Poll: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

  1. #49521
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    This is different.

    This is a bad person coming into your school just to hurt you and your friends, for no reason.

    These are fucking preschoolers.
    While I understand what you mean, I think the active shooter drills are pretty worthless anyway. They don't need to train them, because it is not a situation that unfolds in a specific way. Fire drills make some sense, but actual fires are pretty rare. Tornado drills make the most sense, because you have a specific short warning with specific reactions to protect as much as possible.

    The teachers/ staff should know what to do, but terrorizing children with drills just doesn't really accomplish anything, IMO.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  2. #49522
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    I have, they call this hide & seek. If that terrifies your child then there are other concerns.
    My son is terrible at hide & seek. He hides in obvious places and laughs the entire time. Because it is a game. He is having fun. He wants to be found.

    This is not like hide & seek to him.
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    Different? As opposed to a bad country lofting a nuke at your school for no reason or someone detonating a bomb at your school for no reason?
    Bad people want to hurt everybody for no reason, because they are bad people. Compared to bad people want to hurt you and your friends for no reason.

    The implication is "Why do the bad people want to hurt me?"

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    While I understand what you mean, I think the active shooter drills are pretty worthless anyway. They don't need to train them, because it is not a situation that unfolds in a specific way. Fire drills make some sense, but actual fires are pretty rare. Tornado drills make the most sense, because you have a specific short warning with specific reactions to protect as much as possible.

    The teachers/ staff should know what to do, but terrorizing children with drills just doesn't really accomplish anything, IMO.
    You appear to be the only one.

    The rest of the callous assholes just call my children acceptable losses and refuse to do anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Woods View Post
    LOL never change guys. I guess you won't because conservatism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I do care what people on this forum think of me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    This site is amazing. It's comments like this, that make this site amazing.

  3. #49523
    Hmf..I remember the drills about nuclear detonations. We all had to file into the bomb shelter just in case of such an attack.
    And then there are fire drills that seem to still occur in most places.

  4. #49524
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    Yes. They need to stay with mommy and daddy when we are out at a store, or wherever. Strangers could try to hurt them, and they should not talk to strangers. If a stranger tries to talk to them or touch them, they need to scream for help as loud as they can.

    This is basic shit.
    I remember when Adam Walsh was kidnapped, really ruined freedom for a lot of kids. Everyone got super paranoid, even though it was (and still is) just so horribly rare for something to actually happen. It's like buying a lottery ticket, then ordering stuff with the money you expect to win. Kids are raised believing everyone they meet is a threat and danger lurks everywhere.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Hmf..I remember the drills about nuclear detonations. We all had to file into the bomb shelter just in case of such an attack.
    And then there are fire drills that seem to still occur in most places.
    The shopping center where I work, the fire alarms go off at least once a week, not including testing. We don't even pay attention to them anymore.

    For kids, I can understand a fire drill, since you need to organize them and lead them to a single spot to account for everyone. The odds of a fire are so small that you probably end up desensitizing them to an actual alarm. For an active shooter though, what's the point?

    Maybe if they were teaching the toddlers to grab ballistic shields and form a phalanx to charge the attacker, but otherwise?
    Last edited by Svifnymr; 2018-03-29 at 09:03 PM.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  5. #49525
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    Bad people want to hurt everybody for no reason, because they are bad people. Compared to bad people want to hurt you and your friends for no reason.

    The implication is "Why do the bad people want to hurt me?"
    I think maybe we found the problem. You or the teachers are instilling fear in them by singling each child is the target. Instead of saying "bad people will do bad things". You are saying "bad people will do bad things to you". You or the teachers are deliberately invoking fear. Its like saying "bad people will set the school on fire to kill you" instead of saying "bad people will set the school on fire" of course a child will be afraid to go to these types of place, because they dont want to burn up in a fire someone set to target them

  6. #49526
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    You understand that the NRA backed measure penalized studies about very specific things, not "gun violence" or whatnot? I know it's common to mischaracterise what happened and try to make it a broad ban. Not that it matters, since the NIJ does such studies among others, it was just aimed at the CDC anti-gun studies.
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    Its only strange if you think the CDC has some magical power that they can deduce different stats from the currently provided stats. The data is easy to find, The FBI (and others like homeland security I am sure) have the stats, the local police have the stats. You dont need another government agency to collect the data to tell us the same thing the FBI already can.
    Yeah, but how can we have a conversation and a debate if there is no data open to the public?
    All those people protesting are misinformed. I am misinformed. All of you are misinformed.

    We dont know how every kid got their guns.
    If its on the black market then making restrictions is pointless.
    If they get it from their parents house then there is something we can do there.
    If they bought it legally then restrictions actually make sense.

    How can we have a debate if none of us knows the data? -_-

  7. #49527
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowpunkz View Post
    But its strange, no?
    Neither the government study the situation and the NRA refuses to help.
    So we only have data by Washington Post and other outside sources...

    Really strange, seems like there isnt even a problem to study.
    The NRA does a lot to improve gun safety -- NRA certified instructors are the country's standard in gun safety training, for one thing, but they also have an entire children's program called "Eddie Eagle" that teaches "stop / don't touch / run away / tell an adult" as how children should respond to the presence of a gun. You don't hear much about this program and probably didn't grow up with it in large part because... it's vehemently protested by anti-2A advocates who demand it never be allowed near their childrens' schools! Because anything that might make a child safer but otherwise concedes the premise that private citizens owning guns is a normal and acceptable thing, they would rather not have the safety instruction.

  8. #49528
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowpunkz View Post
    Yeah, but how can we have a conversation and a debate if there is no data open to the public?
    All those people protesting are misinformed. I am misinformed. All of you are misinformed.

    We dont know how every kid got their guns.
    If its on the black market then making restrictions is pointless.
    If they get it from their parents house there is something we can do there.

    How can we have a debate if none of us knows the data? -_-
    The data is open to the public, just go to the FBI Crime Statistics page.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormdash View Post
    The NRA does a lot to improve gun safety -- NRA certified instructors are the country's standard in gun safety training, for one thing, but they also have an entire children's program called "Eddie Eagle" that teaches "stop / don't touch / run away / tell an adult" as how children should respond to the presence of a gun. You don't hear much about this program and probably didn't grow up with it in large part because... it's vehemently protested by anti-2A advocates who demand it never be allowed near their childrens' schools! Because anything that might make a child safer but otherwise concedes the premise that private citizens owning guns is a normal and acceptable thing, they would rather not have the safety instruction.
    Kinda like how some people dont want sex talk in health class or handing out condoms in school. Because abstinence and all, if we teach them about sex they will want to have sex.

  9. #49529
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowpunkz View Post
    Yeah, but how can we have a conversation and a debate if there is no data open to the public?
    All those people protesting are misinformed. I am misinformed. All of you are misinformed.

    We dont know how every kid got their guns.
    If its on the black market then making restrictions is pointless.
    If they get it from their parents house then there is something we can do there.
    If they bought it legally then restrictions actually make sense.

    How can we have a debate if none of us knows the data? -_-
    The "Data" on school mass shootings is generally available because there's so few of them. Parkland guy bought his guns legally, since he was never charged for the various offenses that would have prevented him from such. As I said, the NIJ tracks all this stuff, not sure what you think needs to be explored.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  10. #49530
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by petej0 View Post
    The data is open to the public, just go to the FBI Crime Statistics page.
    I can only find this on the FBI page

    Crime in Schools and Colleges
    https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/crime-in-s...d-colleges-pdf

    And it only covers incidents from 2000-2004
    27 Arrestees of Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter in those 5 years but without any kind of details. Just numbers.

    page 15
    Last edited by mmocaf0660f03c; 2018-03-29 at 09:15 PM.

  11. #49531
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Dystemper View Post
    We conducted Tornado drills, earth quake drills and atomic bomb drills. Others drill for terrorist attacks. Preparing kids for emergencies in school has always been a thing
    Exactly. Same here. I never panicked or was afraid to go to school because of those drills.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  12. #49532
    Quote Originally Posted by Dystemper View Post
    First of all Driving is not a Right it is a privilege.
    Then guns should be a privilege to.

    and secondly:
    The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7]

    So yeah i might have used the wrong english word there.

    But my point is still valid. Its not a absolute.

  13. #49533
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Antiganon View Post
    Tornados are big storms. They can break trees and buildings. Storms happen on a regular basis. My son has been in hurricanes and horrible blizzards before, and he understands that when shit is falling out of the sky on top of your head, you go to a safe place in the building where nothing is going to fall on you. Same for earthquakes (though I live in CT so earthquakes are rarely a thing here, and low impact when they do happen). There is a designated tornado/earthquake shelter in a stairwell with multiple reinforced walls at his school, so he knows that is the safe place to be when the weather is scary outside.

    I mentioned fire drills as well - there is a clear plan of action, he knows where to go, what to do, how to get help. It makes sense, and we can make it tangible at home with very little effort.

    Active shooter drills have no real world analog that doesn't involve you being shot at. Thus it is terrifying for small children, who have a very difficult time grasping abstract concepts. All he knows is that he has to be very quiet, make himself very small, and hide in a dark room until people tell him it is safe to come out. If you can't understand why that would scare a 3 year old, you have never met a 3 year old.

    I imagine terrorist and atomic bomb drills were similarly terrifying for small children.

    - - - Updated - - -

    This is different.

    This is a bad person coming into your school just to hurt you and your friends, for no reason.

    These are fucking preschoolers.
    I do not remember them being any more terrifying than any drills. The schools I went to, always did a good job of explaining why we were doing them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tollshot View Post
    You could ban cell phones, but your economy will take a major hit, maybe collapse. Ban cars, same effect. Ban guns, less killing, less crime, less fear......win all round.
    Except we are not going to ban guns here. So a mute point, remains just that.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  14. #49534
    Deleted
    Im not the only one finding the lack of data on school shootings and gun violence "strange"

    Another School Shooting—But Who’s Counting?

    "The lack of reliable information on school shootings and other gun-related mass violence isn’t just a matter of inconsistency in definitions; political factors have also played a role in limiting access to information. Under pressure from the National Rifle Association, Congress in 1996 prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from funding public-health research on issues related to firearms. These prohibitions have largely persisted, and there is still no comprehensive federal database on gun deaths, let alone on school shootings"

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The most reliable source i have found is the "EVERYTOWN for Gun Safety Support Fund" database
    Which started tracking gunfire in schools and at college and universities since 2013.

    They say since 2013, there have been more than 300 school shootings in America — an average of about one a week.

    https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/

    including fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings
    Last edited by mmocaf0660f03c; 2018-03-29 at 10:57 PM.

  15. #49535
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowpunkz View Post
    Im not the only one finding the lack of data on school shootings and gun violence "strange"
    If it helps, you can read the study released in 2013 funded by the CDC? I mean, it does reference the fact the CDC can't fund a study “to advocate or promote gun control”, but since the law never prohibited studying crimes and stuff...

    Eh, forget it, just stick to the narrative that they can't study anything rather than research things.

    https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

    The most reliable source i have found is the "EVERYTOWN for Gun Safety Support Fund" database
    Which started tracking gunfire in schools and at college and universities since 2013.
    They are a well funded anti-gun organization, so assume that is the maximum rather than what you or I might consider a school shooting, but if you want to reference just any time a gun went off somewhere near school grounds, sure. I didn't see the start of this subtopic so don't know what the actual point was.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  16. #49536
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    They are a well funded anti-gun organization, so assume that is the maximum rather than what you or I might consider a school shooting, but if you want to reference just any time a gun went off somewhere near school grounds, sure. I didn't see the start of this subtopic so don't know what the actual point was.
    My point is that even the "most reliable data" we got have skewed numbers.
    Second point, your country is messed up for not having official data on this and studies made.

    Not even this poor guy has data to work on his research


  17. #49537
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowpunkz View Post
    My point is that even the "most reliable data" we got have skewed numbers.
    Second point, your country is messed up for not having official data on this and studies made.
    Okay then, your concern is noted, guess you will not contribute to the US tourism industry. For reference though, data is available, but when something happens so infrequently, there's generally no need for a database to track it.

    Again, your video references the "can't promote gun control" as a huge restriction on studying gun violence, ignoring the study I linked above from 2013. Also ignores the fact that there are other agencies besides the CDC, including the NIJ, which has collected various studies...

    Gun laws are very regional in the USA, the research is also then done regionally on those gun law effects. If you want to study the effects of NY's 6 round limit, there's not even something to use as a control group because the circumstances of regions are so different.

    So yeah, they can't do studies as long as you ignore the various studies that have been done.
    "I only feel two things Gary, nothing, and nothingness."

  18. #49538
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowpunkz View Post
    The NRA is such a goody 2 shoes company. Oh yeah, for sure.

    It's hard to cite a definitive number about how many school shootings American had. You know why?
    Because the federal government does not study gun violence in the United States and the National Rifle Association (NRA) has opposed any measure to fund research or accounting of America's gun epidemic.
    This is not correct. The Dickey Amendment is what you are referring to, but it does not prevent research on gun violence. It only prevents the CDC from advocating or promoting gun control.

  19. #49539
    So, if you have a problem with how the school is running drills or precautions, inform the school. If they don't listen to your feedback and come to a compromise with you, then change schools.
    If you claim to support the second amendment, and have to qualify it with preconditions, you don't support the second amendment.

  20. #49540
    Quote Originally Posted by lockedout View Post
    I think using the word loophole is not quite correct.

    When the assault weapons ban in I believe 1994 was put into action, there was written into the law that all private sales between non dealers would not require a background check. This was agreed upon by both sides so calling it a loophole insinuating it wasn't discussed and agreed upon by both sides before becoming law is disingenuous. Now I am not saying that the law can't be or shouldn't be changed to having both parties use an FFL to broker the sale, I'm just saying calling it a "loophole" is the same rhetoric as calling a semi auto rifle an "assault weapon" and crafted by the same ideology.
    To be fair gun show firearms are responsible for like 1% of crimes. I'm not against them, just stating a flaw in the system. Considering its a great place for firearm trafficking.

    If you want to call a technicality that's up to you. However, it is widely known as a loophole and there is a reason behind it. If you want to skip a background check, or cant legally own a gun, go to a gun show and get one. This was never the intention of the law. Initially, the law was to make it easier to transfer already commercially sold firearms between two individuals, not as a public fair. This law states the typical "no criminals may purchase" "no illegal aliens" etc etc. However, if there is no check to be done, and the seller just has to say he / she had no reason to believe they were illegally buying a gun, it protects the seller and the illegal purchaser gets a firearm. Easy. This was not the intention of the law, it has been exploited, therefore its a loophole.

    Basically, if you're an unlicensed random that wants to sell a firearm, you can willfully do it at a gun show. Also, you'll notice at gun shows some people sell just a specific brand of firearm, like Sig or Kimber. These are generally lobbyists that had a bill of sale go to them from someone at that company, to sell it on a private level, as they have no official affiliation with the company at the time. These reps are also exploiting the law.

    "Firearm transfers by unlicensed private sellers that are "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms are not subject to the Brady Act, but may be covered under other federal, state, and local restrictions."


    The language isn't very clear if you read the entire law. Or it just doesn't seem well thought out. Which I suppose is why this loophole exists.
    Last edited by AlphaOut; 2018-03-30 at 02:23 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •