National School Walkout

[JimL]

Sorry, I don't trust leftists...

Yes, well us so called leftist don't trust people bearing weapons of mass destruction. Neither do you actually, you just don't seem to care when they end up using them to kill hundreds of innocent kids within minutes. Were they your own kids or grand kids, I think you might think differently.

[seer]

Yes, well us so called leftist don't trust people bearing weapons of mass destruction. Neither do you actually, you just don't seem to care when they end up using them to kill hundreds of innocent kids within minutes. Were they your own kids or grand kids, I think you might think differently.

Nope, I would not feel differently, any more than if someone purposely ran over a loved one, that I would want to ban cars. Inanimate objects do not do harm, people do.

[seer]

No - I would take away a gun. Statistically, your risk is more from your own gun than that of anyone else's. Statistically, it is more likely that a gun used is not used for a crime by its owner. So by removing guns from society, we reduce risk and harm, not increase it.

Stats do nothing when three men are invading your home, and we have had a rash of home invasions in my county recently. Do you really believe that criminals will give up their guns?

[carpedm9587]

Stats do nothing when three men are invading your home, and we have had a rash of home invasions in my county recently. Do you really believe that criminals will give up their guns?

The criminals give up their guns" thing is a canard, IMO. Every country that has adopted this measure, after the gun count was lowered, has seen significant reduction in gun-related harm. Hong Kong excels at 0.2 death per 100,000, compared to our nationwide level which is 50 times that high. Other nations have likewise seen similar reductions.

Furthermore, when you factor in that the right is pretty strongly against laws requiring them to secure their firearms, and 70% of criminal activity is done with guns NOT owned by the perpetrator (stolen guns being the primary source), AND the fact that ownership of a gun increases probability of harm to someone in that home MORE than probability of being criminally attacked, the argument simply falls flat. It is a FUD argument - nothing more.

[seer]

The criminals give up their guns" thing is a canard, IMO. Every country that has adopted this measure, after the gun count was lowered, has seen significant reduction in gun-related harm. Hong Kong excels at 0.2 death per 100,000, compared to our nationwide level which is 50 times that high. Other nations have likewise seen similar reductions.

Nonsense Carp, first we have a gun culture and always have. We have many many illegal guns out there and we can not even stop tons of dope from coming into this country, you won't stop illegal firearms.

But it is still fairly clear with a cursory glance of some statistics that illegal weapons have made their ways into the hands of plenty of criminals. 86% of juveniles in correctional facilities are reported to have owned a gun at some point, all of which would have been illegal weapons for the juveniles to own. 65% of juvenile offenders tend to own three or more illegal weapons and firearms.

In Rochester, New York, there was even the reported statistic that 22% of all young males in the city, as opposed to just those who are juvenile offenders, have carried an illegal gun for some period of time. While these particular statistics are oriented around youth, it still remains fairly clear that illegal guns are very prevalent, for these young people to have such easy access to them.

https://gun.laws.com/illegal-guns/il...uns-statistics

This would translate to millions of illegal guns out there.

An unknown number of illegal rifles, including some classified as machine guns and others equipped to mount grenade launchers, have been imported from China in violation of federal gun laws, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms announced yesterday.

Tens of thousands of MAK-90s, a derivative of the AK-47 military assault rifle, "have been imported in the last several months, including some that have been improperly configured," said ATF spokesman John C. Killorin.

The bureau has discovered 3,000 to 4,000. Some are capable of receiving machine gun parts. Others have threaded muzzles that can hold silencers, Killorin said. The rifles were produced by China North Industries, also known as Norinco, a Chinese military firm.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...=.99884da6abcb

Of course the solution for you is to go and live in Hong Kong...

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, first we have a gun culture and always have. We have many many illegal guns out there and we can not even stop tons of dope from coming into this country, you won't stop illegal firearms.

Nonsense, Seer. Our culture is defined by more than "guns." If that is as shallow as your definition of "culture" is, then perhaps you should not have a gun? And yes, we have let the situation get WAY out of control. That is not an argument for not reigning it in.

This would translate to millions of illegal guns out there.

Yes - there are. And we need to reduce the number. Those willing to do the work to earn the privilege, and to accede to the requirements for safe and secure storage, will still be avble to get guns. But they will be (over time) rare, and not able to be stockpiled. Meanwhile, our law enforcement agencies and military, who have been trained to use them (and when not to) will still have them.

Of course the solution for you is to go and live in Hong Kong...

Possible. Depends on whether it is possible to effect change here.

[seer]

Nonsense, Seer. Our culture is defined by more than "guns." If that is as shallow as your definition of "culture" is, then perhaps you should not have a gun? And yes, we have let the situation get WAY out of control. That is not an argument for not reigning it in.

Carp, why do you think we have 320 million privately owned firearms in this country? And that does not even count illegal guns. Did that happen by accident? A significant minority in this nation like,want or use guns.

Yes - there are. And we need to reduce the number. Those willing to do the work to earn the privilege, and to accede to the requirements for safe and secure storage, will still be avble to get guns. But they will be (over time) rare, and not able to be stockpiled. Meanwhile, our law enforcement agencies and military, who have been trained to use them (and when not to) will still have them.

See it this "over time" thing when we, that law abiding, get killed because thousands or millions of criminals won't give up their guns, never mind the fact that you will do about as good in stopping the import of illegal guns as we do with dope.

Possible. Depends on whether it is possible to effect change here.

Start brushing up on your Cantonese...

[rogue06]

Please do not make substantive changes to other's posts.

But there's another point to be made from this extended list.

... surface to air missiles, tanks, nuclear weapons

Those who argue, alarmingly, that their weapons are for the purpose of armed insurrection should remember that their opponent actually has all of these weapons.

I've yet to see a home defense weapon that could withstand a pinpointed 500 lb JDAM strike.

And yet insurgents in some awfully backwood places have sent some of the largest best equipped armies packing.

[rogue06]

We should give you a nerf gun.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27181[/ATTACH]

Hmmm. A silent delivery system for a mixture of Dimethyl sulfoxide and cyanide. Might not be very effective during winter, but summer...



roguetech: turning harmless children's toys into deadly killing machines for 40 years.

[JimL]

Please do not make substantive changes to other's posts.

Ok

[Jedidiah]

Times have changed. This is not the 1700s, and the amazing explosion of gun ownership in the U.S. is now a threat to our society, for the reasons I have previously cited.

You have given reasons for your own beliefs, but that is not at all evidence that guns are now a threat to our society.

[Jedidiah]

No one has suggested that the document can not be changed. The argument is that the clearly outlined process for making that amendment is the only legitimate way to make that change. Congress can not legally do it on their own.

[Jedidiah]

I believe the argument is that it is an "inherent" right - which all people have (to own a gun) which the constitution simply recognizes and prohibits the government from infringing upon. In much the same way speech, religious belief, and freedom are considered "inherent rights" which the constitution recognizes and limits the government's ability to infringe upon it.

However, it is the only such "right" that involves a device - a thing. In reality - the inherent right is "self-protection," not "owning guns." If owning a device to protect ourselves is the intrinsic right, then why are not all of the other things we can use to protect ourselves included?

You are clearly wrong. The argument is that we have an inherent right to own a gun. That is not a right that derives from any right to self protection.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, why do you think we have 320 million privately owned firearms in this country?

Because we have a gun-happy contingent in this country and have had a lack of any real gun controls due to the hammer-lock the NRA and the gun lobby has had on members of Congress. That is showing signs of finally changing.

And that does not even count illegal guns. Did that happen by accident?

No - I am sure it happened by design. The growth truly escalated with the shift in the NRA in 1977.

A significant minority in this nation like,want or use guns.

Emphasis on minority.

See it this "over time" thing when we, that law abiding, get killed because thousands or millions of criminals won't give up their guns, never mind the fact that you will do about as good in stopping the import of illegal guns as we do with dope.

You sacrificed "law abiding" when you made it clear the law makes no difference, and you will shoot your fellow citizens if they pass and enforce laws you disagree with.

Start brushing up on your Cantonese...

I would assess that as "unlikely." First of all, if I do give up citizenship in a couple of years, it will likely not be for the far east. Second, I think we are seeing the ice-damn cracking on gun control. Time will tell - but each new atrocity adds fuel to the dynamic, and I see no reason to think they are just magically going to stop. By 2020, the kids who are today Juniors and Seniors will be voting. Many of the sophomores will be as well. Coupled with the energy building on the left, I suspect we will begin to see changes.

[carpedm9587]

You have given reasons for your own beliefs, but that is not at all evidence that guns are now a threat to our society.

Actually - I don't see how there is ANY other way to interpret it. Our death rate due to gun violence is at 10 for every 100,000 per year. Countries that have implemented gun controls have rates below single digits. 70% of crimes are committed using guns that do not belong to the criminal. More people (or members of their family) are harmed by guns they own than by criminals harming them. Gun-related deaths outstrip deaths by any other weapon. You have 1,000 times the chance of being killed by a gun own and held by a U.S. citizen than you have of being killed by a foreign terrorist. The list of facts just goes on and on and on.

I haave no idea how ANYONE could ignore it all - unless all they are really paying attention to is, "I want my gun!"