• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Maybe we should arm the students?

With bars on the windows and bullet proof glass? Making our schools into supermax prisons seems a bit extreme and hardly very comforting to students. We will then have to do the same with clubs, movie theaters and any place many people gather. The answer is gun control laws like are so successful in other countries.
Enacting strict firearms legislation comparable to other countries won’t happen.

Fact is, most Americans don’t support it.

Any real change has to start at the local/state level and build from there.
 
It seemed to be safe then. What has changed in society?
Are you implying that you don’t recognize changes in our society that have contributed to the increasing frequency and lethality of mass shooting murders?
 
Are you implying that you don’t recognize changes in our society that have contributed to the increasing frequency and lethality of mass shooting murders?
The frequency has nothing to with guns, nor does the lethality. AR-15s were around for 48 years before the first mass shooting by a civilian using one.
 
Jr High - New Mexico, mid 70s
High school - Alabama, late 70s
In big cities?

I hadn't really thought of it beforehand, but if memory serves my grandfather took my older brother and I out to practice shooting with his old rifle when we lived in an outback town. I must have been 6 or 7 at the time. Wouldn't dream of leaving me unsupervised with it of course. But obviously in more rural settings there can be actual usefulness being able to hunt, along with less risk of stray bullets or accidental shots hitting bystanders and so on. Whether problems arise due to accidents or bullying or mental illness, they become much more likely to occur and likely to be more serious in areas of higher population density; more people to hit, more people being arseholes to each other, more damaged people at risk of snapping.
 
In big cities?
No.
I hadn't really thought of it beforehand, but if memory serves my grandfather took my older brother and I out to practice shooting with his old rifle when we lived in an outback town. I must have been 6 or 7 at the time. Wouldn't dream of leaving me unsupervised with it of course. But obviously in more rural settings there can be actual usefulness being able to hunt, along with less risk of stray bullets or accidental shots hitting bystanders and so on. Whether problems arise due to accidents or bullying or mental illness, they become much more likely to occur and likely to be more serious in areas of higher population density; more people to hit, more people being arseholes to each other, more damaged people at risk of snapping.
I avoid big cities for this reason.
 
I disagree, he would have used another weapon. But don't take this the wrong way, I support a ban on assault weapons, in fact I support a ban on all semi-automatics including hand guns, rifles, and shotguns.
No other weapon does what an assault rifle does. That is why they were banned for several years. I am not a weapons expert, but I would allow for personal use only those that are not used to take down another army during a war. I am not a gun lover but people in my life own them for personal protection and for hunting. These people are responsible (lock up their guns and know how to handle them) and, since it is required, they are licensed to carry concealed weapons in this state.
 
Enacting strict firearms legislation comparable to other countries won’t happen.

Fact is, most Americans don’t support it.

Any real change has to start at the local/state level and build from there.
Wrong. Most Americans support universal background checks and have for a decade. We need to get our politicians off the NRA payroll.
 
I'm sure we can all see where this is going. Can't trust the commie teachers, can't trust the cops. Obviously the best way to stop a bad student with a gun is a good student with a gun, amiright?
Students are already armed in Alaska, as well as teachers.
 
IT IS NOW MORE DEADLY TO BE A STUDENT IN SCHOOL THAN IT IS TO BE A POLICE OFFICER. MORE KIDS WERE KILLED IN SCHOOL THAN POLICE OFFICERS WERE KILLED IN 2022.
That has always been the case. There are also a lot more students than there are police officers. Get a clue.
 
No other weapon does what an assault rifle does.
Really? My bolt action 6.5 Creemoor fires the exact same round as my AR-10 chambered in 6.5 Creemoor does. The PCC fires the same 9mm bullet at about the same velocity as my handguns do. "Assault rifles" are available in most common hunting calibers and most common pistol calibers. The bullets perform exactly the same way fired from semiautomatic rifles as they do from any other kind of rifle.


That is why they were banned for several years.

Why was the AR-15 banned in 1994?


I am not a weapons expert, but I would allow for personal use only those that are not used to take down another army during a war.

Dang. No more revolvers, pump shotguns, bolt action rifles but at least we get to keep our AR-15s as the semiautomatic version hasn't been used in war.

I am not a gun lover but people in my life own them for personal protection and for hunting. These people are responsible (lock up their guns and know how to handle them) and, since it is required, they are licensed to carry concealed weapons in this state.
What kind of hunting rifles? Based on type you may just have banned them.
 
Wrong. Most Americans support universal background checks and have for a decade. We need to get our politicians off the NRA payroll.
Most Americans don't know that they are ineffective and unenforceable because the folks that run polls don't tell them how they work, and most Americans don't bother the read the text of any bills they might support.

In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.

In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 0.8% come from gun shows. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.

What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?

Even a hard core gun control researcher found them ineffective.

"A requirement that all gun sales include a background check on the prospective purchaser and comprehensive state-level regulation of firearm retailers are among the well-supported opportunities for action by state-level policymakers."

Garen Wintemute, 2011.

"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3154243/"

"The simultaneous implementation of CBC (comprehensive background checks, aka UBC) and MVP (misdemeanor violence policy) policies was not associated with a net change in the firearm homicide rate over the ensuing 10 years in California. The decrease in firearm suicides in California was similar to the decrease in nonfirearm suicides in that state. Results were robust across multiple model specifications and methods."

Garen Wintemute, 2019

 
When I was in high school most of the guys brought there guns to school especially during hunting season. Back in the day when just about every pickup had a gun rack over the back window. We might have a few fist fights but nobody shot anyone. How times have changed.
 
The frequency has nothing to with guns, nor does the lethality. AR-15s were around for 48 years before the first mass shooting by a civilian using one.
Repeating my previous comment, there has been a dramatic change in our society since the 1970’s.

Mass shooting murders were an uncommon occurrence in the United States, including at K-12 schools.

3E65BCE7-2A67-449D-A97A-9E79DEAB9F83.jpeg

Your claims that “frequency has nothing to with guns” and “lethality” would be laughable they weren’t so tragically wrong.

There is no supportable, logical argument against the simple fact that if firearms weren’t so readily accessible, those with the intent to cause mass injuries/deaths wouldn’t commit those atrocities, or that a semiautomatic rifle with a 30 round magazine doesn’t inherently have a greater potential for killing than a revolver or bolt action rifle.
 
Wrong. Most Americans support universal background checks and have for a decade. We need to get our politicians off the NRA payroll.
I never said most Americans don’t support UBC’s. In fact, I’ve often reminded 2A absolutists that the majority of Americans, including NRA members, do support UBC’s.
 
When I was in high school most of the guys brought there guns to school especially during hunting season. Back in the day when just about every pickup had a gun rack over the back window. We might have a few fist fights but nobody shot anyone. How times have changed.
Indeed.
 
Repeating my previous comment, there has been a dramatic change in our society since the 1970’s.

Mass shooting murders were an uncommon occurrence in the United States, including at K-12 schools.

View attachment 67394043

Your claims that “frequency has nothing to with guns” and “lethality” would be laughable they weren’t so tragically wrong.

There is no supportable, logical argument against the simple fact that if firearms weren’t so readily accessible, those with the intent to cause mass injuries/deaths wouldn’t commit those atrocities, or that a semiautomatic rifle with a 30 round magazine doesn’t inherently have a greater potential for killing than a revolver or bolt action rifle.
Guns have never had more restrictions on them than they do now.

Prior to 1927, we could mail order pistols with home delivery with no background checks..
Prior to 1934, we could buy machine guns at the hardware store with no background checks..
Prior to 1968, we could mail order long guns, including AR-15s, through the mail with home delivery, with no background checks.
Prior to 1986, we could buy machine guns at about the same price as rifles.
Prior to 1992, we could buy a gun with no background checks.

Civilians had AR-15s starting in 1964. The first one wasn't used by a civilian in a mass shooting until 2012. That's 48 years with the same lethality they have now, yet no one decide to commit a mass shooting with one.
 
Guns have never had more restrictions on them than they do now.

Prior to 1927, we could mail order pistols with home delivery with no background checks..
Prior to 1934, we could buy machine guns at the hardware store with no background checks..
Prior to 1968, we could mail order long guns, including AR-15s, through the mail with home delivery, with no background checks.
Prior to 1986, we could buy machine guns at about the same price as rifles.
Prior to 1992, we could buy a gun with no background checks.
Those “restrictions” have had no appreciable effect in curbing the massive increase in firearms ownership year to year.

Currently, there are roughly 400,000,000 firearms in the hands of Americans. More than enough firearms to put a gun in the hand of every single man, woman, and child with tens of millions to spare.

There were nearly 40 million guns purchased legally by Americans in 2020 alone according to FBI records.
Civilians had AR-15s starting in 1964.
For the third time, America today is very different than America 60 years ago.
The first one wasn't used by a civilian in a mass shooting until 2012. That's 48 years with the same lethality they have now, yet no one decide to commit a mass shooting with one.
And once it was realized how effective AR type rifles at killing in large numbers, they have become the mass shooters weapon of choice.
 
Those “restrictions” have had no appreciable effect in curbing the massive increase in firearms ownership year to year.

Currently, there are roughly 400,000,000 firearms in the hands of Americans. More than enough firearms to put a gun in the hand of every single man, woman, and child with tens of millions to spare.

There were nearly 40 million guns purchased legally by Americans in 2020 alone according to FBI records.

For the third time, America today is very different than America 60 years ago.

And once it was realized how effective AR type rifles at killing in large numbers, they have become the mass shooters weapon of choice.
Handguns are still the most commonly used firearm in mass shootings, using any definition.

The fatality rate in Virginia Tech, 32 dead adults, was 64%, with two handguns, one a .22. The fatality rate in Vegas was 13%.

All another ban would do is put another 5 million ARs in circulation.
 
Handguns are still the most commonly used firearm in mass shootings, using any definition.
Following the generally accepted definition of “mass shooting” to mean 3 or 4 victims, you’re correct.
The fatality rate in Virginia Tech, 32 dead adults, was 64%, with two handguns, one a .22. The fatality rate in Vegas was 13%.

Mass shootings involving assault weapons or high-capacity magazines were far deadlier.​

When assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, they resulted in far more deaths and injuries. Between 2009 and 2020, the five deadliest mass shooting incidents in the US all involved the use of assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines: Las Vegas, Orlando, Newtown, Sutherland Springs, and El Paso. 12

Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were disproportionately used in public mass shootings. Of the shootings with known weapon type, 76 percent of those that involved an assault weapon and/or high-capacity magazine occurred in public compared to 44 percent of those that involved a handgun.13
All another ban would do is put another 5 million ARs in circulation.
I haven’t suggested banning AR’s.

I would be onboard for raising the legal age to purchase any firearm to 21 and imposing a three day waiting period, like Florida did.
 
Following the generally accepted definition of “mass shooting” to mean 3 or 4 victims, you’re correct.
It's important to have a common definition.

Mass shootings involving assault weapons or high-capacity magazines were far deadlier.​

When assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were used in mass shootings, they resulted in far more deaths and injuries. Between 2009 and 2020, the five deadliest mass shooting incidents in the US all involved the use of assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines: Las Vegas, Orlando, Newtown, Sutherland Springs, and El Paso. 12
Nice job to omit 2007, where the third worst shooting occurred, with handguns. We should also factor in that the Vegas shooter used machine gun equivalents now banned, and that the Pulse shooter had three hours to work with as opposed to the 10 minutes needed by the VT shooter.

I haven't seen anything in Heller or Caetano that mentions that protection is lost if a class of firearms result in more deaths and injuries in mass shootings. If we look at the annual death toll, handguns are far and away the most deadly firearm class defined by total results. It's just not a Constitutional reason to ban a class of firearms.
Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines were disproportionately used in public mass shootings. Of the shootings with known weapon type, 76 percent of those that involved an assault weapon and/or high-capacity magazine occurred in public compared to 44 percent of those that involved a handgun.13

I haven’t suggested banning AR’s.
Lot's of folks have, and many of them sit in DC.
I would be onboard for raising the legal age to purchase any firearm to 21 and imposing a three day waiting period, like Florida did.
I see both of those likely passing, and perhaps even some form of red flag law.

It won't stop mass shootings, it won't stop school shootings and it likely won't affect the homicide rate in any material way. They will always come back for more.
 
Repeating my previous comment, there has been a dramatic change in our society since the 1970’s.

Mass shooting murders were an uncommon occurrence in the United States, including at K-12 schools.

View attachment 67394043

Your claims that “frequency has nothing to with guns” and “lethality” would be laughable they weren’t so tragically wrong.

There is no supportable, logical argument against the simple fact that if firearms weren’t so readily accessible, those with the intent to cause mass injuries/deaths wouldn’t commit those atrocities, or that a semiautomatic rifle with a 30 round magazine doesn’t inherently have a greater potential for killing than a revolver or bolt action rifle.
..and the rise of Trumpism, along with the hate/bigotry that came with it.....
 
No one ever heard of someone shooting up a school in the hood, most kids are armed
 
Guns have never had more restrictions on them than they do now.

Prior to 1927, we could mail order pistols with home delivery with no background checks..
Prior to 1934, we could buy machine guns at the hardware store with no background checks..
Prior to 1968, we could mail order long guns, including AR-15s, through the mail with home delivery, with no background checks.
Prior to 1986, we could buy machine guns at about the same price as rifles.
Prior to 1992, we could buy a gun with no background checks.

Civilians had AR-15s starting in 1964. The first one wasn't used by a civilian in a mass shooting until 2012. That's 48 years with the same lethality they have now, yet no one decide to commit a mass shooting with one.
What's your point? That mass shooters are not early adopters? What matters is that they are now using these weapons of war against helpless children and our police is outclassed and afraid to confront them. It is a terrible situation and we have only ourselves to blame... and you sure are not any help either.
 
What's your point? That mass shooters are not early adopters? What matters is that they are now using these weapons of war

They aren't weapons of war. Crank the hyperbole down. They've also used lever action rifles, bolt action rifles, other semiautomatic rifles, pump shotguns, double barrel shotguns, pistols and revolvers.

against helpless children and our police is outclassed and afraid to confront them.

Outclassed, maybe. Outgunned, nope. Some cops were afraid. They weren't afraid in Sandy Hook. They weren't afraid in Boulder. They weren't afraid in Gilroy. Even civilians have gun up against shooters with rifles, successfully.

It is a terrible situation and we have only ourselves to blame... and you sure are not any help either.
What do you think will happen if the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2021" gets passed and signed into law?
 
Back
Top Bottom