Trump Regime thread.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Why hasnt it happened in other countries where they have banned guns then?

 

 

Yeah, they just run you over with trucks instead -- sounds much better.

[RazorStar 4,025]

This is the whole sticking your head into ovens argument.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Fire every single person involved with the tip they got from the YouTube comment.

Every.

Single.

Person.

No tolerance.

For what? What are they supposed to do? Involuntarily commit someone for internet threats ? Do you have any idea how many people would be committed?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Yeah, that's the big problem... Even if they looked into it, if the kid just says.. "Nah, I was just be a troll man.. I wasn't serious"... What are you going to do to him? People say nasty things all the time online -- and it doesn't mean they are going to act on it necessarily.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The FBI gets millions of threats reported every month. They do not have the manpower to look into and thoroughly investigate every single one.

 

 

Yeah, they just run you over with trucks instead -- sounds much better.

 

Because trucks have killed and are killing an equal amount of people Americans kill with guns.

 

All I'm asking is a simple question, how are you- and the right, for that matter- so sure that strict gun control won't work, given that has worked in many other countries? Why is America some sort of glaring outlier? Maybe we are, but I see no proof of that.

 

Its not even worth a shot to you guys? Say, strict gun control for ten years and see how many mass shootings we have over that period of time?

[seanbrock 1,684]

I don't really give a fuck about guns to be honest. I don't use them. I don't collect them but most people I know that have guns are upstanding people. The other people are drug dealers and criminals, not great but also not killers. To me if they were all banned tomorrow I wouldn't give a fuck. There's not a chance in hell that the citizens could use their guns to over throw the government or protect themselves from government. They'd bomb us with a computer from DC lol. I don't like signing away more rights though to be honest. The bill of rights has been eroded to a ridiculous degree over the past twenty years in a BI-PARTISAN EFFORT. The Democrats not only were happy to use the powers that Bush brought to the office but expand them. Now they're signing away more power to Trump because they know they'll be able to use when they get their crack at the oval office which could be as soon as 3 years from now.

 

I'm also not convinced that the US is even comparable with these countries that have outlawed guns. Did they have mass shootings before they outlawed guns? idk, I don't really care too much about this issue so I haven't looked into it a lot. We're talking about a very specific kind of gun violence here and a very specific kind of problem. The reason I say this is because I believe we need to look for more solutions than just banning fire arms.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

The FBI gets millions of threats reported every month. They do not have the manpower to look into and thoroughly investigate every single one.

 

 

Because trucks have killed and are killing an equal amount of people Americans kill with guns.

 

All I'm asking is a simple question, how are you- and the right, for that matter- so sure that strict gun control won't work, given that has worked in many other countries? Why is America some sort of glaring outlier? Maybe we are, but I see no proof of that.

 

Its not even worth a shot to you guys? Say, strict gun control for ten years and see how many mass shootings we have over that period of time?

Why does it have to be equal for you to care abot it? I hate that mindset.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Why does it have to be equal for you to care abot it? I hate that mindset.

 

...

 

What?

 

You're completely missing my point here.

 

You said trucks still kill people in those places where there is gun control, like that's some reason not to have strict gun control. Trucks dont kill people anywhere close to the same rate as guns, so acting like its worthless to have strict gun control just because people can still use trucks to kill people is a bad argument. Hell that argument could be used to legalize any sort of weapon ever, because people will still die to other, less lethal weapons, so why not just legalize all of them unreservedly?

 

People are always going to murder people, unfortunately, and strict gun control won't stop people from being killed. But it certainly looks to me like it drastically reduces your chances of being shot with a gun.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

You're very first sentence was trying to minimize other non-gun attacks because they haven't killed as many people. I am not saying you consciously don't care about those people or what have you. I'd be crazy to start assigning intent to someones words but that's the way it came across especially when it's the first thing that is being said.

 

American culture is not something that is going to be changed because of stricter gun control laws. You'll probably just piss more people off and they will go and get even more guns. I am not against stricter bg checks, closing the gun show loop holes, etc... And I do understand how certain assault weapons make it easier to carry out such attacks. And this is why you see a difference in European or Asian countries when it comes to mass shootings.

 

It's just a different culture and using those comparisons as some kind of empirical evidence is really short-sighted IMO. In actuality, when you take into consideration the population of these places, the US isn't even in the Top 10 when it comes to mass shooting deaths between 09-15. Which, if you don't open the link, simply means that if these other countries had more people than us or even remotely similar, the numbers and deaths wouldn't be statistically significant.

I am not convinced, however that stricter gun control laws (even ones I support) are really going to fix a lot though. I am not saying it won't help at all, but just as I was talking to FSU, some of these people are just perfect storm types of situations.

The guys who are abusing valium (Paddock in Vegas) or the Columbine shooters, Adam Lanza, or this most recent perpetrator being on anti-depressants... Banning guns or increasing regulations doesn't change the way they think. It doesn't quell an urge to kill.

 

Gun control isn't our One Ring (one solution to rule them all). It's a lot more complex than that.

 

EDIT:

Condensing my thoughts a bit (or trying to). I think we are asking the wrong questions. Whether it is a gun, bomb, truck... I think we can agree that we don't want to see these types of things happen. I like to think about the why. Why is this happening to begin with? Let's root out the underlying causes. I think we can do a lot more good that way, albeit I am not naive enough to think we can get rid of it completely ever.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Olenna4Ever

[Vin+ 3,121]

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/966806946597818368

 

[SteVo+ 3,702]

"If you see something, say something"

"Need more armed good guys on campus"

 

Both failed because humans are the worst.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

I don't know what the solution to all of this is... but I know what it isn't.

 

There is an alarming number of people who think arming teachers is a good idea. Please stop that.

[seanbrock 1,684]

What happens when a teacher accidentally shoots an innocent student in a shooter scenario with all the chaos?

[Sarge+ 3,436]

That AND think about all the work a teacher already does. If they're going to double as security guards, they would need to make a hell of a lot more money than they do now. It'll never happen anyway. I just wish people would forget it and look at this from other angles.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Teachers should totally have the option to carry. I think a school with armed teachers will be a lot less likely to be targeted and if it is it could save a lot of lives. From what Ive been told and read that school down in florida had an armed guard ... who was afraid to go into the building. I dont nefessarily blame him for that... but I dont see the point in having a security guard who cant provide some security.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

An option I can agree with, but a requirement is an absolute no. We don't pay teachers enough as is.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

An option I can agree with, but a requirement is an absolute no. We don't pay teachers enough as is.

Totally agree. Make it a requirement would be a burden way beyond what should be expected of them.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

That's just the thing though... if a police officer with extensive training and experience is ineffective (as was the case at Columbine as well), are teachers going to fare better?

 

Who will pay for their guns and tbeir training? How liable will they be when something goes down? Will they really be effective if needed? What happens if a kid steals the gun and kills everyone? Way too many questions without answers and problems without solutions here.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

That's just the thing though... if a police officer with extensive training and experience is ineffective (as was the case at Columbine as well), are teachers going to fare better?

 

Who will pay for their guns and tbeir training? How liable will they be when something goes down? Will they really be effective if needed? What happens if a kid steals the gun and kills everyone? Way too many questions without answers and problems without solutions here.

As stevo alluded to, that guy clearly went against everything he was trained to do. He was scared, and as I mentioned before... I dont nexessarily blame him for that.

 

I mean I support an OPTION to carry. So the teacher would either already have a firearm or buy one themselves. There is 0 expectation for teachers to get them, hence the word choice of option. What are they going to be liable for ? I dont know what you mean by something going down ? You mean when they take on a shooter? Theoretically a kid shouldnt be stealing any teachers fun considering it should be in a hand gun safe. Not saying it couldnt happen, but I think thats be more rare than the school shootings themselves.

[BigBen07 285]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nra-guns-shootings-1.4548756

[SteVo+ 3,702]

A few high-profile Republicans are stepping toward the middle on gun control, a positive step in my opinion. Marco Rubio at Wednesday's town hall (which my wife and I attended) made a few concessions, including strengthening background checks and raising the rifle-purchase age from 18 to 21. And now today, Florida Governor (and likely 2018 Senate candidate) Rick Scott released his plan/response, which included the same age-raise Rubio suggested, the banning of bump stocks, and regulations on mentally ill citizens.

 

It's all talk until it gets done, but it's movement in the right direction. And--most importantly of all--Democrats need to embrace this. Screaming at Republicans that they're "not doing enough" will only deepen the divide in this country. If anything gets done, it will be through compromise.

[Milla4Prez63 678]

Giving teachers guns is a terrible idea. What if a teacher is mentally ill and decides to mow down an entire classroom of kids? More guns is not the answer, I'm not saying ban guns or even supporting these gun control ideals I just don't think anyone except a trained officer of the law should be allowed to bring a gun into a school...

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

On the contrary, more guns MIGHT be the answer. Gun free zones invite gun violence.

 

According to the Crime Prevention Research Center, from the 1950’s through July 10th of 2016, 98.4 percent of mass shootings have occurred on gun-free zones, with just 1.6 percent occurring where citizens are allowed to have firearms with them.

 

[Thanatos 2,847]

I'm replying to both your posts regarding gun violence here, because I had to do some research.

 

The first part will be about John Lott, the man whose research you are frequently citing- he founded the Crime Prevention Research Center. He deserves his own post, really, because this man is also used by the GOP and the media as a whole, and he is an absolute scumbag.

 

John Lott is a far-right idealogue funded by the NRA and his idea that more guns = less gun violence was repudiated here, by the NAP.

 

Lott has been caught several times fudging the numbers to support his viewpoint. He appears to have completely fabricated one of the various gun studies he cites. He has also pulled a "Donald Trump"- he pretended to be a staffer of his and would post on various sites talking about how amazing he is.

 

Some other things he and his people have done just since founding CPRC:

 

1. Claimed to have published a peer reviewed study in a journal. In reality, the editor considered the paper, but ultimately rejected it and so it was not published. Here is the journal in question, you can check for yourself, no such paper is there. There is no way Lott was unaware of this, so here is another thing he lied about.

 

2. As your previous post talked about in regards to the frequency of shootings in Europe vs the US, this was also a claim made by the CPRC. It is absolutely false. They make up the numbers here- and even looking at his own data, the rate is actually double that of Europe per capita, contrary to what he claims in his conclusion. They are flat out lying.

 

This is, in addition, giving Lott and the CPRC 100% the benefit of the doubt that his numbers are accurate- and they are not. Lott has a set of criteria that a shooting must meet in order to qualify as a mass shooting, and they are... questionable, to say the least. Lott removes mass shootings that comes from burglaries and gang violence while keeping in terrorist attacks, while most experts in the field either do the opposite or at least include both. Obviously gun control laws aren't going to stop outside forces from staging a terror attack, but it will cut down on burglaries turning into multiple people being dead. Reversing what is included in your definition of a mass shooting seems to be done simply so that the numbers will back up his point.

 

3. Intentionally misread their OWN analysis (Table 3, page 7 in this link), to post a conclusion that did not fit with the facts they themselves admitted were true. They simply ignore it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of what is true. Merely because they do not bold the numbers does not mean they are not statistically significant.

 

4. Misrepresents the number of gun-free zones intentionally to make up the stat that you quoted- 98% of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones. Lott claims gun-free zones to be any area where concealed carry is not permitted and also where he feels it is difficult to get a CC permit. Even just reading his own paper, there are six mass shootings in the past six years that have taken place where citizens are allowed to carry guns. This would immediately put the lie to his claim of 98% of mass shootings being done in gun-free zones, but wait! There's more!

 

He also flat out lies about some of those same massacres in order to make more gun-free zones where gun massacres took place, even though those places were not actually gun-free zones. After the Oregon shooting in 2011, he lied about the school being a gun-free zone. It was not. Concealed carry was 100% allowed at Umpqua Community College, where the shooting took place.

 

He also lied about a 2010 shooting taking place in a gun-free zone where a man shot his wife and several others at a restaurant. Lott argued that because Florida law prohibits guns in places that primarily serve alcohol, that therefore this made the restaurant a gun-free zone. This is absurd. Merely because the place can serve drinks does not qualify it as primarily serving drinks. Florida's law did not apply here, its about bars mainly. Again, he knowingly lied about this to further fudge the numbers in his favor and come up with that utterly false statistic about 98% of gun massacres taking place in gun-free zones.

 

There's more, a lot, lot more. Suffice it to say, the CPRC and John Lott are not reliable sources in the least. They are proven liars and manipulators of the data, and anything that uses them as a source is immediately in question.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

So now part 2, actually addressing the arguments:

 

The GOP and NRA's insistence that arming teachers is the way to go is just bad. I thought this was an extreme right position when I first heard it, I did not realize republicans actually think this is an answer. They floated this after Newtown as well. It's just an extrapolation of "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun," which is factually false, as I'll get to in a minute.

 

I just want to point out first, though, we have been trying for years to get teachers funding for better classrooms, more teachers so we can have smaller class sizes and thus connect more with students, more materials to use for lesson planning, etc., and we can't get that to go through, but we're suddenly going to pony up the money for any teacher who wants to buy a gun and get relevant training on it? If you want to help teachers, give them funding for teaching, not for firearms.

 

As Milla pointed out, what happens when its a teacher who goes on a killing spree? If you give teachers guns, its only a matter of time till one of them snaps and this time they'd have a firearm on hand. Teachers are human beings too, there are bad ones and good ones.

 

I hear the argument "bad guys with a gun can only be stopped by good guys with a gun" used to justify armed citizens in more places. The fact of the matter is that less than 1% of all gun deaths comes about from someone using a gun in self-defense.

 

Owning a gun in your home makes it statistically more probable- by several orders of magnitude- that someone will be accidentally killed, that it will be stolen to use in a crime, or that it will be used by one of your own family against another, than used in self-defense against an invader.

 

The assertion that is implied- if we make school zones to no longer be gun-free zones then those shooters will go elsewhere- is highly unlikely. Even ignoring the fact that Lott and the CPRC fabricated data on this so the discrepancy is nowhere near 98% as has been claimed, there is no other venue where there is guaranteed to always be a large concentration of children. People who do mass shootings just to get their 15 minutes of fame will definitely target kids because that gives the most shock value. In addition, allowing students themselves to carry, even if we wait till during college, seems like a horrible idea. I don't know about you guys, but on my college there were several incidents where students went after each other physically. Introducing guns into the equation would just escalate the probability of a lethal incident.

 

Raising the minimum age required to own a gun is one of the things I think we should push in the US. Honestly would like to see it to around 25 years old as generally speaking, this is roughly when we are adults.

 

Speaking of the 15 minutes of fame thing, the media as a whole is despicable on this issue. Why do they tell us every single little detail of the killer and who they are? It simply encourages more mass shootings. We shouldn't even let people know the killer's name, they are a faceless thing that no longer has the right to be considered a human being. Focus on the victims and their lives, not on the killer and theirs.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Thanatos

[RazorStar 4,025]

"If your argument against gun control goes like this “what if a bad guy has a gun I need one to defend myself” then you’re already stating that a gun is a threat to the safety of those nearby. You’re tickling your ego by thinking you with your gun will be faster and smarter than the bad guy and frankly my life is not worth testing out your bullshit attitude. You already know guns are bad, you just think you with a gun is better. If they shoot you or you shoot them that’s the same number of people killed. You still believe guns are dangerous you just wanna feel cool idk what to tell you champ just stop sniffing the glue."