Parkland School Shooting

sturg33 said:
My old math teacher had a concealed carry permit.

Why are we OK with him walking in a restaurant with a gun but not a school?
Click to expand...

I'm not. Yes, it's legal where I live, but I'm certainly not ok with it.

To your post above re: age restrictions...that's the same kind of fuzzy all-or-nothing logic that you've previously demonstrated in this thread. Because one particular proposed measure would not have stopped one particular incident, it's held to be useless.

Say a teen breaks into the liquor cabinet, takes a few pops, then hops into a car and kills a pedestrian. That means that checking ID for liquor purchases is fruitless, right?

Besides, the measure at issue in the tweet pertained to rifles. It's sloppy reasoning all around. The question to ask is how this kid has access to a handgun, and if we're best served as a society to have such weapons so numerous and relatively easy to obtain by legal or illegal measures.
 
Carp said:
Like the teacher in Dalton, TN who recently brought a gun to school during school hours and shot off a round?

Teachers do not need to carry guns nor should we ask them to. It creates more risk than it saves, IMO. The answer is more police presence in the schools.
Click to expand...

This is where I'm at as well.

I have a feeling the proponents of arming teachers are chasing fool's gold. A few negative gun events involving teachers would do far more damage to the gun rights cause than Parkland did. Hopefully cooler heads prevail.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm not. Yes, it's legal where I live, but I'm certainly not ok with it.

To your post above re: age restrictions...that's the same kind of fuzzy all-or-nothing logic that you've previously demonstrated in this thread. Because one particular proposed measure would not have stopped one particular incident, it's held to be useless.

Say a teen breaks into the liquor cabinet, takes a few pops, then hops into a car and kills a pedestrian. That means that checking ID for liquor purchases is fruitless, right?

Besides, the measure at issue in the tweet pertained to rifles. It's sloppy reasoning all around. The question to ask is how this kid has access to a handgun, and if we're best served as a society to have such weapons so numerous and relatively easy to obtain by legal or illegal measures.
Click to expand...

OK so it's fair to say you don't believe in any concealed carry... We're getting closer... One of these days yall will admit that you favor confiscation.

Meanwhile, my issue with the age restriction is we are denying a constitutional right to people aged 18-20, and the worst part is it won't make a bit of difference in the macro. Have yall given up on at least pretending to care about the constitution?

But, it will get us closer to that gun confiscation goal, though
 
sturg33 said:
OK so it's fair to say you don't believe in any concealed carry... We're getting closer... One of these days yall will admit that you favor confiscation.
Click to expand...

I don't think you've paid much attention to any of the many, many gun control conversations in these forums over the years. I've never been shy about my personal feelings. I favor far stricter regulation of gun purchases and gun ownership. I support essentially banning some classes of firearms. I'm a big ol' gun-grabber. Do please quit the cutesy pretense that I'm somehow being coy or deceptive about it. I favor broadly-supported incremental gun control measures because they are politically feasible, not because of some frog-boiling master plan towards "gun confiscation." I don't even know what, legally and logistically, "gun confiscation" would entail.

Meanwhile, my issue with the age restriction is we are denying a constitutional right to people aged 18-20, and the worst part is it won't make a bit of difference in the macro. Have yall given up on at least pretending to care about the constitution?

But, it will get us closer to that gun confiscation goal, though
Click to expand...

OK, as to the bolded bit. First, are we? You say this with such confidence...can you spell it out for me? Why is it unconstitutional?

Next, where are you deriving the information that it "wouldn't make a bit of difference in the macro"?
 
I don't think you've paid much attention to any of the many, many gun control conversations in these forums over the years. I've never been shy about my personal feelings. I favor far stricter regulation of gun purchases and gun ownership. I support essentially banning some classes of firearms. I'm a big ol' gun-grabber. Do please quit the cutesy pretense that I'm somehow being coy or deceptive about it. I favor broadly-supported incremental gun control measures because they are politically feasible, not because of some frog-boiling master plan towards "gun confiscation." I don't even know what, legally and logistically, "gun confiscation" would entail.
Click to expand...

Cool... so ignoring how prohibition has worked in other fields, and ignoring the data showing more guns have correlated with less deaths, you still favor drastically reducing a law abiding citizen's right to defend him/herself

OK, as to the bolded bit. First, are we? You say this with such confidence...can you spell it out for me? Why is it unconstitutional?

Next, where are you deriving the information that it "wouldn't make a bit of difference in the macro"?
Click to expand...

Why is it not unconstitutional? The 26th amendment made the legal voting age 18. The age of being in a militia at the time of the writing was 18. The age of being in the military today is 18. The onus is on your to prove why it is NOT unconstitutional to deny an 18 year old a firearm. Can you do that?

And the information about it making difference? The data shows that almost no mass shootings happen from people between those ages. So you're going to deny the rights of millions of people in order to potentially stop 5 mass shootings over 30 years... and that's making the assumption that those 5 people don't get their hands on a gun anyway.
 
how does automatic weapon regulation work but if we regulate anything else it won't work?

and if more guns made us more safe, we would be the safest country in the world
 
sturg, in this very thread, in response to nsacpi and me, you were unwilling to support the contention that more guns=fewer gun deaths. What's changed?

As to the constitutionality of age regulations, I can only lean on the fact that age limits on purchases have never been held to be unconstitutional. While that could change, I suppose, it seems enough to support my contention. What's your argument for asserting that Congress, or the states, don't have the power to regulate same?
 
Julio3000 said:
sturg, in this very thread, in response to nsacpi and me, you were unwilling to support the contention that more guns=fewer gun deaths. What's changed?
Click to expand...

Nothing. I said correlated. You've yet to disprove the correlation unless I missed it, though

Julio3000 said:
As to the constitutionality of age regulations, I can only lean on the fact that age limits on purchases have never been held to be unconstitutional. While that could change, I suppose, it seems enough to support my contention. What's your argument for asserting that Congress, or the states, don't have the power to regulate same?
Click to expand...

Well, hell, they can just change the buying age to 150, and then we can get our #guncontrolnow
 
And the same massive gulf in converting that correlation to causation exists as when you first posted it. Care to try to bridge it, or no?

So, no answer as to how age restrictions are unconstitutional? You have a consistent aversion to applying IRL, historical jurisprudence to your contentions about the constitution. Your position on the Masterpiece case and gun control are but two recent examples.
 
Dude, the Constitution is there to restrict the government from infringement.

The age law is a new infringement.

The onus is on you to say why that is legal.

So why is it not unconstitutional?
 
Julio3000 said:
And the same massive gulf in converting that correlation to causation exists as when you first posted it. Care to try to bridge it, or no.
Click to expand...

Your argument is that less guns will result in less violence.

I can show with actual data that that isn't true.

Now you need to prove why my data is not applicable. Can you?
 
sturg33 said:
Dude, the Constitution is there to restrict the government from infringement.

The age law is a new infringement.

The onus is on you to say why that is legal.

So why is it not unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

I think the courts will agree with you...but it is an interesting issue...there are obviously age limitations on certain rights...does freedom of the press include school newspapers
 
sturg33 said:
Dude, the Constitution is there to restrict the government from infringement.

The age law is a new infringement.

The onus is on you to say why that is legal.

So why is it not unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Most recently, Fifth Circuit NRA vs. BATF.

I mean, that's really it.

The court held that the age of majority is a mutable status rather than a specifically enumerated right, and has varied over time and in different jurisdictions, so there's no automatic vesting of the right to purchase a firearm at 18. It certainly doesn't appear in the Constitution. It further pointed out that 18-20 y/o are still free to legally use firearms even if they are precluded from purchasing them.
 
sturg33 said:
Your argument is that less guns will result in less violence.

I can show with actual data that that isn't true.

Now you need to prove why my data is not applicable. Can you?
Click to expand...

Can you, though? What you have shown thus far is a multi-decade drop in the violent crime rate overlapping with an increase in gun purchases, though not in the distribution of gun ownership. I'm still not sure how that does the trick.

I could show you the gun crime rates in peer nations, all of which have distinctly fewer guns per capita, significantly stricter regulation, and exponentially lower rates of gun homicides.
 
Julio3000 said:
Can you, though? What you have shown thus far is a multi-decade drop in the violent crime rate overlapping with an increase in gun purchases, though not in the distribution of gun ownership. I'm still not sure how that does the trick.

I could show you the gun crime rates in peer nations, all of which have distinctly fewer guns per capita, significantly stricter regulation, and exponentially lower rates of gun homicides.
Click to expand...

And still there is no way to stop it. We can stop selling guns, yes, ask for buybacks, yes, but the criminals will still have their weapons and sell them to those who wants weapons after they stop buying them from stores or handing in buybacks. As for the NRA, I don't think one single member has committed any type of mass shootings.

The reason why other countries don't have this issue is you can't just buy weapons like you can at Walmart thus they are not on the street to begin with. We have always been a gun toting nation since the late 1700's. The media just glamorize it more and have become the problem.
 
AerchAngel said:
And still there is no way to stop it. We can stop selling guns, yes, ask for buybacks, yes, but the criminals will still have their weapons and sell them to those who wants weapons after they stop buying them from stores or handing in buybacks. As for the NRA, I don't think one single member has committed any type of mass shootings.
Click to expand...

except laws have worked to keep automatic firearms out of the hands of people

criminals don't even use them

so your point is garbage
 
thethe said:
For that to happen the teacher was an idiot and should not be carrying. But mandatory training paid for my then school would eliminate that error.
Click to expand...

Police and military are the only ones qualified to assess a threat like that. Not only should we NOT put that sort of pressure on our teachers to have to decide whether they should or shouldn't shoot one of their students, but we shouldn't even want unqualified people attempting to protect children with a gun. You are just asking for a tragedy to happen. And sending Joe (or Jane) Blow down to the local gun range or YMCA for a "training course" is going to be sufficient training.
 
thethe said:
Monthly and it would eliminate someone who mistakenly let out a round.
Click to expand...

He did not mistakenly let out a round. The dude was coo coo for cocoa puffs. But he passed background checks, so I guess it's ok to let him carry a gun to protect students....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top