Support NeoGAF

[llien]

Young survivors of Wednesday's school shooting in Florida have announced a national march on Washington to demand political action on gun control.

Students organisers told US media that they are determined to make Wednesday's shooting a turning point in the national gun debate.

Yesterday protestors chanted "shame on you" to US lawmakers and the president.

Mr Trump last year he would "never" infringe on the right to keep arms - a long-running and contested debate within the US.

In his first public comments on the gun control issue since the attack, Mr Trump blamed the Democrats for not passing legislation when they controlled Congress during the early years of Barack Obama's administration.

BBC

 

[zelo-ca]

I just posted this in the gun control thread but I think it also applies here.

Also anyone who is mad about wanting changes to gun control I would like to point out that for 4 months in 2009-2010 Obama had 60 votes (2 were independents who leaned heavily in the dems favor, one of them was Bernie Sanders) in the senate and the majority in the house. That means he could have passed anything he wanted because the republicans did not have the votes to stop it. Where were you all back then? HE DID NOT CHANGE IT SO WHY DO YOU WANT IT CHANGED NOW!?

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months.From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010.

Also that is the only reason Obamacare got passed so it's not like he didn't use his 60 seat majority at all. Why did he not change the gun laws when he had total control? Think about it......


I feel sympathy for these people but it will never be changed, if they really want to ban guns then I hope they are ready for a civil war because it will come to that if it is ever changed.

 

[Sàmban]

I just posted this in the gun control thread but I think it also applies here.

Also anyone who is mad about wanting changes to gun control I would like to point out that for 4 months in 2009-2010 Obama had 60 votes (2 were independents who leaned heavily in the dems favor, one of them was Bernie Sanders) in the senate and the majority in the house. That means he could have passed anything he wanted because the republicans did not have the votes to stop it. Where were you all back then? HE DID NOT CHANGE IT SO WHY DO YOU WANT IT CHANGED NOW!?

The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months.From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010.

Also that is the only reason Obamacare got passed so it's not like he didn't use his 60 seat majority at all. Why did he not change the gun laws when he had total control? Think about it......


I feel sympathy for these people but it will never be changed, if they really want to ban guns then I hope they are ready for a civil war because it will come to that if it is ever changed.

At best, this means Obama failed to do something regulating guns. At worst, you are deflecting because “obama.” Republicans control everything now. Obama is not president.

Regulating gun ownership does not mean banning guns. I think there are some rational, common-sense regulations we can put on gun ownership that most rational people will agree is not even close to a ban on guns.

This issue isn’t a “fuck Obama/own dem libs herp derp” team sport like your post is implying. People are dying and we need to do something.

 

[zelo-ca]

At best, this means Obama failed to do something regulating guns. At worst, you are deflecting because “obama.” Republicans control everything now. Obama is not president.

Regulating gun ownership does not mean banning guns. I think there are some rational, common-sense regulations we can put on gun ownership that most rational people will agree is not even close to a ban on guns.

This issue isn’t a “fuck Obama/own dem libs herp derp” team sport like your post is implying. People are dying and we need to do something.

One correction, the republicans do not control everything, they do not have 60 votes in the senate (If they did control everything then the DACA issue/wall would be done already).
To your point, what are those regulations? Please define your terms because the main stream media is all about banning guns so please I want to know. Did you know it is more strict to legally get a gun than it is to get social security? There are a lot of things you have to do in order to get a gun.

With 300 million guns even if there are strict regulations anyone who wants to do this can get one illegally. We need to find out why people do these mass shootings and correct our mental health system accordingly.

 

[Zog]

What percentage of school shooters were bullied, anyone know?

 

[Sàmban]

One correction, the republicans do not control everything, they do not have 60 votes in the senate (If they did control everything then the DACA issue/wall would be done already).
To your point, what are those regulations? Please define your terms because the main stream media is all about banning guns so please I want to know. Did you know it is more strict to legally get a gun than it is to get social security? There are a lot of things you have to do in order to get a gun.

With 300 million guns even if there are strict regulations anyone who wants to do this can get one illegally. We need to find out why people do these mass shootings and correct our mental health system accordingly.

To be honest, the gun problem in this country is something that needs to be properly researched before we go about making safety laws. It’s easy to say things like “too many guns” or “mental health” but we need a proper understanding of the problem with good data to back it up. Then we can talk about developing effective regulations. But people don’t even wan to do that because they think it means liberals are trying to ban guns.

The state laws on guns have quite a bit of variation too. We should have some evidence-based standards that states should follow.

I also think passing a training/safety exam should be mandatory for all owners. This training could include a screening for mental health issues.

Also do you have any evidence/examples to back up your claim that the media is calling for a ban on guns?

 

[zelo-ca]

To be honest, the gun problem in this country is something that needs to be properly researched before we go about making safety laws. It’s easy to say things like “too many guns” or “mental health” but we need a proper understanding of the problem with good data to back it up. Then we can talk about developing effective regulations. But people don’t even wan to do that because they think it means liberals are trying to ban guns.

The state laws on guns have quite a bit of variation too. We should have some evidence-based standards that states should follow.

I also think passing a training/safety exam should be mandatory for all owners. This training could include a screening for mental health issues.

I agree with your last point, we need more screening for mental health issues. My problem is that where does it end? You restrict a bit then another shooting happens and you restrict more and so on and so on until an outright ban is on the table.

 

[Moneal]

What percentage of school shooters were bullied, anyone know?

Dont have actual numbers, but can't think of any off hand that weren't.

 

[Zog]

Dont have actual numbers, but can't think of any off hand that weren't.

When I was in school (the 70's) we had bullies too but our parents encouraged us to stand up to them, to fight back to gain some respect. It worked most of the time because bullies tend to pick on those who don't resist. It occurs to me that if kids are punished greatly for fighting back then they won't fight back and they will wait until shit bubbles over and pick up a gun instead. It's simplistic but...well there it is.

 

[Sàmban]

I agree with your last point, we need more screening for mental health issues. My problem is that where does it end? You restrict a bit then another shooting happens and you restrict more and so on and so on until an outright ban is on the table.

It is good that you agree with me that we need more screening for mental health issues. Do you not agree that we need to study the problem to better understand it? Also, your other point is just an assumption. Why do you assume that if we pass some regulations, we’ll just keep passing regulations until we ban guns? There are plenty things that have been reasonably regulated without a ban.

Also, do you have any evidence for your claim that the media wants to ban guns? Asking a second time because I want to understand where you are coming from with this.

 

[Pomerlaw]

I feel sympathy for these people but it will never be changed, if they really want to ban guns then I hope they are ready for a civil war because it will come to that if it is ever changed.

You have mental health issues and should not own guns.

 

[Zog]

It is good that you agree with me that we need more screening for mental health issues. Do you not agree that we need to study the problem to better understand it? Also, your other point is just an assumption. Why do you assume that if we pass some regulations, we’ll just keep passing regulations until we ban guns? There are plenty things that have been reasonably regulated without a ban.

Also, do you have any evidence for your claim that the media wants to ban guns? Asking a second time because I want to understand where you are coming from with this.

Regulations on guns currently exist, they aren't helping so you pass more regulations and they won't help either and on and on and on until you call for a complete ban.

 

[rokkerkory]

We need to stop pointing blame one side to another. We’re all in this together, the kids that died were from all backgrounds and ideology.

Until we root out the evil money that is lobbying government into inaction nothing will change. President needs to step up and lead.

 

[zelo-ca]

You have mental health issues and should not own guns.

Serious question, do you think the 10s of millions of people especially in the rust belt will just willingly let their guns be taken away? You can't be serious there will be fighting and those people will be armed so...... It's quite obvious what could come of it.

 

[Sàmban]

Regulations on guns currently exist, they aren't helping so you pass more regulations and they won't help either and on and on and on until you call for a complete ban.

Or...you run studies to see why the current regulations aren’t working. Then you fix the problems with the current regulations instead of passing more.

I don’t get this absurdly paranoid obsession with guns being banned. There are ways to reduce these tragic situations without banning guns. We CAN do it the right way. We just have to try but some people don’t even want to.

Again, this teamsport mentality needs to die in a fire. People are fucking dying and we need to do something.

 

[zelo-ca]

Or...you run studies to see why the current regulations aren’t working. Then you fix the problems with the current regulations instead of passing more.

I don’t get this absurdly paranoid obsession with guns being banned. There are ways to reduce these tragic situations without banning guns. We CAN do it the right way. We just have to try but some people don’t even want to.

I am all for the research and seeing if there can be tweaks. The issue is with illegal guns. If in 5 years we fix the issue per say then 1 incident happens with an illegal gun what do you think will happen? The same hysteria that is happening now will happen so like what we have been saying it will never end it will go on and on and on until there is a call for a complete ban.

 

[zelo-ca]

We need to stop pointing blame one side to another. We’re all in this together, the kids that died were from all backgrounds and ideology.

Until we root out the evil money that is lobbying government into inaction nothing will change. President needs to step up and lead.

What about illegal guns? They will always exist. the 21 million that the NRA uses is pennies compared to many other organizations. This issue in the long run because of illegal guns will be black and white, guns or no guns. I hope we never come to that day.

 

[Zog]

We need to stop pointing blame one side to another. We’re all in this together, the kids that died were from all backgrounds and ideology.

Until we root out the evil money that is lobbying government into inaction nothing will change. President needs to step up and lead.

Contradictions are great.

 

[Sàmban]

I am all for the research and seeing if there can be tweaks. The issue is with illegal guns. If in 5 years we fix the issue per say then 1 incident happens with an illegal gun what do you think will happen? The same hysteria that is happening now will happen so like what we have been saying it will never end it will go on and on and on until there is a call for a complete ban.

Good, you agree that we should do some research to better understand the problem. Your other scenario is a hypothetical that we truly cannot discuss because it doesn’t exist. I’m not saying that it can’t happen. I’m just saying it is pointless to talk about it because any argument can be made. For example, I can easily say “what if we fix the issue and things get so much better that people don’t freak out about that 1% because they understand that things can’t be perfect?” And my hypothetical would just be as valid. Then you’d come up with another hypothetical to my hypothetical and soon we’re running around in circles.

Let’s not do that. It isn’t productive.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

I am all for the research and seeing if there can be tweaks. The issue is with illegal guns. If in 5 years we fix the issue per say then 1 incident happens with an illegal gun what do you think will happen? The same hysteria that is happening now will happen so like what we have been saying it will never end it will go on and on and on until there is a call for a complete ban.

(I'm going to move my discussion from the other thread into here)

Stop. Using. Slippery. Slope. Arguments.

Any "what-ifs" about the progression of legislation over 5 years is just pure conjecture with no factual basis. We have no way of knowing what the data will look like yet after attempting certian types of legislation, or what our future responses to mass shootings will be.

See I agree with you. I ask one question though and it's the main crux of what I think is the problem. Illegal guns and the hysteria of the media. Illegal guns will always exist which means that a shooting like this can always exist which means the hysteria of the media will always exist. So even if we fix the legal problem we still have the illegal problem. Do you think the media will, if a shooting happens disclose that it was with an illegal gun and that our laws are good or will they do what they have always done and want more regulation.

I don't see how it matters or is fruitful to the discussion to care about what media pundits may or may not say about some future hypothetical situation. It definitely shouldn't have any bearing on what decisions we make right now.

 

[KevinKeene]

if they really want to ban guns then I hope they are ready for a civil war because it will come to that if it is ever changed.

Then Americans would be dumber than the world thought them to be.

 

[Moneal]

(I'm going to move my discussion from the other thread into here)

Stop. Using. Slippery. Slope. Arguments.

Any "what-ifs" about the progression of legislation over 5 years is just pure conjecture with no factual basis. We have no way of knowing what the data will look like yet after attempting certian types of legislation, or what our future responses to mass shootings will be.



I don't see how it matters or is fruitful to the discussion to care about what media pundits may or may not say about some future hypothetical situation. It definitely shouldn't have any bearing on what decisions we make right now.

well Columbine would be one example. The assault weapon ban was in place already at that time and people called for even more gun control.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

well Columbine would be one example. The assault weapon ban was in place already at that time and people called for even more gun control.

I think it's been established the assault weapons ban was ineffective, hasn't it? So yeah, if we try something and it doesn't work, we should try something different. Was our response when it didn't work to ban all guns? Or even get us closer to that? No. We went the other direction and got rid of the assault weapons ban.

 

[Sàmban]

well Columbine would be one example. The assault weapon ban was in place already at that time and people called for even more gun control.

Well, then it sounds like we need a better understanding of the problem and that blindly throwing regulation at it is not effective. Also, we didn’t ban guns after columbine or sandy hook.

In my opinion, the assault weapon ban was ineffective because it was reactionary and not based on hard data. We need to start by doing multi variable studies to better understand the issue.

 

[Zog]

Then Americans would be dumber than the world thought them to be.

Pretty sure that would be the proper use of the 2nd Amendment which is to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government.

 

[Moneal]

I think it's been established the assault weapons ban was ineffective, hasn't it? So yeah, if we try something and it doesn't work, we should try something different. Was our response when it didn't work to ban all guns? Or even get us closer to that? No. We went the other direction and got rid of the assault weapons ban.

Actually the assault weapon ban just wasn't renewed, and gun control advocates wanted it renewed and permanent even though it didn't work. also the legislation proposed back then wouldn't have done anything about the school shootings that came after. We need more research on these events to get a better picture on why and how they are happening. not just rush again to legislation that will not work in the future.

 

[F0rneus]

I agree with your last point, we need more screening for mental health issues. My problem is that where does it end? You restrict a bit then another shooting happens and you restrict more and so on and so on until an outright ban is on the table.

Slippery slope ain't working here, especially since countries with better gun laws have far less frequent mass shootings, and lots of mental health issues all on their own. Fact is, Canadian style gun laws would do wonders to curb US gun violence, and there ain't no ban on the table in the Great White North. Quite the contrary in fact.

 

[Senua]

Pretty sure that would be the proper use of the 2nd Amendment which is to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government.

what year are you people living in?

 

[zelo-ca]

Slippery slope ain't working here, especially since countries with better gun laws have far less frequent mass shootings, and lots of mental health issues all on their own. Fact is, Canadian style gun laws would do wonders to curb US gun violence, and there ain't no ban on the table in the Great White North. Quite the contrary in fact.

I live in the great white north so I do know our laws. It is one thing to have these laws in place already, it's another to take away existing laws (concealed carry per example) and expect people to just take it without any conflict.

 

[Zog]

what year are you people living in?

2018 why? Do tyrannical governments not exist anymore?

 

[zelo-ca]

what year are you people living in?

The year that in Canada it is now hate speech to say the wrong pronoun to a trans person. Anything and everything can happen. Is it so far fetched that some people in the states wanted to keep slavery so they started a civil war and some people want to keep their guns in a ban? It could easily happen again in that case.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Actually the assault weapon ban just wasn't renewed

Ok, sure, semantics. "Got rid of " vs. "wasn't renewed".

also the legislation proposed back then wouldn't have done anything about the school shootings that came after. We need more research on these events to get a better picture on why and how they are happening. not just rush again to legislation that will not work in the future.

Agreed. That doesn't mean the government should just twiddle its thumbs though.

We can still increase funding for mental health treatment. We don't need studies to show that's a net positive, because its scope extends far beyond just gun violence issues. I also think it would likely have a lot of bipartisan support.

The government can also establish funding for research and analysis of existing data to help propose both short-term and long-term legislation.

The year that in Canada it is now hate speech to say the wrong pronoun to a trans person.

I keep seeing you bring this up, and it honestly sounds like hyperbole (or something that's technically possible but requires exceptional circumstances and will likely never happen). A cursory search on the topic reveals that Canada has put gender identity and gender expression into its Human Rights Code, has extended protections against hate speech, and allows crime motivated by gender identity or expression to be classified as hate crimes.

That all sounds pretty reasonable to me. What am I missing? I don't want to derail the topic too much so feel free to PM me the links.

 

[F0rneus]

I live in the great white north so I do know our laws. It is one thing to have these laws in place already, it's another to take away existing laws (concealed carry per example) and expect people to just take it without any conflict.

Concessions certainly would have to be made. It can't be the same laws for sure and conceal carry is definitely something I don't see being dealt away. But a mix and match of both would certainly be a start.

 

[KevinKeene]

Pretty sure that would be the proper use of the 2nd Amendment which is to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government.

So taking away your murder weapons makes a government 'tyrannical'? Does the government allowing gay marriage also make it tyrannical? Or when it raises taxes?

Or is it just murder weapons?

Either option is stupid :/

 

[Moneal]

So taking away your murder weapons makes a government 'tyrannical'? Does the government allowing gay marriage also make it tyrannical? Or when it raises taxes?

Or is it just murder weapons?

Either option is stupid :/

So its ok for them to take away kitchen knives too right since they can and have been used as murder weapons.

 

[zelo-ca]

Ok, sure, semantics. "Got rid of " vs. "wasn't renewed".



Agreed. That doesn't mean the government should just twiddle its thumbs though.

We can still increase funding for mental health treatment. We don't need studies to show that's a net positive, because it's scope goes far beyond just gun violence issues. I also think it would likely have a lot of bipartisan support.

The government can also establish funding for research and analysis of existing data to help propose both short-term and long-term legislation.



I keep seeing you bring this up, and it honestly sounds like hyperbole (or something that's technically possible but requires exceptional circumstances and will likely never happen). A cursory search on the topic reveals that Canada has put gender identity and gender expression into its Human Rights Code, has extended protections against hate speech, and allows crime motivated by gender identity or expression to be classified as hate crimes.

That all sounds pretty reasonable to me. What am I missing? I don't want to derail the topic too much so feel free to PM me the links.

Like you said I dont want to derail to much but I can't PM so this is the last thing I will say for now. What is hate speech? If I am a transgender person and someone calls me by my wrong pronoun and will not change even if I ask them is that hateful? To me no it is not but to many others it is and that is where it could easily come up in court.

 

[David___]

So its ok for them to take away kitchen knives too right since they can and have been used as murder weapons.

Someone isn't going to kill 17 people with a knife as easily as they could with a thing that's literally made for killing things

 

[Moneal]

Someone isn't going to kill 17 people with a knife as easily as they could with a thing that's literally made for killing things

No but one guy did kill 8 school kids with one Mass Knife attacks are not that uncommon.

 

[David___]

No but one guy did kill 8 school kids with one Mass Knife attacks are not that uncommon.

Have any links to these?

 

[KevinKeene]

So its ok for them to take away kitchen knives too right since they can and have been used as murder weapons.

Don't forget about cars! Right?!

:/

 

[Moneal]

Have any links to these?

The link talks about 3 different attacks. but here are some more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_stabbings

 

[David___]

Don't forget about cars! Right?!

:/

Honestly if people are insistent on the "Guns don't kill people" narrative, I don't know why they aren't pushing for the right for civilians to own nukes since I'm sure there would be very responsible nuke owners

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

Good for them.

Peaceful Protest is an American virtue.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Like you said I dont want to derail to much but I can't PM so this is the last thing I will say for now. What is hate speech? If I am a transgender person and someone calls me by my wrong pronoun and will not change even if I ask them is that hateful? To me no it is not but to many others it is and that is where it could easily come up in court.

Ah sorry, are newer members not allowed to PM in addition to the restriction on creating threads? TIL

It's not hateful, it's just rude (if they've politely asked you to and you refuse). I have a hard time believing that could be classified as "hate speech" and would suggest waiting until it actually happens before worrying too much about it, but you're right that it can't be ruled out entirely as a possibility I guess. I'd have to read the full text of the law, Canada's definition of "hate speech", etc and I'm no lawyer : )

 

[MC Safety]

Instead of a march, kids should just stay home.

Imagine a protest that shuts down the school system. Kids just don't attend classes until some real change is enacted.

 

[rokkerkory]

Contradictions are great.

Reading comphrehension is better. If you took offense to what I said then you’re part of the problem.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Instead of a march, kids should just stay home.

Imagine a protest that shuts down the school system. Kids just don't attend classes until some real change is enacted.

I think what they're doing is a more powerful statement.

It demonstrates solidarity and brings them all together in one place. It's much more visible, and creates a more powerful image. It shows it's not just about "I want an excuse to skip school and play video games". It gives them an opportunity to speak out and talk to the media or government representatives that might drop by.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Seems like they should focus on the FBI. Didn’t they get information that they sat on?

It seems that the only way to have actually prevented this situation was to act on that information.

And I see people bringing up Sandy Hook... didn’t that shooter kill his mom and take her guns? Or was that a different one?

I’m not seeing the possible solution for prevention with the problems. Would any background check have given authorities more information than what was handed to the FBI? Would a registered list prevented someone who steals the guns? Would a entire ban stop a criminal? It seems not.

Drug bans don’t stop drugs. You would only be taking away guns from non criminals.

 

[rokkerkory]

What about illegal guns? They will always exist. the 21 million that the NRA uses is pennies compared to many other organizations. This issue in the long run because of illegal guns will be black and white, guns or no guns. I hope we never come to that day.

Did I mention NRA or did you? I said money lobbying period. Go ahead and tell me money isn’t the leading contributor here.

 

[zelo-ca]

Did I mention NRA or did you? I said money lobbying period. Go ahead and tell me money isn’t the leading contributor here.

The second amendment is the leading contributor here.