Time for State Governments to take the lead on School Shootings

Unfortunately this is the administrations way of saying 'I did something'.

Bump stocks absolutely should be restricted. Banning them accomplishes so little.

Why have we not restricted all guns and ammo sales to specialty gun shops? Its not going to stop determined people, but its absolutely ridiculous you can go into Walmart or your local pawn shop on the corner and buy these weapons.

 

I believe when I see it. And if it happen, I credit the students for being brave and speaking up, and to those that politicize this.

 

I mean I can’t complain. I own one and it’s just about as useful as my Rockets themed dust cover. It’s a toy I use to waste $30 of ammo in 2 minutes.

 

Yea sure... that's what did it. What mass shooting didn't have survivors in front of a camera?

It's because A LOT of Republicans do support SOME gun control, but not what democrats normally propose or deem as "reasonable". The democrats wouldn't do a no fly ban list because the Republicans wanted a measure of due process in case someone wasn't on the list correctly. In previous posts in this thread and others I even mentioned not having a problem with banning bump stocks, enhanced background check, or raising the age to buy an AR15 to 21.... and guess what? All of those are in motion or on the table.

 

I think that's how basically all of them are used, there's absolutely no practical purpose for it whatsoever. That's why if something has to be sacrificed to give the anti-gun crowd the illusion of safety, I'm fine with it being bump stocks.

 

Sandy hook? Elementary students that survived couldn’t speak up for themselves.

I’m sorry, but I laughed. GOP blocked universal background check that has widespread support after sandy hook. If they were/ are serious, they would have a bill by now. Looks how serious they were about tax cuts, handicapping ACA...

Look, the GOP aren’t serious. Money talk. Sooner or later, because they simply wouldn’t do anything, the demand isn’t universal background check, or a ban of some gun, but more.... people will get tired of the bs and when, not if, these younger gen have power, they will demand much more.

 

No one is really serious about this, that's evident in the fact that the conversation is centered on talk of gun bans and background checks....stuff that will do nothing to help when the next kid decides to shoot up his school.

These kids mean well, but much like many of our friends on the left, they are doing their "thinking" with their emotions....which is understandable for them given their age meaning that their brains aren't fully formed yet. It's perfectly natural for children to "think" with their emotions.....but that's why we don't look to them for decision making.

 

Who said it doesn't?

Who said it was?

Everyone knows the government passes regulations. You can think they are good or bad. Registration and especially environmental controls have nothing to do with the example I brought up. I said reducing the speed limit would save more lives than even a magic gun control measure that completely eliminated school shootings. The only regulations that would be related to reducing the speed limit are actually reducing the speed limit, or requiring a governor be installed in cars that limits their speed to something less than the current speed limit. You took my example of reducing the speed limit and said HERP DERP the government can regulate cars.

Would you agree that water is wet? Good, good we are back in agreement.

Yes, that is the crux of the argument. I think we already have too many limitations and that the public good is better served by maintaining or increasing freedom, not further limiting it.

It isn't that they are not a problem. It is that they are such a miniscule problem that they don't require a solution and certainly we should not implement a "solution" that substantially reduces freedom for hundreds of millions, requires huge expenditures, and may or may not have any positive effect just to say we are doing something.

It was already handled at the federal level. It is called the second amendment.

That could be true of many kinds of legislation. Some states could chose to revoke the driver's license of anyone that gets a DUI, while others choose not to take action against the person's license. The person from the more lax state could then drive across state lines into the harsher state. Such is a natural consequence of a republic. While elimination of such inconsistencies is an interesting goal, the structure of the government doesn't support it in all cases. We don't have different rules state by state for the post office or the military, because those are powers specifically granted to the Feds. The constitution though gives no power to the Federal government to regulate gun ownership, beyond ensuring that states don't violate the second amendment. There is no constitutional support for the Feds to ban "assault weapons" for example.

You are a gun control advocate that lives in one of the most gun free states and I am an opponent of gun control that lives in one of the most restrictive. Funny how things work out sometimes.[/quote][/quote]

 

It’s a joke to these ****s

 

Well yeah, the idea of taking political cues from children is pretty much a joke.

 

I guess the only way many of these lawmakers would vote for an assault rifle ban is if their kids were directly involved. I couldn't see them voting against a ban then. That would make them inhuman. The Florida vote came out 36-71. It wasn't even close.

 

No, that probably still wouldn't work given that assault weapons bans have proven completely ineffective in this country at preventing school shootings or making them less lethal.

I would hope that in that scenario they'd spend their time talking about things that could actually help prevent school shootings or make them less lethal when they occur instead of trying to push an old anti-2nd amendment agenda.

 

Because people smarter than you understand the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a scary looking semi automatic rifle. Banning scary looking semi automatic rifles but allowing semi-automatic rifles accomplishes absolutely nothing.

 

Because money talk. If they are serious, they would work at it and come up with something reasonable. They are not. All this yadafada about this and that gun are lame excuses to not place the inaction exactly where it should be.

 

You and your scary rifle bs. Mass killers don't use AR's because they're scary, they use them because they're highly effective in killing a lot of people quickly. Maybe the US military is stupid too.

 

When has anyone used an assault rifle in any shooting?

Fact: All mass killings have been from mentally ill people.
Fact: Nearly every mass killing as been from a semi-automatic high capacity weapon.
Fact: Banning assault weapons (which doesn't even a have true definition in the first place) would not have stopped any of these mass shootings.

So what is the purpose of banning a small segment of guns that will not 1) stop mass killings 2) have absolutely no impact on the bigger gun crisis America currently has with accidental shootings, criminal/gang shootings, and suicides 3) Does nothing to encourage better ownership and responsibility of gun owners 4) No impact on helping/stopping the mentally ill.

And before you go off on some rant about how it may save a few more lives, that is completely nonsense. The armed citizen in S. Texas church shooting stopped the mass shooting and ran off the active shooter and you did not care one bit because it went against your political narrative.

For the record, I am not an avid supporter of owning semi-automatic rifles. I think its pointless to ban the scary looking ones when it address none of the other much much more significant problems.

If an assault weapons ban gets passed, no meaningful gun legislation will be passed for well over a decade. The mass shootings wont stop. The endless gun deaths wont stop. Considering confiscation will not happen, the streets will still be filled with these scary looking assault weapons.

 

don't get the obsession with banning the AR-15 (well I do, it's purely aesthetic/emotional)

like 2% of gun deaths are from rifles, and pistols can do just as much damage

 

The problem is that you are trying to look at this from a logical standpoint and that's not what the prohibitionists are basing their opinion on. For them it's just an emotional knee jerk desire to ban a scary looking gun and nothing more. There's no real thought being put into it.

 

Agreed. I mean I'm glad they actually took a step to do "something" but a bump stock ban is useless. Someone is going to come up with another variation of the bump stock.

 

It's because NO congress has the guts to even whisper the truth, that all guns can be used to kill kids in a school. The only thing that can stop school shootings are, banning guns (lol good luck), confiscating guns from people accused of threats (HAHAHA good look) or allowing kids to carry guns to stop their attackers because one armed guard wasn't enough.