If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On May 31 2018 08:51 Simberto wrote:
Why is the appeal to emotion with regards to dead kids acceptable when talking about shit like militarizing your schools, but not acceptable when talking about maybe possibly having some sort of regulations with regards to guns?

On May 31 2018 08:40 Danglars wrote:

No problem for how that makes you feel or if it sounds weird or not. A lot of stuff gun rights Americans are asked to compromise for feels more like being the subject of a foreign nation that doesn’t afford their governed persons individual rights. It’s kind of like a group of elites in a big metro way off on a coast telling you which rights in the bill of rights they’ll let you still keep. I’m all for certain compromises and I’m sure there’s more that I haven’t fully considered, but I would like to see less kids shot at their schools by adolescents even if the added security raises rankles!

On May 31 2018 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's not about raising rankles (for me anyway), it's about cops at schools often being pretty much the worst cops you can find, and it making things worse, not better.

There's already ~15,000-20,000 cops in schools and there's little to no research indicating they make them any safer, but there is a lot of research indicating they increase the flow of the school to prison pipeline, disproportionately for Black and brown students.

On May 31 2018 09:49 Danglars wrote:

I saw a few news reports on how Obama-era measures designed to fight school-to-prison routes led to officers avoiding the warning signs at Marjorie-Stoneman Douglas. Officers were reluctant to conduct arrests, for example of the future shooter, despite just cause. He was then able to pass a background check and buy his weapons. I call that food for thought in how these things can go wrong.

Records obtained from the sheriff's office by CNN show the law enforcement agency received at least 45 calls for service relating to Cruz or his brother from 2008 to 2017, before the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland on Feb. 14. The sheriff's office has insisted it received no more than 23 calls for service regarding Cruz or his family.

CNN has repeatedly asked the sheriff's office to explain the discrepancy, sending emails and attempting to reach an agency representative by phone. The agency has not responded to those requests with an explanation.

On May 31 2018 10:42 GreenHorizons wrote:


I've seen trashy speculation in that vein, I haven't seen any "news reports" to that effect.

It's also total bullshit, so that might be why.



www.cnn.com

It's pretty obvious the reason they didn't arrest him earlier had nothing to do with Obama-era policy, and probably a lot more to do with the deference shown to 'white' people who commit crimes, particularly when compared to the more consistently severe punishments of PoC. Also general police incompetence.

In 2013, the year before Cruz entered high school, the Broward County school system rewrote its discipline policy to make it much more difficult for administrators to suspend or expel problem students, or for campus police to arrest them for misdemeanors– including some of the crimes Cruz allegedly committed in the years and months leading up to the deadly Feb. 14 shooting at his Fort Lauderdale-area school.

The new policy resulted from an Obama administration effort begun in 2011 to keep students in school and improve racial outcomes (timeline here), and came against a backdrop of other efforts to rein in perceived excesses in "zero tolerance" discipline policies, including in Florida.

Broward school Superintendent Robert W. Runcie – a Chicagoan and Harvard graduate with close ties to President Obama and his Education Department – signed an agreement with the county sheriff and other local jurisdictions to trade cops for counseling. Students charged with various misdemeanors, including assault, would now be disciplined through participation in “healing circles,” obstacle courses and other “self-esteem building” exercises.

Obama education secretary Arne Duncan even highlighted Broward County’s efforts to reduce out-of-school suspensions and try alternative forms of discipline. Broward County was reportedly “one of 53 major school districts” to adopt Obama-administration guidelines designed in part to limit law-enforcement involvement in school discipline.

Sperry quoted Peter Kirsanow, a conservative member of the Commission on Civil Rights:

Broward County adopted a lenient disciplinary policy similar to those adopted by many other districts under pressure from the Obama administration to reduce racial “disparities” in suspensions and expulsions. . . . In many of these districts, the drive to “get our numbers right” has produced disastrous results, with startling increases in both the number and severity of disciplinary offenses, including assaults and beatings of teachers and students.

Sperry also wrote a comprehensive essay for the New York Post in December outlining how lax discipline policies where enabling a wave of violence against teachers and students. He detailed incidents across the country, including mass resignations of teachers after escalating assaults.

In local news reports at least one former Broward school-resource officer has spoken bluntly about the pressure not to arrest students and said that the number of resource officers was cut in half.

On May 31 2018 10:53 Danglars wrote:

I'm not going to march out and say that it's exactly why he wasn't arrested and prevented from buying a weapon. The best research has only been RealClearInvestigations, though it brings up verifiable facts that help the conclusion.



And in national review:


Call it bad implementation and only tangentially related to Obama-era policies, but it was clearly intentioned to prevent prison pipeline stories. And this time it backfired.

On May 27 2018 22:25 Danglars wrote:

I don't see any of my points addressed in this rambling response. I don't really care that you want to call a big group of people "stupid people." I pointed out that junking "Republican shills" doesn't address the fact that it's the citizens putting gun rights politicians into office. Are you depriving them a vote based on calling them stupid? If they call you stupid, do you get less political voice and lobbying groups?

The NRA's strength is in its members. It's also currently being buoyed by its most vocal opponents, who think guns are bad, don't read or care about civilians owning guns stopping crime, and want to repeal the second amendment. Voters, even nonmembers, check its endorsements on politicians to make sure they're not voting in the person that will take away their gun rights. Their ability to mobilize opposition is laudatory. Some of their more interesting arguments and personalities, much less so.

"The only legitimate reasons in our culture to own a gun are 1) I want to shoot paper. 2) I want to hunt." Lawful self defense is absolutely part of American culture. You really are missing the ball here. Don't call out other people for stupidity if you're intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the other side for your benefit. Put in your terms, gun owners have to defend their rights against stupid people in every election.

I brought up the video in part to deal with the "reasons is worth the life of any one child killed in a mass shooting." This logic applies to first amendment rights. And if you think your emotional plea about having to be a 16 year old to understand surrendering rights to an emotional "do-something" mob, then I suggest arguing like you've learned things since 16 years old yourself.

On May 31 2018 10:42 GreenHorizons wrote:


I've seen trashy speculation in that vein, I haven't seen any "news reports" to that effect.

It's also total bullshit, so that might be why.



www.cnn.com

It's pretty obvious the reason they didn't arrest him earlier had nothing to do with Obama-era policy, and probably a lot more to do with the deference shown to 'white' people who commit crimes, particularly when compared to the more consistently severe punishments of PoC. Also general police incompetence.

On June 01 2018 11:16 ShambhalaWar wrote:


Money and political power put people into office, that's why you have a completely racist fascist in office. So no, the NRA doesn't have power through its members, NRA members are by far the minority in this country. The VAST majority want gun control laws and are very dissatisfied with gun violence in the country.

*The reason you can't get anyone to do anything about it is because of a small group of people with extreme power and money, line the pockets of news agencies and law makers. Once these people are bought, then they owe BIG favors and cannot be unbought. *The NRA is the organization doing the buying, because they lobby people like Marco Rubio to stand up and make stupid unconscionable arguments in the face of the public, because they are too afraid to do it themselves.

Because mainstream news also lets go of these issues these issues get forgotten (idk how anyone forgets sandy hook). The media is like Facebook, it's an advertising machine now, all clickbait for money. Now you have to go to non-mainstream source for any reporting.

You argument about a "good guy with a gun" is a myth. There are little to no examples of someone with a gun stopping any shooting. You might be able to find me one or two in the last 5 years, but how many have been stopped this year?

ZERO.

If there had been any example the NRA would be parading around like clowns shoving it in everyone's face, but they aren't because it didn't happen. In the last shooting I believe a cop got killed (a trained man), and didn't stop the shooter (so your argument is let's put guns in the hands of barely trained people and see if they stop anything?).

Your argument of protecting yourself is a myth. You own a gun right? When did you ever use it to stop anyone in your whole life (I'm sure you'll come up with something, and no I don't believe you)?

I've known plenty of gun owners, and some that were legitimately threatened with murder and not a single one of them ever used their gun in self defense. It's a myth, otherwise you would see it all over the news, people saving sooooo many people with guns like the wild west. The actual truth of life is you and your family are in more danger because you have a gun (just like our children in schools... who are actually dying... because the country is flooded with guns... clearly you don't give a shit about them). People are more likely to have an accident, commit suicide, have someone take it and use it against them etc...

Living in fear of everything makes people like you think they need guns, you have the police force... that's literally all you need, that's all people in other countries have. And the police too, want less guns on the street, because it's safer for them. Your guns... make every day riskier for an officer, not only that, they make officers more trigger ready because they never know who will actually have a gun... could be a kid, could be a man on the street... etc...

I could go on all day with things that make logical sense, but please... blast me back with the regular load of nonsense. I look forward to your litany of nothing that will sound like regular Republican talking points. I welcome it in fact, it will only make you look bad.

On June 01 2018 12:44 reincremate wrote:
This thread is the best. 700+ pages of quality refutations of the tired old argument that guns are not necessary for personal protection and liberty. If Braveheart had guns, he would be yelling "Freeeeeedom!" while celebrating successful Scottish emancipation instead of doing so while being tied up and readied for execution like a non-gun wielding chump. If the people of China, of whom over 40% still live in rural areas filled with dangerous animals (tigers, bears, red raccoons, other humans, pandas, etc.) had guns, they would be able to rise up against their tyrannical oppressors and vote for their own best interests like the gun-toting American public does. God bless America.

On June 01 2018 12:51 KwarK wrote:

I honestly can't tell if this is a savage takedown of the absurdity of the pro-gun argument.

On June 01 2018 13:17 KwarK wrote:
Incidentally the last time the Scots rose up they had guns. It was just a few decades before the Declaration of Independence. It turned out that it was much easier to crush a rebellion if you don't have to run it from across the Atlantic.

On June 01 2018 18:02 reincremate wrote:
This thread has slowly but surely devolved into a British witticism circle-jerk. I think it is in dire need of less hat-raising and more gat-praising (gat is American english for gun by the way).

On June 01 2018 12:23 Danglars wrote:

Across time, small majorities want increased gun control. I think it was a month or two ago that one poll quoted it at 57%. That's plenty of a small margin to suggest to me that when the issue crystallizes into proposed laws, they could shift all over the place. Mary thinks banning private sales is good, but changes her mind when someone near her replies that most guns used in gun crime are stolen, never documented illegally, or from straw purchasers. That's the kind of the state of being when gun know-how is so limited across the US, extending to most people never knowing what an assault rifle is or what kinds of accessories have been used to classify the assault weapon label in the past. Oh well. I suppose every political topic battles ignorance.

The NRA is a bit player in terms of money and power. Seriously, everybody that screams about their money and secretive power are idiots and immediately disgrace themselves in very Trumpian manner. For example, in 2015 the NRA spent $8 million dollars. Unions spent $33million. Oil and gas $34 million. Chamber of commerce $84 million. And know-nothing demagogues still say the gun lobby is holding the country hostage. I'll believe it the second they say unions are holding the country hostage, or Exxon-mobil is holding the country hostage, or the American Medical Association is holding the country hostage. But the myth persists ...

The NRA is good at mobilizing it's members to vote. Even non NRA members, gun owners, or people that lean towards preserving rights for their friends and neighbors, look to the NRA position to get a clue of where the candidates stand. It's people. It's democracy in action. I salute them for this. I can't stand some of their posturing, but they have been on the front lines for preserving my rights and I congratulate them. They also helpfully resource and train and network gun instructors on safety, as our own micronesia once availed himself of in the thread. Not demagogues, not ShambhalaWar's constructed boogeymen, but real Americans that want you to be well-equipped to act in your own defense.

The problem is reporting on these things. Gun owners don't brag about scaring away a robber or convincing a would-be criminal by drawing their gun that they'd be better off doing something else. Nobody cares when open carry states/'shall issue' stop the crime from being planned in the first place. The headline is shooter kills seventeen people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, not armed school resource officer at Great Mills High School engages shooter, only two injured. And that man can as easily be a trained employee of the school or a volunteer. Not a big town hall aftewards, either. Less cameras.

And very sorry for your anecdotal "knowing plenty of gun owners" and "not a single one of them ever used their gun in self defense." I've known people that only suffered a broken front door by confronting robbers. I know people that only needed a warning shot and then their family was safe. You can look up other examples if that's your thing. Again, the best use of second amendment-guaranteed ownership is the preventative effect, not the heroics.

And pardon me if not everyone trusts the police, or lives in a nice metro or suburb where the nearest station is a couple minutes away. Your life is not generalizable to the entire country. This country is big ... 97% of our country is rural ... and has around 47 million or so people. National legislation affects them too. They know how many farms and miles of highway lay between them and the nearest paid man with a badge and gun. Maybe it's the next city over at 15 miles, maybe it's 50 miles away. Whether it's a criminal or a wild animal, they're smart enough to know it's up to them. And they're smart enough to know their lives don't really matter to gun control proponents of your stripe, if we're being completely honest here.

Or maybe you're in Detroit, which has had police response times in excess of an hour, and has in the past averaged 80 minute response times across a year. ShambhalaWar, maybe you don't live there and it doesn't affect you, but police arrive and the crime is long done and over with. They're very helpful with the paperwork. If you'll excuse me, I'd rather have the means to act in my own self defense while I wait.

But you do your thing, I won't force you to buy a gun for yourself ... just keep your grubby hands off my rights.

I appreciate your NRA talking points, "good guy with a gun is a myth" talking points, "you're too dumb to not accidentally hurt yourself, commit suicide, or be disarmed" talking points, and all the rest. The "I'm sure you'll come up with something, and no I don't believe you" tells me pretty much all I need about your level of honest engagement and commitment to avoid propaganda and choose arguments. Have your fun. Just don't expect national political victories until you come to terms with American's commitment to self defense. Actually, don't expect any change until a majority of people that think like you respect the gun rights of others, and start compromise in the margins of youth offenders and warning signs offenders (temporary gun restraining orders).

On June 01 2018 18:02 reincremate wrote:
This thread has slowly but surely devolved into a British witticism circle-jerk. I think it is in dire need of less hat-raising and more gat-praising (gat is American english for gun by the way).

On May 31 2018 09:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's not about raising rankles (for me anyway), it's about cops at schools often being pretty much the worst cops you can find, and it making things worse, not better.

There's already ~15,000-20,000 cops in schools and there's little to no research indicating they make them any safer, but there is a lot of research indicating they increase the flow of the school to prison pipeline, disproportionately for Black and brown students.