Death of football...

[14decoys]

Thats obvious! They will use whatever gun is available--ban them ALL and nothing will change! Take away one type of gun and they'll use another.MC 63 says I shouldn't have a gun that can fire rapidly. My shotgun can do that. My handgun can do that, and I can reload it faster than you can read this sentence. Are you going to take them all? If that would work we wouldn't have a drug problem!! Drugs are illegal and are everywhere!!! Lets work on the problem....not the tool. Mental health. It starts there. Too bad the Parkland people knew about that kid and did nothing. If they had focused on mental health 17 other kids would be alive today. If they had just outlawed AR15s he would have bought and used something else. Someone killed with a scary AR15 is no more dead than someone killed with a 9mm Glock. We all want the same thing--safe schools. Banning AR15s won't accomplish that, and you know it.

 

[LTHSALUM76]

Why cant we focus on both?

Because if we focus on why, and take care of that, the other thing means nothing.

 

[LTHSALUM76]

Just a couple questions for you MC--do you even know what an AR15 is? You call it an "assault weapon" which is a term invented by the left...there is no such thing.

It's all about the language. "Assault weapon" is a stronger term than semi-automatic.

These are the same people who changed the wording of a "cripple" to call them "handicapped." Handicapped is softer language. Nevermind the fact is does absolutely nothing to change the condition of the person it affects.

 

[LTHSALUM76]

[.

This is the problem with the gun debate in this country. It has become political.

No, it's become medical![/QUOTE]
I disagree. So the incident happens in Florida. A bunch of politicians rush down there to organize and invade the students' rallies. They make their political speeches and tell the students not to vote for anyone who opposes new gun laws.

If a politician speaks to a group of high school kids on a subject and they push their agenda and tell them who to vote for, isn't that making this political? Sure it does.

this nonsense does nothing other than to get people angry and does nothing to actually solve the problem. These politicians are scum because they are preying on these kids and using them when they are vulnerable.

 

[MWittman]

MC:

I can understand your sarcasm, but those other guys believe you at face value.

With all due respect to them, you were my intended audience so I always assume our exchanges are civil and there is no misunderstanding over tone or language.

It is impossible to outlaw the possession of all guns. You'd have to amend the constitution and that wouldn't happen in this case. Never. Just because some lefty (and I love lefties) proposes something, that doesn't mean it's ever going to happen.

Well, as I stated in an earlier post, the call to repeal the Second Amendment is growing louder and more frequent, and not just among the Left. Some wishy-washy conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon. We had the assault weapon ban over 20 years ago; it was a strongly-worded piece of legislation; it expired, and it was virtually useless. This, however, has not averted many misguided activists and lawmakers from demanding its revival. With calls to resuscitate the statute growing louder, I tend to believe it will propel a greater number of those predisposed to think ill of firearms to support its re-enactment, and encourage further erosion of the Second Amendment, even though it failed to prevent crime.

I know that criminals don't obey gun laws. However, manufacturers and retailers would. I realize that a law outlawing assault weapons would take at least two decades to be effective -- but we'd no longer be facing the bulk of the problem in 2038 when most of you will still be around (if you haven't been shot by some good guy with a gun, that is.)

While manufacturers and retailers do indeed obey laws, the only law which would bar the production and sale of assault weapons or firearms, is language which prohibits the manufacture and sale of assault weapons or firearms. Put another way, repealing the Second Amendment.

The majority of those 22,000 laws (and I question that number) are irrelevant, redundant or purposely weak. This is another NRA red herring that doesn't hold water.

I don't casually make up statistics, and I am too lazy to conduct due diligence here, but this is not pious vaporing on my part. If the total number of gun-control laws on any level of government is not precisely 22,000, I am standing by a rough estimate it rests in the vicinity of 20,000.

Why is any claim gun-control opponents assert reflexively met with the label "red herring?" Violence of any sort is a emotionally-charged issue. Throw in the avalanche of sexual harassment allegations leveled against powerful men over the last six-month period (For the record, I believe every Trump accuser), and you have a very powerful movement. Given the fact instances of mass murders are, sadly, on an upward trajectory, do you really find lawmakers are deliberately drafting, debating, and enacting decidedly weak gun laws? Now? At any time since the 60s? I do not.

There is no legitimate use for an assault weapon that outweighs the now-proven safety concerns of the public. None. Not target shooting, not coyote slaughtering, nada.

I have one, three actually, although none are functioning. I do not consider myself a threat, nor are my weapons.

I'd like to leave you with this thought: Has it ever occurred to you there are some dangers in our society of which we can not protect ourselves?

 

[MC63]

MC:


I'd like to leave you with this thought: Has it ever occurred to you there are some dangers in our society of which we can not protect ourselves?

Yes there are, but assault weapons aren't one of them. A ban on them isn't a revocation of the 2nd Amendment by any means, at all.

 

[LTHSALUM76]

I read an interesting article in the USA Today section of today's Sun-Times titled "Shootings a fear that defines a generation." that included a pool among kids ages 13-17 and separately in ages 18-24.

One question was: Do you think tightening gun control laws and background checks will prevent more mass shootings in the United States? 47% of kids 13-17 thought so and 53% didn't. 54% of kids 18-24 thought so while 46% didn't. I am kind of surprised the number agreeing wasn't higher. But at least half of the kids live in the real world.

I feel safe at me school. 63% of kids 13-17 agreed and 37% didn't. 57% of kids 18-24 did and 43% didn't.

Should people who have been treated for mental illness be banned from owning a firearm? 78% of kids 13-17 thought so and 22% didn't. 71% of kids ages 18-24 thought so and 29% didn't. I was very shocked that number wasn't higher for those who thought so.

Should semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 be banned in the US? 63% of kids ages 13-17 thought so and 33% didn't. 44% of kids ages 18-24 thought so and 56% didn't.

I trust the administrators and educators at my school to keep me safe. 60% of kids ages 13-17 thought so and 40% didn't. 57% of kids ages 18-24 thought so and 43% didn't. Those numbers are scary to me.

I feel safe at my school. 63% of kids ages 13-17 thought so and 37% didn't. 57% of kids ages 18-24 thought so and 43% didn't. Again, scary.

Should schools be required to have an armed police officer on site? 72% of kids ages 13-17 thought so while 28% didn't. 69% of kids ages 18-24 thought so and 31% didn't.

There are a few other questions, but you get the picture.