guns is that smoking is self inflicted harm. It's a bad enough product to sell, but the harm is yourself.

The purpose of a gun is to blast something to smithereens. Whether it's a tin can or a school full of kids. The intent is to destroy a target at range.

Nobody gives a shit about people shooting themselves. That's their problem. No different than someone stabbing themselves or jumping off a bridge. Nobody really cares.

But what people do care about is innocent people getting blasted to bit by assholes with guns. And going by mass shooters..... A BAGFUL of GUNS AND AMMO. We're not talking about a dude with a pistol with one clip. Often it's a dude with lots of guns, rifles and boxes of ammo. Shooting away, reloading, shooting more. As much as possible until cops arrive.

That's what people are against.

 

[basketcase]

The mainstream media are making you think that 'Kids' are mobilizing, by publishing a few offensive Tweets on the news.

It makes great opportunities for generating more advertising revenue by dragging out the story for a while longer. When that story runs out of steam, they'll get back to slagging Putin the bogeyman.

Speaking of corporate revenue, comparing the NRA membership numbers to the amount of money they spend in political contributions, it's pretty clear that the NRA is simply a manufacturers lobby group doing whatever they can to keep profits up.

 

[canada-man]

Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson, responding to the Florida high school shooting that killed 17 people, said Tuesday “it’s sensible” to ban assault weapons.

Robertson went on his 700 Club show calling for the weapons ban — including that of bump stocks which allows semi-automatic weapons to shoot rapid fire — and for more medical background checks.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I am a gun owner,” Robertson said. “I have hunted. I have shot skeet ... but for heaven’s sakes, I don’t think that the general population needs to have automatic weapons. It just doesn’t have to have Russian-built or Chinese-built machine guns. It just doesn’t.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...robertson-calls-weapons-ban-article-1.3832344

 

[TeeJay]

You are cherry picking. There is a fundamental flaw in the gun culture of the USA.

It's borderline sociopathic placing gun ownership rights over kids lives. No other nation has mass killing drills in grade schools and consider this normalized behavior.

Any nation that thinks it's better to allow this rather than curb ownership isn't any better than the shithole nations recently called out.

You might be out of the loop but *CANADA* has shooting drills as young as JK
So um argument kinda failed...

 

[essguy_]

It's a long game.

Take my smoking example. It's a good example. 40 years ago 50%+ of the population smoked. It was allowed everywhere. Children could buy cigarettes(I did np) and there was minimal criticism.

Now? About 20% of the population smoked. It's banned in all workplaces. Severe fines for selling. Removal of the "power walls" in stores. Banned or removed in many. Even movies and tv go out of their way not to show it. The only reason it's legal is govts still love the taxes.

I'd say a campaign started by activists, taken up by govts was quite successful in reducing the problem to a fraction of what it was.

The same tactics should be used on guns. Vilify it's proponents. Shame those who accept it's money. Ban it's advertising.

A federal law banning open carry. And restrictions on transport. Add on lots of regulations and checks.

Make it a big pain in the ass to obtain them, sell them and own them. And expensive.

And keep pressing. That's how smoking is being killed off. The same CAN be done.

Finally as a side note. The protesters who went after the veterans were wrong. They were victims of the Draft. Forced to fight and kill against their will.

And the Draft was ended as a result.

My mind was changed on the Draft several years ago on this argument I read. It is a form of slavery. It is giving the govt the right to force citizens to kill against their will. A leftover of serfdom. And it won't be back.

I think that covers it.

Your examples are quite silly because your historical perspective is not accurate. Here's why:

Smoking.

The reduction in smoking is not because smokers were vilified. It's because the health risks (to the smoker) were proven. That was the cause of the massive reduction in smoking as well as the restrictions on advertising, etc (late 60's through the 80's). The remaining minority of smokers were vilified because of the health risk of SECOND HAND smoking to others (smoking bans in offices etc - which came much later - 90's and later). Therefore this doesn't apply to gun ownership. For the vast majority of gun owners, there is no health risk to themselves or others. In fact there are benefits (an outdoors lifestyle, putting food on the table, competition, etc. Not to mention personal protection). Furthermore and as I pointed out - cigarettes are available at every convenience store and gas station in the country. Tobacco companies remain highly profitable. So how is that a success?

Vilification of gun owners.

I can only guess that you do not travel to the States very often or do not know many Americans. Eg: banning open carry and other restrictions. Besides the obvious (Florida is NOT an open carry state and you can only open carry for certain activities) - you have a very "Canadian" cluelessness as to the gun culture in the U.S. Totally different than Canada and for many - a part of their culture, history, AND Constitutional rights. It's a complete No Go to try to restrict these rights - will NEVER happen, so it's a waste of time to talk about it. That leaves the only solution of working together to find common ground that both sides can agree upon. Eg: National licensing, background checks, and limits on where and how guns can be sold (not restrictions on guns).

Draft/Vietnam:

We already had this conversation in the other thread - you have a very romantic notion about the success of the Vietnam protests. Again - I'll point out that your romantic notions of success are belied by the U.S.'s continued forays into Foreign Policy messes and misadventures since the 70's. Eg: Where were the protests in 2003? And the vilification of the participants? - glad you admit it was a mistake. Why do you think the vilification of all NRA members is any different? Further, as I've already argued, the end of the draft was not due to protests. It was due to the ending of an unpopular LOSING war. The decision to withdraw was made before the decision to end the draft. It hasn't been re-instituted because of changes in how modern wars are prosecuted. Modern warfare requires air superiority, small, highly mobile ground forces, and special operations. If this military doctrine changes again - the draft would come back when necessary. Guaranteed. So protest and vilify the NRA and gun ownership all you want - you'll accomplish nothing.

Your historical perspective is just like your thread perspective - romantic but inaccurate.

 

[essguy_]

The difference between smoking and guns is that smoking is self inflicted harm. It's a bad enough product to sell, but the harm is yourself.

The purpose of a gun is to blast something to smithereens. Whether it's a tin can or a school full of kids. The intent is to destroy a target at range.

Nobody gives a shit about people shooting themselves. That's their problem. No different than someone stabbing themselves or jumping off a bridge. Nobody really cares.

But what people do care about is innocent people getting blasted to bit by assholes with guns. And going by mass shooters..... A BAGFUL of GUNS AND AMMO. We're not talking about a dude with a pistol with one clip. Often it's a dude with lots of guns, rifles and boxes of ammo. Shooting away, reloading, shooting more. As much as possible until cops arrive.

That's what people are against.

Everybody is against that. That's what many people don't understand. It's how you prevent or deal with it that is causing the conflict. The notion that gun owners are somehow OK with mass shootings is completely crazy and people who think this are actually a major obstacle to change. When the anti-gun lobby realizes that working WITH gun owners for solutions vs vilification, then there may actually be some progress.

 

[essguy_]

Conservative televangelist Pat Robertson, responding to the Florida high school shooting that killed 17 people, said Tuesday “it’s sensible” to ban assault weapons.

Robertson went on his 700 Club show calling for the weapons ban — including that of bump stocks which allows semi-automatic weapons to shoot rapid fire — and for more medical background checks.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I am a gun owner,” Robertson said. “I have hunted. I have shot skeet ... but for heaven’s sakes, I don’t think that the general population needs to have automatic weapons. It just doesn’t have to have Russian-built or Chinese-built machine guns. It just doesn’t.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...robertson-calls-weapons-ban-article-1.3832344

This is all about what WILL happen and the sucker's game that's being played. Machine guns are already banned. So a ban on bump stocks will be made and that's it. An opportunity to make real change may be missed because one side wants to take away something and the other side is playing them for suckers - because they are. Prediction: Bump stock ban, no other material changes and everybody fools themselves into believing something was achieved. And the NRA laugh because they've won another round of a game they've been playing for years against an opponent who ALWAYS USES THE SAME STRATEGY.

 

[cunning linguist]

Everybody is against that. That's what many people don't understand. It's how you prevent or deal with it that is causing the conflict. The notion that gun owners are somehow OK with mass shootings is completely crazy and people who think this are actually a major obstacle to change. When the anti-gun lobby realizes that working WITH gun owners for solutions vs vilification, then there may actually be some progress.

This is the crossroads, there can't really be compromise when one side merely wants concessions and vilifies the other if none are given. Want to have a serious discussion? Then bring a horse to trade.

 

[canada-man]

 

[wilbur]

Speaking of corporate revenue, comparing the NRA membership numbers to the amount of money they spend in political contributions, it's pretty clear that the NRA is simply a manufacturers lobby group doing whatever they can to keep profits up.

The NRA apparently spent 90 million dollars lobbying US politicians. That may seem a lot, until you consider that Hillary raised 1.2 billion dollars for her campaign, with most of it coming from corporate donors. That money went down the drain, wiped out. A major embarrassment.

The NRA has 4 million members. It's only a small fraction of the 100 million people in the US who own firearms. But they are one of the only national organisations that speak for these people.

Bottom line, politicians can pontificate all they want, but ultimately, will carry out policies that will not get them turfed out of office. The magic wand will never happen as long as some principles of democracy still apply.

 

[Butler1000]

Your examples are quite silly because your historical perspective is not accurate. Here's why:

Smoking.

The reduction in smoking is not because smokers were vilified. It's because the health risks (to the smoker) were proven. That was the cause of the massive reduction in smoking as well as the restrictions on advertising, etc (late 60's through the 80's). The remaining minority of smokers were vilified because of the health risk of SECOND HAND smoking to others (smoking bans in offices etc - which came much later - 90's and later). Therefore this doesn't apply to gun ownership. For the vast majority of gun owners, there is no health risk to themselves or others. In fact there are benefits (an outdoors lifestyle, putting food on the table, competition, etc. Not to mention personal protection). Furthermore and as I pointed out - cigarettes are available at every convenience store and gas station in the country. Tobacco companies remain highly profitable. So how is that a success?

Vilification of gun owners.

I can only guess that you do not travel to the States very often or do not know many Americans. Eg: banning open carry and other restrictions. Besides the obvious (Florida is NOT an open carry state and you can only open carry for certain activities) - you have a very "Canadian" cluelessness as to the gun culture in the U.S. Totally different than Canada and for many - a part of their culture, history, AND Constitutional rights. It's a complete No Go to try to restrict these rights - will NEVER happen, so it's a waste of time to talk about it. That leaves the only solution of working together to find common ground that both sides can agree upon. Eg: National licensing, background checks, and limits on where and how guns can be sold (not restrictions on guns).

Draft/Vietnam:

We already had this conversation in the other thread - you have a very romantic notion about the success of the Vietnam protests. Again - I'll point out that your romantic notions of success are belied by the U.S.'s continued forays into Foreign Policy messes and misadventures since the 70's. Eg: Where were the protests in 2003? And the vilification of the participants? - glad you admit it was a mistake. Why do you think the vilification of all NRA members is any different? Further, as I've already argued, the end of the draft was not due to protests. It was due to the ending of an unpopular LOSING war. The decision to withdraw was made before the decision to end the draft. It hasn't been re-instituted because of changes in how modern wars are prosecuted. Modern warfare requires air superiority, small, highly mobile ground forces, and special operations. If this military doctrine changes again - the draft would come back when necessary. Guaranteed. So protest and vilify the NRA and gun ownership all you want - you'll accomplish nothing.

Your historical perspective is just like your thread perspective - romantic but inaccurate.

You are attempting to bog down the argument again. I won't do that anymore.

Here is what is coming.

If you support the NRA policies you are an enabler of mass school shootings.

If you support NRA tactics you are an enabler of mass school shootings.

The NRA is not a lobby group but the face of arms manufacturers who are enabling domestic terrorism for money.

That is the new argument going forward.

No one thought the Berlin wall would fall. Until it did.
No one thought Aparteid would end. Until it did.
No one thought they could go to the moon. They did.

Nothing is impossible. This is what lawmakers are going to face.

And you are on the wrong side of history.

 

[Butler1000]

This is the crossroads, there can't really be compromise when one side merely wants concessions and vilifies the other if none are given. Want to have a serious discussion? Then bring a horse to trade.

The NRA won't compromise. But they are paid by arms manufacturers not to.

They are enablers of domestic terrorism.

 

[Butler1000]

Everybody is against that. That's what many people don't understand. It's how you prevent or deal with it that is causing the conflict. The notion that gun owners are somehow OK with mass shootings is completely crazy and people who think this are actually a major obstacle to change. When the anti-gun lobby realizes that working WITH gun owners for solutions vs vilification, then there may actually be some progress.

Remove the NRA as spokesmen and we can see. Right now they ARE THE FACE OF GUN OWNERS. And until gun owners ownership disavow them they will be lumped in with them.

 

[cunning linguist]

The NRA won't compromise. But they are paid by arms manufacturers not to.

They are enablers of domestic terrorism.

Gun grabbers won't compromise either, they merely demand concessions, hence the impasse. Unfortunately for them, they represent the vocal minority so if they want change and are willing to strive for a true compromise, they must be willing to sacrifice something in return. Don't like it? Too bad.

 

[Butler1000]

Gun grabbers won't compromise either, they merely demand concessions, hence the impasse. Unfortunately for them, they represent the vocal minority so if they want change and are willing to strive for a true compromise, they must be willing to sacrifice something in return. Don't like it? Too bad.

Right now the NRA is bunkered in and hiding. Scared of high school kids.

They are going to be eliminated eventually from the conversation.

And if you support them and their policies you are an enabler of mass school shootings and domestic terror.

You are not a responsible gun owner. No responsible adult would.

 

[wilbur]

You changed the subject. You made a flat statement that 'the rest of the western world gets along fine without them in the general populace' and is flatly wrong, and I gave you specific examples, such as Norway, with a similar per-capita rate of gun ownership as Canada (33 guns per 100 residents), but with half as handguns. Findland has 45 guns per 100 population. The point is that the rates of homicide there are relatively low. The point is that there is no consistent correlation between the number of guns and the number of homicides. The point being that there is more to public peace than banning guns.

So tell that to the Norwegians that the only purpose to having a handgun over there is for killing another human being. Their streets must be awash with blood.

I've been to Switzerland and seen ordinary people carry their military or ex-military assault rifles openly walking down the sidewalk, like going to the local gunsmith. I didn't notice any demented facial looks from these people.


"There is NO reason for any civilian to have a handgun. They are solely for the purpose of killing another human being and have no place in a civilized society.

Somehow the rest of the western world gets along fine without them in the general populace. "

How many are unregistered handguns? Do these nations have open carry? How many open carry ar-15's just for fun?

Until Americans prove they can be responsible and not cowboys a culture shock is needed.

As the kids pointed out. If you support the NRA and their policies you support child killing.

I dare you to tell these kids otherwise.

 

[essguy_]

The NRA won't compromise. But they are paid by arms manufacturers not to.

They are enablers of domestic terrorism.

So tell me - what "compromise" have you suggested that has been rejected by the NRA?

Seriously - cut the crap. If the guy was Muslim or a Trump supporter, this thread would be over as far as you're concerned. I'm not buying your civic bullshit.