Civil discourse on gun control

[gwb-trading]

Don't care. The parents are helping nobody with that line of thought. Move the child where A. he isn't a danger and B. where he isn't negatively impacting the 20 other students.

Simple. Just need the guts to do it.

Unfortunately school systems today (driven by federal and state rules) are focused on mainstreaming students with "disabilities" into regular schools.

Back when I was a K-12 student they placed these students in their own special school with specialized staff who could meet their needs, and where they wouldn't continuously disrupt a class of 20 students who want to learn.

What you propose goes against the entire modern educational philosophy to "mainstream" these "special" students.

 

[Hotcakes]

Gun ownership is enshrined in the basic fabric of American life. It's not going away as evidenced by SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment.

With that in mind, the only way to quickly deter mass school shootings is 1-2 armed guards posted in every school for the sole purpose of "defusing" these situations. Teachers, security guards, or police would fill this role. The additional cost would be viewed as an insurance policy against such an attack. What else can you do? Everything else is just a half-measure. Sure, more mental screening. Sure, more aggressive profiling.

Funny how Liberals never refer to the ongoing slaughter in Chicago as a case for gun control. Liberals only call for gun control after a school shooting. Not when blacks are gunned down by the thousands. Why? Because it exposes the Leftist narrative as being a lie. Blacks commit a vastly disproportionate number of violent crimes in America, while white kids, comparatively, commit vastly less.

Trump should have sent in 1,000 FBI/DEA Agents into South Side Chicago Day#2. That was his fault. Head it up by black agents. Who cares. Get the job done.

 

[Cuddles]

21 age restriction is a good starting point ( troops not withstanding). We live in a society where young adults remain "kids" for much longer and quite simply have shown a level of maturity that isn't enough to become a gun owner. Hell, I'd say the same about joining for service, but I think the discipline/direction the armed forces provides for many high school graduates offsets the negatives of age.

Money off politics (including NRA) is the next logical step, as really, these associations aren't protecting rights as much as the bottom line of corporate donors.

Magazine restriction/high capacity weapons except for recreative shooting would be nice, but there's plenty of people with enough land to do so in their property. So unless we restrict these weapons to those who have the space for them or approved gun ranges... But I just don't see it happening. What, with the whole militia thing in the constitution and all

 

[Tsing Tao]

I am going to keep this thread on topic and as the OP has requested — a CIVIL DISCOURSE. If you go off-topic, rant, get snarky, etc. your post will either be edited or removed. If you then persist you will be blocked from posting to this thread. This topic is important so let's have a good, civil discussion for a change.

Thanks, Magna! I was going to ask you if you could do this but didn't want to waste your time being a baby sitter. Much appreciated, sir!

 

[Tsing Tao]

By that argument Kim Jong Un's nukes and missiles are nothing to worry about as they don't kill people.

There are certain stock phrases created by the NRA which are logically fallacious and designed to irritate. This exacerbates a 'them vs us' type hostility between Americans.

ARs are too much gun for civilians IMO and should at least be over 25 only as a minimum age for ownership and advertising for them blocked in a manner similar to cigarettes. This would mean when you see an unstable 19 year old posting his guns online, he can be tackled while not overly infringing on responsible citizens.

If you want an AR before 25, join the army and get trained.

I have no issue in raising the age to 21, but 25 for an AR doesn't do anything, as there are plenty of weaponry just as deadly you could get at 21. So picking out a particular weapon to categorize it as more dangerous than others...

Of course, this doesn't address illegally owned and obtained weapons at all.

 

[Tsing Tao]

21 age restriction is a good starting point ( troops not withstanding). We live in a society where young adults remain "kids" for much longer and quite simply have shown a level of maturity that isn't enough to become a gun owner. Hell, I'd say the same about joining for service, but I think the discipline/direction the armed forces provides for many high school graduates offsets the negatives of age.

Money off politics (including NRA) is the next logical step, as really, these associations aren't protecting rights as much as the bottom line of corporate donors.

Magazine restriction/high capacity weapons except for recreative shooting would be nice, but there's plenty of people with enough land to do so in their property. So unless we restrict these weapons to those who have the space for them or approved gun ranges... But I just don't see it happening. What, with the whole militia thing in the constitution and all

Again, restrictions don't solve the problem of the hundreds of millions of firearms and accessories already in the field.

 

[Tsing Tao]

That's all what Obama was ever asking , but the NRA and Fox News had other ideas , including people on this board.

I understand that the NRA does not agree with some of my positions. Like AAA said awhile ago, it can be viewed as the gateway to more serious laws trying to restrict freedoms. I get their point, but I disagree.

 

[Tsing Tao]

In my opinion......

Most types of guns should be banned.

Limited capacity internal magazine long guns only. No hand guns no AR15 etc.

If one can't defend their home and hunt with one of those.......too bad, you can. What you can't do with them is kill many people very quickly.


Retains 2nd amendment rights and limits lethality. As the LA shooter showed, there are crazies that will still pass all mental tests. The only way to limit the carnage is reduce lethality.

Ok, so how do you ban all of those guns you mentioned? Detailed process, please.

 

[Arnie]

Banning guns is a non starter IMO. There are over 300,000,000 firearms in the US.
The reason this problem is getting worse is that we don't address the real cause, and it ain't the number or type of guns.

 

[futurecurrents]

Ok, so how do you ban all of those guns you mentioned? Detailed process, please.

Laws. Regulations. Make a law banning them. Easy.