• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

How many more school shootings before the NRA allows common sense?

RJKarl said:
Here's an idea that I think all but the craziest among us should agree to:

National purchase any gun or rifle should be 21. We need this supercede places like FL who have laws that allow 18 yos to buy weapons.

The NRA, FL Legislature and Gov. Rick "the thief" Scott should all be held accountable for the killings in FL this week. Without their insane law, it's very likely this kid never gets that gun.
Click to expand...

THIS! As a teacher and a Dad of 3 boys, I cannot fathom how or why a person under 18 can buy a weapon... They can't get a beer but they can go to Gander Mountain and purchase an AR15. I get the argument that if a person is "bent' on a mass shooting they will find a gun, but the same argument applies to drinking. If a "kid" wants to drink they will find a way. But, at least we are legally making it increasingly more difficult for them to obtain alcohol at any given moment. The same common sense should apply to guns. I would imagine most school shooting are committed by people under 21. I also agree with SD3 & RJ - not necessarily SD3's take on the stats (but I understand the point he is trying to make), but w/his list on improving the current climate and discussion. I know my kids are are concerned about the shootings, the idea of copycats, etc. and that is what makes this even more tragic. Ideally, this should not even be a political issue.
 
I think the lowest hanging fruit are high capacity magazines. There's no rationale *need* for them and without them the ability to inflict mass casualties is greatly reduced.

I'll step out on the ledge for purposes of debate - with respect to age limits for ownership of any guns and outright bans on semi-automatic weapons, how do you square that with recreational hunting?
 
scooter84 said:
I don't know that stop and frisk is aimed exclusively at guns... I figured it was equally aimed at drugs and drug paraphenalia? In any event, I am a conservative and I don't know why any American would be in favor of stop and frisk as I understand it (no probable cause needed) - it goes against our basic principles.
Click to expand...

They frisk for guns. Here’s a National Review article that helps explain the conservative case for stopping people to take their guns.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...lary-clinton-systemic-bias-and-stop-and-frisk
 
TripleDeacon said:
I think the lowest hanging fruit are high capacity magazines. There's no rationale *need* for them and without them the ability to inflict mass casualties is greatly reduced.

I'll step out on the ledge for purposes of debate - with respect to age limits for ownership of any guns and outright bans on semi-automatic weapons, how do you square that with recreational hunting?
Click to expand...

other than humans, what is one hunting that requires semi-automatic weapons?
 
Milhouse said:
other than humans, what is one hunting that requires semi-automatic weapons?
Click to expand...

Come on man, you grew up in Raleigh - people use semi-automatic rifles and shotguns for hunting deer to ducks and everything in between. Is it *required*? No of course not, you could limit hunters to black powder and bows and they could still technically hunt. But no one is using a deer rifle in these mass shootings. That said, no deer hunter needs more than three or four rounds in a magazine.

Now, I'm completely on board for banning assault rifles. Maybe it's a terminology thing.
 
Yeah. Let's ban assault rifles. We did before. We stopped. Mass shootings increase.

It's weird that gun rights people get caught up in semantics about an assault rifle ban when we actually did ban assault rifles.
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. Let's ban assault rifles. We did before. We stopped. Mass shootings increase.

It's weird that gun rights people get caught up in semantics about an assault rifle ban when we actually did ban assault rifles.
Click to expand...

But before, when the ban was in effect, we had a perfect family structure, we didn't medicate our children and there was no mental illness.
 
bym051d said:
But before, when the ban was in effect, we had a perfect family structure, we didn't medicate our children and there was no mental illness.
Click to expand...
Back when America was still great!
 
PhDeac said:
They frisk for guns. Here’s a National Review article that helps explain the conservative case for stopping people to take their guns.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...lary-clinton-systemic-bias-and-stop-and-frisk
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sure guns and other weapons are one of the main targets of stop and frisk, no doubt. That article focuses on racial discrimination challenges to the practice. Ignoring race, I just don't see how it passes constitutional analysis. I guess you would have to argue that the public policy benefits outweigh the personal right to freedom of interference without probable cause.

The article does mention that police stop and frisk in response to observing "suspicious behavior" - at least that is some sort of probable cause. But it is way too vague and too low a bar for my taste.

Of course, on that basis random traffic stops for DWI seem unconstitutional as well... Again, it has apparently been decided that the public policy of preventing drunk driving outweighs the rights of drivers to drive without interference, absent probable cause.
 
PhDeac said:
Yeah. Let's ban assault rifles. We did before. We stopped. Mass shootings increase.

It's weird that gun rights people get caught up in semantics about an assault rifle ban when we actually did ban assault rifles.
Click to expand...

Dude, the "gun rights people" you're referring to are agreeing with you, and you're continuing to post condescending replies in response. Things like this only further the vitriol towards you. How do you not see that?

I'm fully in support of banning AR15s and similar weapons.
 
The fact that it’s called an “assault” rifle is all I need to know. Ban that shit.
 
tigerswood said:
Dude, the "gun rights people" you're referring to are agreeing with you, and you're continuing to post condescending replies in response. Things like this only further the vitriol towards you. How do you not see that?

I'm fully in support of banning AR15s and similar weapons.
Click to expand...

I was agreeing with Triple Deacon. That post wasn’t condescending to people who agree with a ban, only people using semantics to justify not doing anything.
 
RJKarl said:
73, I posted this a couple of pages ago. I think it's very reasonable:

If not for the NRA, the following would be done deals:

Back ground check on every transfer of ownership of any gun/rifle- this includes gun shows and private sales
Ban Bump stocks
Ban magazines/clips of over 12 (or 15)
Register all guns
Military must immediately update databases with crimes committed in the military

Not quite as easy but still supported by over 50% of the public:

Ban military style weapons like AR-15s
Limit monthly sales of production guns (with exceptions for licensed security companies and for collections of antiques {100+years old}
Liability Insurance on every gun/rifle
Strict liability laws on guns/rifles like we have on cars/homes
Make manufacturers liable for not blocking convertibility to fully automatic
If you don't do a trackable background check and a crime is committed with your former gun, you get charged as an acessory
Click to expand...

You want the government to know even more about you than what they already do? Thanks but no thanks. Thanks to medical records all being electronic now they're more easily hacked than before and all our medical info is out there. I'd like to avoid that as much as I can.
 
seawolf2010 said:
You want the government to know even more about you than what they already do? Thanks but no thanks. Thanks to medical records all being electronic now they're more easily hacked than before and all our medical info is out there. I'd like to avoid that as much as I can.
Click to expand...

When it comes to tracking and regulating objects that kill thousands of citizens each year? Yes, I want the government to know everything they can about guns and those purchasing them.
 
tigerswood said:
When it comes to tracking and regulating objects that kill thousands of citizens each year? Yes, I want the government to know everything they can about guns and those purchasing them.
Click to expand...

How? By far the most gun deaths each year are done thru suicide. How is knowing who has what guns going to help?
 
seawolf2010 said:
How? By far the most gun deaths each year are done thru suicide. How is knowing who has what guns going to help?
Click to expand...

Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe we can try other solutions to prevent suicides. We don't have to simply use a single "one size fits all" solution.
 
seawolf2010 said:
How? By far the most gun deaths each year are done thru suicide. How is knowing who has what guns going to help?
Click to expand...

Is this serious? Strengthening background checks/pre-screening for mental health would be a huge help in gun suicide prevention. Mental health and gun control do not have to be conflicting issues - they are very closely related.
 
seawolf2010 said:
You want the government to know even more about you than what they already do? Thanks but no thanks. Thanks to medical records all being electronic now they're more easily hacked than before and all our medical info is out there. I'd like to avoid that as much as I can.
Click to expand...

Yes! And so do over 80% of Americans. You are the extremist here.

As to all our medical info be available, that's just wrong.

There is NO excuse not to do a background check on EVERY transfer of ownership of EVERY gun/rifle in America. Other than to kill people, there is NO reason to have 30, 50. 100 round magazines/drums.

the ONLY reason bumpstocks exist is to illegally turn semi-automatic weapons in killing machines.

The fact that you won't consider logical, sane gun laws clearly puts the blood of innocents on you.
 
tigerswood said:
Is this serious? Strengthening background checks/pre-screening for mental health would be a huge help in gun suicide prevention. Mental health and gun control do not have to be conflicting issues - they are very closely related.
Click to expand...

That's why I've always hated the counter argument of "not a gun problem, it's a mental health problem" or "not a gun problem, it's a God problem". If Americans are such godless crazy people, why the fuck do you want us to have so many guns?!?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top