Wanna know why young people (Gen Z to those not even born yet) have a different opinion of guns than us who had/saw gun racks in trucks at school?

[Grizzly Adams]

Because students, especially teenagers can see the news, see the events that are happening, where students are dying in their classrooms from gunfire. They are not dying in their classrooms from school/structural fires or tornadoes coming through. They also recognize that tornadoes and fires are not intentionally doing anything, intentionally killing anyone even if there are maybe an average of 1 death/year in schools from these things. The school shooter is usually intentionally trying to harm others.

And add to that students are facing real events that put them into lockdowns, even if it doesn't reach the point of a school shooting, injuries, deaths. They far more rarely face fires in their schools and tornadoes may be prevalent in some areas, but they tend to feel safe in their schools during tornadoes, for the most part.

Oooooooookay? And?

 

[Grand Mal]

We've been over this. The drills involving students aren't really viewed as particularly useful by many experts. I mean...what is
accomplished by including the students- especially the younger ones- that can't be achieved by training the teachers?

Training teachers to do what?

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It's not a fantasy.

That is incorrect. It is a daydream about something that will never happen.

Hell they'd do it now if they were in control.

Young people will do all sorts of stupid and horrible things if they are in control.

But young people are not in control.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Most people want fair red flag laws. Most Americans want a national system for better background checks.

Gun control advocates, however, do not want that.

The only thing that gun control advocates care about is violating people's civil liberties for no reason. That's their idea of fun.

You have repeated saying "no reason". The reasons are the unknown future victims.

That is incorrect. Outlawing guns because they have certain letters in their name has nothing to do with trying to save future victims.

Outlawing guns because they have a pistol grip and a flash suppressor has nothing to do with trying to save future victims.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

No.

I'm Gen X too. I certainly remember the Cold War.

Just like I don’t walk around today worried that Russia will nuke us.

Russia under Putin is certainly a global problem, but they are not even close to the threat to the entire world that was posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You're saying they should be defeated, destroyed, enslaved but your point was defending your own civil liberties + guns. #258

The right to have guns is part of my civil liberties. Keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental right of all free people.

Pro violence and pro gun at the same time so early this morning?

I suppose it is possible that enslaving progressives (or even just placing them in concentration camps) might involve violence if there are resistors.

But society could create slave patrols to keep the slaves under control.

Pro gun 24 hours a day. Always and forever.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

It can be fair, it can be adjudicated.

Petitioners first ask a judge to issue a confiscation order. They present evidence about the risk they believe the individual poses.
Law enforcement can seek a warrant from a judge for a search. This is the same rationale.
It has to be shown that the person presents a risk. Prior events are part of that. Self-Online notification is highly correlated with shooter behavior. This can be presented in court. If a person hasn't been violent and if they've been lawful, nothing is going to happen.

You forgot about the Constitutional right to due process. If you want to deprive someone of their rights, you need to provide them a competent lawyer and allow them to confront their accusers in open court.

The potential harm is worth the potential gain in prevention to most of us.

Since we're abolishing civil liberties to help combat crime, do you also favor allowing police to beat confessions out of suspects?

That will go a long way towards reducing crime too. No more than 10% of the people who are forced to confess will actually be innocent.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Well, except when they break into the Capitol building, right?
Or set up gallows on the grounds in DC, right?

Only tyrants see peaceful protesters as a threat and put them in prison for daring to challenge a stolen election.

Of course, progressives are natural tyrants. That's why progressives need to be removed from society.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

This comment seems to imply violence

I suppose it is possible that enslaving progressives (or even just placing them in concentration camps) might involve violence if there are resistors.

But society can create slave patrols to keep enslaved progressives under control.

and is not sane or rational.

Nonsense.

So, I'm out.

Until next time.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Literally your position.

Nope. I said nothing like that.

Oh, I am already dealing with one person who struggles with the truth. I don't see any reason for you to jump in as well.

Neither he nor I say anything that is untrue.

For someone who claims to take the position of "wisdom", you sure do say a lot of really dumb things.

That is incorrect. There is nothing dumb about any of my proposals.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

That’s exactly what the gun lobby does. Great of you to realize that.

That is incorrect. What the gun lobby does is prevent progressives from violating people's civil liberties.

 

[roguenuke]

We've been over this. The drills involving students aren't really viewed as particularly useful by many experts. I mean...what is
accomplished by including the students- especially the younger ones- that can't be achieved by training the teachers?

What should students do if they aren't in a classroom? How do students know this without some sort of drills or instructions about what to do?

It's the same reason that we run drills over and over again in the military, to train a response.

Why run fire drills if we could just let teachers tell students what to do during a fire?

 

[soap box]

Gun control advocates, however, do not want that.

The only thing that gun control advocates care about is violating people's civil liberties for no reason. That's their idea of fun.

Get back to me when you're ready to make sense.

That is incorrect. Outlawing guns because they have certain letters in their name has nothing to do with trying to save future victims.

Maybe figure out what I posted and get back to me on that.

Outlawing guns because they have a pistol grip and a flash suppressor has nothing to do with trying to save future victims.

Read my post first, then reply after.

The right to have guns is part of my civil liberties. Keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental right of all free people.

Until you show violent tendencies,like your enslavement posts. At that point, most of us consider people who make online threats to be dangerous.

I suppose it is possible that enslaving progressives (or even just placing them in concentration camps) might involve violence if there are resistors.

But society could create slave patrols to keep the slaves under control.

Pro gun 24 hours a day. Always and forever.

You forgot to repeat the violence part.

You forgot about the Constitutional right to due process. If you want to deprive someone of their rights, you need to provide them a competent lawyer and allow them to confront their accusers in open court.

How is this different than obtaining a search warrant?

Since we're abolishing civil liberties to help combat crime, do you also favor allowing police to beat confessions out of suspects?

That will go a long way towards reducing crime too. No more than 10% of the people who are forced to confess will actually be innocent.

Again, read my post and reply after.

Guns don't kill, people do. Most of us want violent people to not have firearms.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Get back to me when you're ready to make sense.

My post was written in straightforward English. You made a claim about what most people want. I replied by pointing out that gun control advocates want something entirely different.

Maybe figure out what I posted and get back to me on that.

I know exactly what you posted. That's why I replied to your points.

You made an untrue claim that gun control was about saving future victims.

I corrected your untrue claim by pointing out gun control measures that have nothing to do with trying to save any victims.

Read my post first, then reply after.

Well, obviously. I wouldn't be able to reply to your post without first reading it.

Again, you made an untrue claim that gun control was about saving future victims.

I corrected your untrue claim by pointing out gun control measures that have nothing to do with trying to save any victims.

Until you show violent tendencies, like your enslavement posts. At that point, most of us consider people who make online threats to be dangerous.

My proposal that progressives be enslaved was neither violent nor a threat.

You forgot to repeat the violence part.

That is incorrect. That quoted text directly addressed your point about violence.

How is this different than obtaining a search warrant?

A search warrant does not deprive people of their fundamental rights.

Again, read my post and reply after.

How do you think I keep addressing your points?

You stated an opinion that violating people's civil liberties in the name of combating crime was worth it.

I pointed out another violation of civil liberties that would also be useful in combatting crime.

Guns don't kill, people do. Most of us want violent people to not have firearms.

Gun control advocates don't care about it though. They only want to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

 

[BirdinHand]

I corrected your untrue claim by pointing out gun control measures that have nothing to do with trying to save any victims

And yet, in every country with more stringent gun control…the number of people that die from gun related violence is substantially lower than in the US.

My proposal that progressives be enslaved was neither violent nor a threat.

No, it was ridiculous and indicates that your posts are worthless drivel and not actual debate.

 

[Perotista]

Well, here it is in a simple and short video.

Something went wrong with our society, something no one want to find out in order to correct it, address it. Everyone is scared to death what they may find, thus they blame that illness on guns.

Back in the era when there were no gun control laws, when guns were in rifle racks in trucks parked at school, mass shootings were basically unheard of. Say from 1900-1970. 28 total and this was during the Al Capone gangster era. After 1970 to present, hundreds. So, what went wrong? Not guns, they were more readily available and easier to obtain pre-1970. Something happened to our society. We took a very wrong turn that no one cares about.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990

Pre-1970 most mass shootings were familicides and committed during a felony. The shooter knew his victims. Post 1970, most mass shootings occur pubic places against unknown and innocent bystanders. Killing for killings sake. No one gives an owl’s hoot where our society came off the tracks when it comes to mass shooting. It’s far too easy to blame guns and let the core reasons, the whys alone and undetected. Uncurable. No one cares.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

And yet, in every country with more stringent gun control…the number of people that die from gun related violence is substantially lower than in the US.

So?

Does being killed with a different kind of weapon make a murder victim any less dead?

No, it was ridiculous and indicates that your posts are worthless drivel and not actual debate.

If someone cannot debate my points, the problem isn't on my end.

 

[BirdinHand]

Does being killed with a different kind of weapon make a murder victim any less dead?

Care to show where any civilized nation has even close to as many people killed annually as we do?

If someone cannot debate my points, the problem isn't on my end.

No one expects you to post any differently.

 

[soap box]

My post was written in straightforward English. You made a claim about what most people want. I replied by pointing out that gun control advocates want something entirely different.

You're wrong about what gun control advocates want.

I know exactly what you posted. That's why I replied to your points.

You replied by inventing things I never said.

You made an untrue claim that gun control was about saving future victims.

It will save lives .

I corrected your untrue claim by pointing out gun control measures that have nothing to do with trying to save any victims.

Wrong. It will save lives.

Well, obviously. I wouldn't be able to reply to your post without first reading it.

Again, you made an untrue claim that gun control was about saving future victims.

It will save lives.

I corrected your untrue claim by pointing out gun control measures that have nothing to do with trying to save any victims.

It will save lives.

My proposal that progressives be enslaved was neither violent nor a threat.

Yes it was both.

That is incorrect. That quoted text directly addressed your point about violence.

No it didn't.

A search warrant does not deprive people of their fundamental rights.

It's not any different than preventing mass shootings. Most of us want violent and unstable people to be deprived of firearms.

How do you think I keep addressing your points?

By making stuff up.

You stated an opinion that violating people's civil liberties in the name of combating crime was worth it.

I pointed out another violation of civil liberties that would also be useful in combatting crime.

Without a meaningful correlation. Metaphor rejected.

Gun control advocates don't care about it though. They only want to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

You don't understand the reason. Most of us want crazy and violent people to not own firearms. As far as I'm concerned, they lost their rights and privileges when they committed violent actions and threatened other people.

 

[CaughtInThe]

So?

Fewer children get gunned down.

You PRO-life?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

How is this different than obtaining a search warrant?

Obtaining a warrent to search for evidence isn't the same as depriving a person of a Constitutional right without due process.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

And yet, in every country with more stringent gun control…the number of people that die from gun related violence is substantially lower than in the US.

No, it was ridiculous and indicates that your posts are worthless drivel and not actual debate.

Does not explain places like Switzerland that have more guns per capita but less gun crime.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

You don't understand the reason. Most of us want crazy and violent people to not own firearms. As far as I'm concerned, they lost their rights and privileges when they committed violent actions and threatened other people.

Than they can take that person to court to prove that person should lose that right. Without depriving that persons right to due process.

 

[soap box]

Obtaining a warrent to search for evidence isn't the same as depriving a person of a Constitutional right without due process.

Yeah , most of us want violent crazy people to lose some rights. Enough is enough and they lost some privileges. Tough cookies.

Than they can take that person to court to prove that person should lose that right. Without depriving that persons right to due process.

I don't care or have any sympathy for the rights of crazy and violent people.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

You're wrong about what gun control advocates want.

That is incorrect. I am referring to actual measures that gun control advocates often try to impose.

You replied by inventing things I never said.

All of my quotes of your posts are accurate. They come directly from your post itself.

The only thing I do is break lines of text up into distinct points so each of my replies is clearly linked to the point that it is responding to.

It will save lives.

That is incorrect. Outlawing guns for having certain letters in their name does not save lives.

Outlawing guns because they have a pistol grip and flash suppressor does not save lives.

Wrong. It will save lives.

That is incorrect. Outlawing guns for having certain letters in their name does not save lives.

Outlawing guns because they have a pistol grip and flash suppressor does not save lives.

It will save lives.

That is incorrect. Outlawing guns for having certain letters in their name does not save lives.

Outlawing guns because they have a pistol grip and flash suppressor does not save lives.

It will save lives.

That is incorrect. Outlawing guns for having certain letters in their name does not save lives.

Outlawing guns because they have a pistol grip and flash suppressor does not save lives.

Yes it was both.

No it wasn't.

No it didn't.

Yes it did.

It's not any different than preventing mass shootings.

That is incorrect. Depriving someone of their fundamental rights is significantly different from getting a search warrant.

Most of us want violent and unstable people to be deprived of firearms.

Gun control advocates don't. All they care about is violating people's civil liberties for no reason.

By making stuff up.

Nope. Everything I say is true.

Without a meaningful correlation. Metaphor rejected.

I provided a meaningful correlation.

Your dodging of the question though makes it clear that you recognize that your answer would subject you to criticism. I guess you are consistent in your opposition to civil liberties.

You don't understand the reason.

That's because there is no reason for outlawing guns that have certain letters in their names.

And there is no reason for outlawing guns that have pistol grips and flash suppressors.

Most of us want crazy and violent people to not own firearms.

Gun control advocates don't. All they care about is violating people's civil liberties for no reason.

As far as I'm concerned, they lost their rights and privileges when they committed violent actions and threatened other people.

The rest of us have not lost our rights. And it is wrong for you to violate those rights.