ADVERTISEMENT

Anyone else sick of the kids and their gun law crap?

Yes I vaguely recall this now that you mention it. As to cons, who knows. The problem isn't cons so much as it is the NRA does such a wonderful job influencing cons.

It's all about $.
They break them down into 3 different classes. I assume different background checks are needed for each class.

Category A firearms include:

  • Air rifles
  • Blank-fire firearms at least 75 cm in length
  • Rim-fire rifles (other than self-loading rim-fire rifles)
  • Shotguns (other than pump-action or self-loading shotguns) (this includes lever-action shotguns)
  • Break-action shotgun/rim-fire rifle combination firearms
Category B firearms:

  • Muzzle-loading firearms
  • Single-shot centre-fire rifles
  • Double barrel centre-fire rifles
  • Repeating centre-fire rifles
  • Break action shotgun/centre-fire rifle combination firearms
Category C firearms:

  • Semiautomatic rim-fire rifles (with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds)
  • Semiautomatic shotguns (with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds)
  • Pump-action shotguns (with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds)
 
They break them down into 3 different classes. I assume different background checks are needed for each class.

Category A firearms include:

  • Air rifles
  • Blank-fire firearms at least 75 cm in length
  • Rim-fire rifles (other than self-loading rim-fire rifles)
  • Shotguns (other than pump-action or self-loading shotguns) (this includes lever-action shotguns)
  • Break-action shotgun/rim-fire rifle combination firearms
Category B firearms:

  • Muzzle-loading firearms
  • Single-shot centre-fire rifles
  • Double barrel centre-fire rifles
  • Repeating centre-fire rifles
  • Break action shotgun/centre-fire rifle combination firearms
Category C firearms:

  • Semiautomatic rim-fire rifles (with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds)
  • Semiautomatic shotguns (with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds)
  • Pump-action shotguns (with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds)
If it doesn't include handguns in any classification, it's dead in the water.

Otherwise, I can see something like that being enacted. I can't see it doing any earthly good whatever with respect to the issue we're talking about, but I can see it being enacted. It probably would reduce accidental shootings.

For the record, I have never owned a handgun and have only shot one a couple of times. My Dad had a .22 revolver he carried sometimes to administer the coup de grace to fowl. Handguns have always scared me. Too easy to shoot yourself or somebody else who you don't intend to shoot.
 
Otherwise, I can see something like that being enacted. I can't see it doing any earthly good whatever with respect to the issue we're talking about, but I can see it being enacted. It probably would reduce accidental shootings.

Well, it seemed to have worked in Australia. Probably just a fluke though. Linked here

But it wasn’t just the murderous rampages that faded away. Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1 killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of America’s.

Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has about 2.7 million residents.)


For the record, I have never owned a handgun and have only shot one a couple of times. My Dad had a .22 revolver he carried sometimes to administer the coup de grace to fowl. Handguns have always scared me. Too easy to shoot yourself or somebody else who you don't intend to shoot.

I'm with you here. Too many easy accidental shootings. Too many people owning guns who have very little clue as to how to operate and handle them responsibly.
 
29512666_1581247381928625_6132696634037639736_n.jpg
 
They break them down into 3 different classes. I assume different background checks are needed for each class.

Category A firearms include:

  • Air rifles
  • Blank-fire firearms at least 75 cm in length
  • Rim-fire rifles (other than self-loading rim-fire rifles)
  • Shotguns (other than pump-action or self-loading shotguns) (this includes lever-action shotguns)
  • Break-action shotgun/rim-fire rifle combination firearms
Category B firearms:

  • Muzzle-loading firearms
  • Single-shot centre-fire rifles
  • Double barrel centre-fire rifles
  • Repeating centre-fire rifles
  • Break action shotgun/centre-fire rifle combination firearms
Category C firearms:

  • Semiautomatic rim-fire rifles (with a magazine capacity no greater than 10 rounds)
  • Semiautomatic shotguns (with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds)
  • Pump-action shotguns (with a magazine capacity no greater than 5 rounds)

I can see none of this being enacted. Class C is the highest class and is a basic hunting rifle or shotgun. As a matter of fact, the magazine restrictions eliminate the basic hunting weapons that have been in production for over 50 years. Plus no handguns for self-defense.
 
I don't have an issue with the children talking. No one is taking them seriously. Much like some of the posters on this board, they prove over and over again how much they don't know.

These children and liberals have no interest in fixing the actual problem because there is enough data out there that proves that guns (it doesn't matter what type) aren't the problem. Kind of like suicides account for most of the gun deaths in this country. As gun ownership has increased, gun deaths and non violent gun crimes have decreased significantly.

You're actually far, far more likely to die in a car accident on the way to school than you are in a school shooting. Yet, everyone is scared to be in school so it seems. The left has absolutely no interest in fixing the issue. None.

One example is the #WalkUp campaign. This campaign suggested that children treat each other better. This was quickly attacked by the left saying that this campaign was victim shaming/blaming. No it wasn't. This is the joke the left has become. An attempt to get at the root of the problem becomes demonized. It was pathetic.

The day the left becomes serious about school shootings is the day real solutions can be implemented. Guns have been around forever and schools have been around even longer. Something has changed. The problem isn't guns. The problem is our society and that's too hard of a pill for the left to swallow. Liberals have yet to swallow that pill when most already have.
 
I don't have an issue with the children talking. No one is taking them seriously. Much like some of the posters on this board, they prove over and over again how much they don't know.

These children and liberals have no interest in fixing the actual problem because there is enough data out there that proves that guns (it doesn't matter what type) aren't the problem. Kind of like suicides account for most of the gun deaths in this country. As gun ownership has increased, gun deaths and non violent gun crimes have decreased significantly.

You're actually far, far more likely to die in a car accident on the way to school than you are in a school shooting. Yet, everyone is scared to be in school so it seems. The left has absolutely no interest in fixing the issue. None.

One example is the #WalkUp campaign. This campaign suggested that children treat each other better. This was quickly attacked by the left saying that this campaign was victim shaming/blaming. No it wasn't. This is the joke the left has become. An attempt to get at the root of the problem becomes demonized. It was pathetic.

The day the left becomes serious about school shootings is the day real solutions can be implemented. Guns have been around forever and schools have been around even longer. Something has changed. The problem isn't guns. The problem is our society and that's too hard of a pill for the left to swallow. Liberals have yet to swallow that pill when most already have.
Well, here's Garry with his two cents.

What is the solution, Garry? Do tell since you are the board know-it-all.
 
I don't have an issue with the children talking. No one is taking them seriously. Much like some of the posters on this board, they prove over and over again how much they don't know.

These children and liberals have no interest in fixing the actual problem because there is enough data out there that proves that guns (it doesn't matter what type) aren't the problem. Kind of like suicides account for most of the gun deaths in this country. As gun ownership has increased, gun deaths and non violent gun crimes have decreased significantly.

You're actually far, far more likely to die in a car accident on the way to school than you are in a school shooting. Yet, everyone is scared to be in school so it seems. The left has absolutely no interest in fixing the issue. None.

One example is the #WalkUp campaign. This campaign suggested that children treat each other better. This was quickly attacked by the left saying that this campaign was victim shaming/blaming. No it wasn't. This is the joke the left has become. An attempt to get at the root of the problem becomes demonized. It was pathetic.

The day the left becomes serious about school shootings is the day real solutions can be implemented. Guns have been around forever and schools have been around even longer. Something has changed. The problem isn't guns. The problem is our society and that's too hard of a pill for the left to swallow. Liberals have yet to swallow that pill when most already have.

All of those words, and nothing was said.
 
You should have gotten something from that. Sorry you didn't.

Logically linking any two sentences would be a good start for you. Using data would be another good step. Finally, you could benefit from avoiding overly generalized critiques. Add these up, and you might start to really communicate a rational idea!
 
  • Like
Reactions: E.RogerCoswell
Like I said, you're not serious about school shootings. You've proven that over and over again.
I am very serious about them. I have two kids in school.

But I'm sure you will continue to be snarky instead of posting anything of substance.
 
Logically linking any two sentences would be a good start for you. Using data would be another good step. Finally, you could benefit from avoiding overly generalized critiques. Add these up, and you might start to really communicate a rational idea!

Sounds like your issue is reading comprehension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
I am very serious about them. I have two kids in school.

But I'm sure you will continue to be snarky instead of posting anything of substance.

No you're not. You have no perspective on the issue and you don't want one.
 
Sounds like your issue is reading comprehension.

I'm bored, let's play this game.

[1] These children and liberals have no interest in fixing the actual problem [2] because there is enough data out there that proves that guns (it doesn't matter what type) aren't the problem. [3] Kind of like suicides account for most of the gun deaths in this country. [4] As gun ownership has increased, gun deaths and non violent gun crimes have decreased significantly.

[1] This assertion is just asinine. Kids and liberals don't care if kids are killed by guns. That is just stupid. Maybe people disagree about the cause, but your statement is just juvenile.

[2] This doesn't logically relate to [1] as stated. The "because" might be kids and liberals "ignoring the data," but it certainly isn't the fact of data. Also, you don't provide the data and you assume a conclusion. You accomplish nothing with this. (Like what you are critiquing.)

[3] How is [2] kind of like [3]? That makes no sense. Also, how is this relevant to the discussion? You make no actual claim. It is a random sentence without any demonstrated relationship to the subject matter.

[4] You've asserted a correlation without showing causation or any underlying data or discussion of data. Again, you've said nothing of any import.

Should we do your other paragraphs?
 
What is your solution, Garry?

I asked you before and still no answer.

I've stated them before.

Allowing teachers to be armed that want to be is a good first step. Allow parents to opt out of a teacher who carries is a good compromise.

Remove schools form being gun free zones. It obviously isn't working being that almost all mass shootings occur in gun free zones.

What would you like to hear that doesn't infringe on rights?

How about we start holding bullies accountable for school shootings? Parents of the shooter for not raising their child better?

Is that what you want to hear?
 
I don't have an issue with the children talking. No one is taking them seriously. Much like some of the posters on this board, they prove over and over again how much they don't know.

These children and liberals have no interest in fixing the actual problem because there is enough data out there that proves that guns (it doesn't matter what type) aren't the problem. Kind of like suicides account for most of the gun deaths in this country. As gun ownership has increased, gun deaths and non violent gun crimes have decreased significantly.

You're actually far, far more likely to die in a car accident on the way to school than you are in a school shooting. Yet, everyone is scared to be in school so it seems. The left has absolutely no interest in fixing the issue. None.

One example is the #WalkUp campaign. This campaign suggested that children treat each other better. This was quickly attacked by the left saying that this campaign was victim shaming/blaming. No it wasn't. This is the joke the left has become. An attempt to get at the root of the problem becomes demonized. It was pathetic.

The day the left becomes serious about school shootings is the day real solutions can be implemented. Guns have been around forever and schools have been around even longer. Something has changed. The problem isn't guns. The problem is our society and that's too hard of a pill for the left to swallow. Liberals have yet to swallow that pill when most already have.
What are you doing to "fix the problem"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: srams21
Allowing teachers to be armed that want to be is a good first step. Allow parents to opt out of a teacher who carries is a good compromise.

I don't think arming teachers is a great idea. I'd bet that more harm than good comes from that. Where is the gun stored? How often does the armed teacher have to attend shooting practices? I do like the idea of an armed LEO at each school. That helped in the Maryland shooting. Would have helped at Parkland had the officer actually done his job.

Remove schools form being gun free zones. It obviously isn't working being that almost all mass shootings occur in gun free zones.

Not sure why this matters. Also any stats to show that as a fact?

How about we start holding bullies accountable for school shootings? Parents of the shooter for not raising their child better?

Do we not hold bullies accountable now? What exactly do you mean by this? How should we hold the parents accountable? Should we jail parents or guardians of each school shooter? Would that be an effective deterrent?
 
I've stated them before.

Allowing teachers to be armed that want to be is a good first step. Allow parents to opt out of a teacher who carries is a good compromise.

Remove schools form being gun free zones. It obviously isn't working being that almost all mass shootings occur in gun free zones.

What would you like to hear that doesn't infringe on rights?

How about we start holding bullies accountable for school shootings? Parents of the shooter for not raising their child better?

Is that what you want to hear?

How do those actions address the root causes of these issues? Given the data on accidental firearms discharges (see recent news of teachers in schools), why do you suppose that teachers carrying would result in a net decrease in gun-related injuries in schools rather than an increase? For schools that rotate kids through the teachers in a grade, do kids who opt out of a teacher just not get math or science, or whatever their teaching carrying happens to teach? Do they just learn the subject next year?

If schools aren't gun free zones, does that mean that anyone can carry at any time? If so, how do kids opt out of that?

I don't disparage you for not offering 100% solutions or explanations here. These are tough issues. Where you go wrong is maligning people on the "other side" for the same thing. You are what you criticize. Have some self-awareness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton
I'm bored, let's play this game.



[1] This assertion is just asinine. Kids and liberals don't care if kids are killed by guns. That is just stupid. Maybe people disagree about the cause, but your statement is just juvenile.

[2] This doesn't logically relate to [1] as stated. The "because" might be kids and liberals "ignoring the data," but it certainly isn't the fact of data. Also, you don't provide the data and you assume a conclusion. You accomplish nothing with this. (Like what you are critiquing.)

[3] How is [2] kind of like [3]? That makes no sense. Also, how is this relevant to the discussion? You make no actual claim. It is a random sentence without any demonstrated relationship to the subject matter.

[4] You've asserted a correlation without showing causation or any underlying data or discussion of data. Again, you've said nothing of any import.

Should we do your other paragraphs?

It's a message board, not a rhetoric paper. Your issue is still comprehension.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamesvanderwulf
It's a message board, not a rhetoric paper. Your issue is still comprehension.

Let's go again then...


[1] You're actually far, far more likely to die in a car accident on the way to school than you are in a school shooting. [2] Yet, everyone is scared to be in school so it seems. [3] The left has absolutely no interest in fixing the issue. None.

[1] Hooray, a sentence that is probably correct. Now let's see if you relate it logically to any argument. . .

[2] Nonsense assertion again. Also, ignores the real issue being discussed. To help you out a nit, cars and schools have obvious social utility that exceeds their costs. No body doubts their costs, but we do not currently have reasonable alternatives. The question related to gun reform is whether reforms would provide positive social utility. Do [type X] guns provide positive social utility? Does [background check rule Y] provide positive social utility? You avoid discussion of the real issue by again resorting to random sentences thrown together instead of making a point.

[3] Again, a stupid assertion by any metric. (I'm ignoring that it isn't clear what "the issue" is. Is it school shootings? Is it an underlying cause? You haven't said what "the issue" is.

You can pull the "it is only a message board card," but then you have to retract your critiques of others for not providing a dissertation to back up their arguments and proposals. Again, have some self-awareness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srams21
Speaking of a driver's license, there are additional processes in order to get different classes of licenses. Part of the reason for this, of course, is safety. Driving a bus full of kids should require additional training and testing, including a background check. Driving an 18-wheeler, same deal.

Why not the same for guns? Could we separate guns into classes?
As someone who believes the SCOTUS already gives us the right to purchase nearly all bearable arms, those rights end at public property. If you plan on carrying in public, training requirements are certainly reasonable.
 
Well, it seemed to have worked in Australia. Probably just a fluke though. Linked here

But it wasn’t just the murderous rampages that faded away. Gun violence in general declined over the following two decades to a nearly unimaginable degree. In 2014, the latest year for which final statistics are available, Australia’s murder rate fell to less than 1 killing per 100,000 people—a murder rate one-fifth the size of America’s.

Just 32 of those homicides—in a nation of 24 million people—were committed with guns. By comparison, more than 500 people were shot dead last year in the city of Chicago alone. (Chicago has about 2.7 million residents.)

If you want to compare data, you need to compare all the data. How did Australia compare to the US before the restrictions? What was their trend 2 decades before the restrictions? What has the trend in the US done in the decades before and after Australia's restrictions? What else has come into play during this time? Has the mass murder rate changed or just the mass murder rate by firearm?

When you start answering these questions, you'll see Australia's restrictions really have had little if any affect.
 
So you’re denying actual data and then citing a BS site. Genius.

Common sense isn’t a strength of yours is it?

Your continued assault on logic is incredible. Where did I deny data? Maybe you don't understand what "correlation" and "causation" mean or how they relate to evaluating data? That could explain it I suppose...

I also simply provided you an alternative view and offered no assessment of its veracity. I literally said "for a different take." Your dismissal based on the forum shows your general lack of curiosity or willingness to find truth. Good luck to you. You've continued to offer nothing but empty words. You are what you purport to despise, but you don't realize it.

(As for your source, if you're really worried about vetting your sources of data:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/crime-prevention-research-center/



https://thinkprogress.org/debunking-john-lott-5456e83cf326/
 
ADVERTISEMENT