• 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!

CNN Townhall with Parkland Students, Rubio, NRA and others

As someone who is observing this entire debate from the sidelines, and as someone who doesn't own a gun, but lives in a gun heavy state, the dynamics are fascinating. Gun rights groups are being bullied, which is an almost ironic turn of events. Gun reform activists are claiming to want dialogue, but the entirety of their own dialogue is 'surrender or die'. I understand why they are taking this tact, and I understand that it is born out of frustration, but I am not sure it will work. I guess the entirety of the argument will rest on whether the young people protesting are able to vote out those that oppose them. They aren't really leaving a door open for dialogue (indeed they continue to mock anyone that holds an opposing viewpoint to their own). I am not making a value judgement, it is a legitimate tactic, but still unsure of its efficacy long term.

It may be that this is the tool that Democrats are able to use to finally get that elusive youth vote that they have always sought. Obama delivered it in spades, can gun control do the same? I think that there are probably a lot of Democrats in office, or about to run for office that hopes that this continues to drag out in the media. If it goes silent will the movement sputter? I honestly dont feel banning AR's are going to do anything to stop school shootings, but I could be wrong. I do think we should raise the age limit to purchase a gun, and I do think we should make the backround process more strict, but in the end just about any gun can product widespread damage, and we aren't going to ban all guns (unless you honestly want a civil war in the south). If ARs are illegal, the troubled teen is going to pack about 5 handguns. That gives him or her somewhere around 50 bullets to tear people up.

Honest question - I haven't seen an actual implementable law (not saying there isn't one proposed, but all the headlines I read just say they are protesting to demand new gun laws). What law(s) are they proposing?
 
They want:

Universal background checks
Ban expanded magazines/devices
National age of 21 to buy any weapon
Not to arm teachers
Ban assault weapons
 
grassroots political movements don't generally produce detailed legislative language 6 weeks in.
I believe the most commonly cited specific asks are raising the purchase age, banning assault rifles (this has been done in the past, it's not like we need high school students to write the legislation) and banning large capacity magazines (again, not a terribly difficult concept to understand).

On the other hand the adults in this country are pretty hopeless, maybe we do need some high school seniors to write up the legislation for us.
 
Link?

I can go for:
1. Background checks
2. Limit expanded magazines/devices
3. 21 years old to purchase (18 year old with approval of parent that takes responsibility for the weapon in the case of an accident or harmful use)

Can't go for:
1. Don't arm teachers (I think with proper training this is just as good as arming security guards. Teacher would have to apply for a permit, complete initial training, complete continuing education credits over time). Has to be at least as effective as joe blow donut eating security guard. Don't see why this can't be a part of school safety.
2. Ban assault weapons. Doesn't make any practical sense. Handguns are just as dangerous. If you are going to ban assault weapons, you need to go after handguns (I don't think either will be effective).
 
This has been posted before, but it compares the damage caused by an AR-15 to a handgun.

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun-shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to the trauma center to receive our care.
Click to expand...

Mangled tissue and softball-sized exit wounds: Why AR-15 injuries are so devastating
 
Wrangor said:
As someone who is observing this entire debate from the sidelines, and as someone who doesn't own a gun, but lives in a gun heavy state, the dynamics are fascinating. Gun rights groups are being bullied, which is an almost ironic turn of events. Gun reform activists are claiming to want dialogue, but the entirety of their own dialogue is 'surrender or die'. I understand why they are taking this tact, and I understand that it is born out of frustration, but I am not sure it will work. I guess the entirety of the argument will rest on whether the young people protesting are able to vote out those that oppose them. They aren't really leaving a door open for dialogue (indeed they continue to mock anyone that holds an opposing viewpoint to their own). I am not making a value judgement, it is a legitimate tactic, but still unsure of its efficacy long term.

It may be that this is the tool that Democrats are able to use to finally get that elusive youth vote that they have always sought. Obama delivered it in spades, can gun control do the same? I think that there are probably a lot of Democrats in office, or about to run for office that hopes that this continues to drag out in the media. If it goes silent will the movement sputter? I honestly dont feel banning AR's are going to do anything to stop school shootings, but I could be wrong. I do think we should raise the age limit to purchase a gun, and I do think we should make the backround process more strict, but in the end just about any gun can product widespread damage, and we aren't going to ban all guns (unless you honestly want a civil war in the south). If ARs are illegal, the troubled teen is going to pack about 5 handguns. That gives him or her somewhere around 50 bullets to tear people up.

Honest question - I haven't seen an actual implementable law (not saying there isn't one proposed, but all the headlines I read just say they are protesting to demand new gun laws). What law(s) are they proposing?
Click to expand...

Wrangor, you're better than this. You're just spouting NRA talking points that are completely false.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Palma says social media advertising content is a waste of time and money. It doesn't work.
Click to expand...

It doesn't switch a couple hundred thousand votes. You've been posting on the tunnels for years now, I've yet to see a single person switch their opinion on a single issue in the entire time I've been here, yet apparently all it takes is a facebook meme to change hundreds of thousands of minds on facebook.
 
Wrangor said:
Link?

I can go for:
1. Background checks
2. Limit expanded magazines/devices
3. 21 years old to purchase (18 year old with approval of parent that takes responsibility for the weapon in the case of an accident or harmful use)

Can't go for:
1. Don't arm teachers (I think with proper training this is just as good as arming security guards. Teacher would have to apply for a permit, complete initial training, complete continuing education credits over time). Has to be at least as effective as joe blow donut eating security guard. Don't see why this can't be a part of school safety.
2. Ban assault weapons. Doesn't make any practical sense. Handguns are just as dangerous. If you are going to ban assault weapons, you need to go after handguns (I don't think either will be effective).
Click to expand...

You might want to read up on the differences in handgun vs assault weapon gunshot wounds.

There’s a reason the military doesn’t use a handgun as their primary weapon.
 
PhDeac said:
Wrangor, you're better than this. You're just spouting NRA talking points that are completely false.
Click to expand...

Wrangor, no legit gun control groups are advocating “surrender or die.” And re: bullying... look no futther than the NRA recent ads if you need some good examples of bullying.
 
Wrangor said:
Link?

I can go for:
1. Background checks
2. Limit expanded magazines/devices
3. 21 years old to purchase (18 year old with approval of parent that takes responsibility for the weapon in the case of an accident or harmful use)

Can't go for:
1. Don't arm teachers (I think with proper training this is just as good as arming security guards. Teacher would have to apply for a permit, complete initial training, complete continuing education credits over time). Has to be at least as effective as joe blow donut eating security guard. Don't see why this can't be a part of school safety.
2. Ban assault weapons. Doesn't make any practical sense. Handguns are just as dangerous. If you are going to ban assault weapons, you need to go after handguns (I don't think either will be effective).
Click to expand...

RE: Arming teachers -

How many?

What if more than one armed teacher is in a hallway creating a crossfire?

What if a student overpowers a teacher and takes a gun?

Inevitably guns will get lost. What happens then?

What if a teacher gets frustrated and has a gun?

It's not "limit magazines". It's banning anything bigger than 12-15 rounds.
 
Wrangor said:
As someone who is observing this entire debate from the sidelines, and as someone who doesn't own a gun, but lives in a gun heavy state, the dynamics are fascinating. Gun rights groups are being bullied, which is an almost ironic turn of events. Gun reform activists are claiming to want dialogue, but the entirety of their own dialogue is 'surrender or die'. I understand why they are taking this tact, and I understand that it is born out of frustration, but I am not sure it will work. I guess the entirety of the argument will rest on whether the young people protesting are able to vote out those that oppose them. They aren't really leaving a door open for dialogue (indeed they continue to mock anyone that holds an opposing viewpoint to their own). I am not making a value judgement, it is a legitimate tactic, but still unsure of its efficacy long term.

It may be that this is the tool that Democrats are able to use to finally get that elusive youth vote that they have always sought. Obama delivered it in spades, can gun control do the same? I think that there are probably a lot of Democrats in office, or about to run for office that hopes that this continues to drag out in the media. If it goes silent will the movement sputter? I honestly dont feel banning AR's are going to do anything to stop school shootings, but I could be wrong. I do think we should raise the age limit to purchase a gun, and I do think we should make the backround process more strict, but in the end just about any gun can product widespread damage, and we aren't going to ban all guns (unless you honestly want a civil war in the south). If ARs are illegal, the troubled teen is going to pack about 5 handguns. That gives him or her somewhere around 50 bullets to tear people up.

Honest question - I haven't seen an actual implementable law (not saying there isn't one proposed, but all the headlines I read just say they are protesting to demand new gun laws). What law(s) are they proposing?
Click to expand...

"Gun rights groups are being bullied." Really? You mean the NRA that is ridiculing and going after high school kids who just saw their classmates murdered not too long ago? The gun owners I've seen since Saturday posting on facebook that these kids are being "brainwashed" by left-wing teachers to carry out the agenda of Soros and others? Or the gun owner groups that photoshopped one of the Stoneman Douglas girls ripping up the US Constitution? Those innocent, victim gun owners? And I disagree that these kids aren't willing to compromise or negotiate. It's the NRA that has constantly portrayed any gun control legislation as the first step to taking everyone's guns away, which is just false. As ABC's Matthew Dowd (a gun owner) said last Sunday, the NRA for years has successfully portrayed the gun control debate as one of "It's our Second Amendment right to own as many weapons, and any kind of weapon, that we want" vs. "You want to take all of our guns away", which is a false debate. These kids have gun control opponents and the NRA on the defensive for the first time in many years, and they and their allies clearly don't like it.

ETA: Also, arming teachers is a really bad idea. I have many friends who are teachers, and many school systems won't even pay for school supplies, but they're going to fork over cash for teachers to take on another duty to carry guns? And, what happens once kids figure out where the guns are (and they will.) How long will it be before a disturbed kid gets one of the guns and shoots some classmates or teachers? And that doesn't stop the fact that school shooters will often still be better armed (with, say, AR-15s) than the teachers. I also don't agree that banning AR-15s and similar weapons wouldn't be effective. I just get the sense that gun control opponents are desperately looking for any idea, no matter how absurd or implausible, to sell, rather than accept any form of gun restrictions.
 
Last edited:
I’m genuinely shocked Wrangor posted that.

How could any reasonable person believe a bunch of AP US Government drama club kids who survived a school shooting and 11 year old girls are bullying the most powerful lobby in politics and grown men who own weapons of war?

These kids are punching the bullies in the face and they’re whining about it.

Wrangor, read the article that was posted a few hours ago about how the kids prepped for the March. It clearly states the talking points.
 
Last edited:
If gun rights advocates are being “bullied,” they need to separate themselves from the NRA. Unfortunately, their voice isn’t louder than the NRA and I (casual observer and maybe this is my fault?) am unable to notice the more reasonable gun advocate groups like the “Vets for guns” group above. Onus is on gun owners to become louder than the NRA.
 
Wrangor said:
As someone who is observing this entire debate from the sidelines, and as someone who doesn't own a gun, but lives in a gun heavy state, the dynamics are fascinating. Gun rights groups are being bullied, which is an almost ironic turn of events. Gun reform activists are claiming to want dialogue, but the entirety of their own dialogue is 'surrender or die'. I understand why they are taking this tact, and I understand that it is born out of frustration, but I am not sure it will work. I guess the entirety of the argument will rest on whether the young people protesting are able to vote out those that oppose them. They aren't really leaving a door open for dialogue (indeed they continue to mock anyone that holds an opposing viewpoint to their own). I am not making a value judgement, it is a legitimate tactic, but still unsure of its efficacy long term.

It may be that this is the tool that Democrats are able to use to finally get that elusive youth vote that they have always sought. Obama delivered it in spades, can gun control do the same? I think that there are probably a lot of Democrats in office, or about to run for office that hopes that this continues to drag out in the media. If it goes silent will the movement sputter? I honestly dont feel banning AR's are going to do anything to stop school shootings, but I could be wrong. I do think we should raise the age limit to purchase a gun, and I do think we should make the backround process more strict, but in the end just about any gun can product widespread damage, and we aren't going to ban all guns (unless you honestly want a civil war in the south). If ARs are illegal, the troubled teen is going to pack about 5 handguns. That gives him or her somewhere around 50 bullets to tear people up.

Honest question - I haven't seen an actual implementable law (not saying there isn't one proposed, but all the headlines I read just say they are protesting to demand new gun laws). What law(s) are they proposing?
Click to expand...

Wrangor said:
Link?

I can go for:
1. Background checks
2. Limit expanded magazines/devices
3. 21 years old to purchase (18 year old with approval of parent that takes responsibility for the weapon in the case of an accident or harmful use)

Can't go for:
1. Don't arm teachers (I think with proper training this is just as good as arming security guards. Teacher would have to apply for a permit, complete initial training, complete continuing education credits over time). Has to be at least as effective as joe blow donut eating security guard. Don't see why this can't be a part of school safety.
2. Ban assault weapons. Doesn't make any practical sense. Handguns are just as dangerous. If you are going to ban assault weapons, you need to go after handguns (I don't think either will be effective).
Click to expand...

These are fucking awful posts. Wow.
 
Well it was worth a try to discuss. Good luck everyone. Lol.
 
Wrangor said:
Well it was worth a try to discuss. Good luck everyone. Lol.
Click to expand...

But you didn’t. You made an unsupported claim that a bunch of children who survived a mass shooting are trying to take people’s guns even though almost every position statement by every kid who was interviewed on Saturday included the phrase “we aren’t trying to take people’s guns away.”

Try having an honest discussion instead of misrepresenting a bunch of kids for the sake of powerful gun owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top