Have you got a gun/would you kill someone?

Superpowers don't get invaded . They go around poking their noses in other nations' backyards intimidating them . That's why they are called superpowers . Yeah the banning of guns may affect this aggro attitude.

Anyway I am not posting further on this thread. Made my points.

I don't live in a country where you are allowed to own a gun like in America. If I lived in a country where you could own a gun, I wouldn't own one but I would like to go and learn how to shoot and get to know different guns in order to be able to know how to handle one properly in case a situation comes up - for example a terrorist attack and I manage to get a gun off one of the terrorists and then have a better chance of shooting him and deal with the gun.

And yes, I would kill someone if my life or another innocent person's life was in danger. See above.

Call me ol' fashioned, but I still believe in my fists, and can't stand a coward who'd use a weapon....

I've actually gone the opposite way... When I was 18, I'd say I was anti-gun, and not only because of the stats, but I've lived abroad. However, when you have this many guns in the US (330 million), some reluctant people like me might want to have a gun just to be on the same level as those around him. Personally, regardless of future crime rates, I wouldn't spend the cash, or go through that paranoia of death when I already live in a violent city. At 35, I don't value my life that much where I'd have to go through the trouble of coming up with a lot of cash.

However, if there are any laws passed, I just hope there isn't too much liberty lost; I would rather live in a more dangerous country than constantly giving the state more power (e.g. - Patriot Act). I think people with a record of mental health would unjustly be watched more.

I've also grown to dislike trends that become trivial.. I'm sure there are a few sincere folks, but I see a lot of opportunists and bandwagons, too...

"Now is the time" -- wasn't it time before? Does it have anything to do with the fact that the average income in Parkland is $275,000/yr?... Speaking of money, some people might be looking to cash in, get their "social" media attention. I might believe more if there was a march for homeless people. If these people are so pro-life, where were they when their Democratic President bombed the hell out of civilians in multiple countries?

I own guns. Mostly they are collectible and valuable. I don't like violence and I'm not a gun nut. If anything I'm more a Libertarian, which I guess might just make me a nut

I would like to address my opinions on gun control, the current youth marches and potential causes of school shootings. But I won't go into all of that as I don't want to be off topic. Maybe somebody could make a broader thread on the subject(s).

I own a semi-automatic .22, and I've had it since my dad gave it to me as a birthday present when I was like 13-15 (can't remember). I thought at the time it was a dumb gift, I mean he knew then I hated guns. LOL, I even remember him handing me the unwrapped box and saying, "I know you don't like guns, but I always wanted one when I was your age..."

I've shot it maybe 10 times in my life and the last time I did that was probably 20 or more years ago. It is still in its box, stacked somewhere in the abyss that is my garage. That's GaEH-rodge for you non-U.S. English folk.

Funny enough, I've toyed with the idea of buying another rifle or two, and maybe a handgun. Mostly that's due to nostalgia as a reminder of my grandpa that passed about two years back. I'm talking bolt-action, single-fire types. The handgun is more for novelty sake, but doubt I will ever bother. I mean the moment I save up enough for a good sidearm, I think I'd rather buy a guitar or some other music gear.

I honestly cannot imagine using such a weapon to take a life. Even in self-defense. That's a loaded question to answer (no pun intended, btw). I've always been about principle. If I die for principles that I believe in, then I am OK with that. If I die in the defense of others or loved ones, then I am OK with that too. I'm not sure I could take a life to save my own, but I also believe that the either/or scenario is a rare one mostly used to justify one extreme position, so I'm not sure that is a very realistic example to argue (IMO). To even answer the question, I'd have to imagine myself in a situation that to me is well on the outside of probability.

I Imagine it would take considerable training and discipline to use a firearm effectively under stress. More so to maintain a level of restraint to not fire blindly in a knee-jerk reaction. Not that I'm against such training. I would prefer that be a requirement for licensing, but that's a bit off topic.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

Now give me a Korean sword and I will happily slice up a pack of wild zombies, no questions. I've always fancied myself a Batman/ninja type, lurking in the shadows. The idea of guns just sorta ruins that imagine, to be honest.

You had me at Batman.

This dude is probably my favourite person in WWII - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Churchill

He fought in World War 2 with a sword and bagpipes He was quickly captured and he was only kept alive coz the Japanese believed he was related to Winston...no relation

To those who know nothing about some of the reasons the U.S. has so much gun violence and there are protests happening now.
1. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (in full) - "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
2. Running total of Current Gun Violence in America for 2018
3. For more - there's plenty of complexities and excuses involved.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I'm American and I do not own a gun, nor would I ever buy one.

And I don't know if I would kill someone if I had to (in self defense or in defense of others). I don't think that's something I could know until I'm in that situation. I hope I never find out.

__________________

Okay, asked OP, said they didn't mind this being about the larger issue. So:

I think they're mostly undercutting themselves by carelessly tossing out comically Manichean rhetoric. Hogg, for example, has said the NRA and the people who support them "want to keep killing our children" and "they could have blood from children spattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they will still see those dollar signs." Not that they're wrong, or misinterpreting the second amendment, or that the cost is too high or needs to be balanced with safety. No, they want it to happen because of money.

Same idea with the whole price tag on the microphone bit. I can't help but appreciate the fact that the supposed cost of this freedom, measured that way, literally ended up being a buck-oh-five, but it was pure demagoguery. And it's demagoguery even if you think they're right.

This is all wildly counterproductive to their stated goal of common sense gun reform, given that they seem to disproportionately lay into the Rubios of the world, IE: the guys actually showing up and trying to advance some kind of compromise. It's exactly the kind of political activism you'd expect to see from kids: short-sighted and overwrought. It prioritizes the expression of outrage over policy advancement, and continues to do so even when it may poison the well and prevent the thing they're ostensibly demanding.

I realize the NRA is a convenient boogieman, but they don't wield some inexplicable or disproportionate influence on the political process through sabotage or bribery. They have a lot of power because there are a lot of gun owners, and they care about this issue. They have political power for the exact reason you are, in theory, supposed to have political power in a democracy: they represent what a whole lot of people want.

Yes to both questions.

Perhaps a prerequisite training course in gun safety would be appropriate for ownership.

Of course, the problem, as with all controls, is that criminals aren't going to abide by laws and will find illegal ways to obtain arms that bypass all the controls.

Considering the poisonous ultra extremist rhetoric that’s been coming from the NRA for decades I have no issues with those comments because they sure make it LOOK like they care about gun profits more than kids lives. Lets not condemn frustrated terrified kids for saying what seems obvious to them because they are afraid of being shot in their class rooms and no adult seems willing to do anything about it. And frankly the rhetoric has worked wonderfully on the right so why not some equal time on the left. If that’s not the case then the NRA should come out and say something other than we should do nothing about school shootings except arm teachers.

Remember when the NRA actually supported certain kinds of gun control measures? Before the paranoids and the extremists took over and decided they were going to insist on the banning of government research on gun violence and oppose even the meekest of gun regulation policies as an attempt to “confiscate all our guns!!!”? Well the NRA has become a pseudo criminal syndicate as far as Im concerned. Profiteers of death. No better than the Tobacco lobby was before its back was broken in the 90’s. And if they don’t wield “disproportionate influence” then why do politicians routinely kill legislation that something like 85% of the country supports? How does that make sense?

And I commend Rubio for appearing at that debate and bearing the brunt of the rage from the people who are sick of politicians who wont protect them because they don’t want to cross the gun lobby. Most of his peers are cowards who don’t want to even talk about gun control at all. But I share Hoggs dubiousness and frustration. Its at the point now that if you take a dime from the NRA you should be on a VOTE OUT list as far as Im concerned. NRA money needs to become politically toxic. If you get an F rating from the NRA you have my vote. I plan to use that system in November. And I find more and more people thinking the very same way lately. Even gun owners. Just talked to a life long member (former military) who cancelled his membership because he despises what the NRA has become. THAT’S the ticket to change. Not the lefties screaming. The quiet gun owning americans washing their hands of the extremist death cult that the NRA has become.

Now as far as LIGHT SABER control... Watch out! The Empire would love to take away all our Jedi tools of combat!

__________________
Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish ladies...

Thinking the other side is the one with all the extremist rhetoric, or the one that always wins because they're more cutthroat, is the political equivalent of a sports fan thinking the other team is getting all the calls. Everybody thinks this.

Seems to me the only way to combat that is to disavow all of it even if you feel like the other side does it more/did it first/does it worse/whatever. Otherwise, I don't see a difference between this and the "whataboutism" coming from this administration and its supporters.

See, even this, as over-the-top as it is, is still actually more nuanced than what Hogg said! He said they want it to happen, don't care at all, et cetera. And there's been a pretty consistent failure to distinguish between figureheads at the NRA and politicians or members, too, which is part of what I'm getting at.

Excusing what they say because they're frightened kids is fine, but it also precludes someone from holding them up as meaningful activists advancing serious arguments.

You'll have to be more specific if you want a more specific response, but generally, abstract polls about contentious issues don't actually measure support well. They'll tell us, for example, that people support both lower taxes and more social services, even though the two are mutually exclusive. Saying "most people support X when asked independent of all the counterarguments people might make against it" isn't meaningful. That's not how we make laws, or even how we're supposed to make them: we make them by publicly and animatedly debating them.

This is particularly true when you poll something really broad like "gun control," which means wildly different things to different people. Particularly when many people seem to have no idea what is or isn't illegal already.

Agreed! So isn't it incredibly stupid that he's getting more flack than everyone else? Isn't that dumb, even from a completely Machiavellian perspective? And isn't it foolish and cynical, then, to elevate teenage victims, knowing that they'd probably do exactly this, because it might make for better optics?

I'm not into arguing with people, so I won't try to match your verbosity with similar but opposing rhetoric. I would try to discuss with you, if you're open to that? I didn't follow what the student protesters said or what the response to them was? So all I can respond to is your comments on the NRA.

I'm not a NRA member. I image they are so stead fast in their beliefs because they feel well meaning but misinformed people want to take away their rights to own guns in an attempt to deal with school shootings. I'd bet the NRA would respond to you by saying banning gun ownership from law abiding citizens won't stop the deranged from killing people.

Personal I don't think it's possible to ban all gun ownership in America anyway so talk of that doesn't really help deal with future school shootings.

You know what would? Zero Tolerance for school bullying.

Bullying, taunting & harassing is a way of life at school, and it needs to stop, NOW. Ending school bullying wouldn't completely stop school shootings, but it would go further than any band-aid gun ban law would in ending the carnage.

This word feels familiar...

Guns don't kill people, *I* do.

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

Sounds pretty but the problem is the other team has been playing that game for decades and its paid off in spades for them. So to say to the frustrated reasonable people who just want some common sense sane measures taken that ‘now now, play fair even though the other side has played dirty ball all this time and its worked’ is a bit disingenuous to me. Maybe more than a bit. And this is more about calling out the NRA specifically for what it is. Not about castigating the huge majority of hunters and gun owners who are reasonable decent people. Just the criminal syndicate that has fooled those people into thinking they are representing their rights and not using them as political fodder to enrich the gun manufacturers. So Im fully in support of demonizing the NRA at this point because trying to have a voice in the discussion hasn’t worked at all. They’ve twisted and lied and blackmailed and threatened their way to a strangle hold on the American political system that has allowed a fully and obviously insane guns-at-all-costs-with-no-restrictions mentality to flourish. And Im on on board with a scorched earth political approach in regards to the NRA (where you get voted out simply based on taking money from the NRA) because the NRA has been doing exactly the same with their rating system since the 80’s. Im definitely at the “by any means necessary” point on this topic because the alternative of shrugging our shoulders every time theres a mass shooting and every time a wacko takes an AR-15 to a class full of 1st graders seems insane to me.


As noted, my focus is the NRA. Not the average gun owner. Not the weekend hunter. They are more and more rejecting the rhetoric of the NRA as being less and less in touch with them and more and more an obvious front for insanity and greed. And yes I fully agree that politically embracing those gun owners and differentiating them from the wackos and the death dealers is paramount to making a movement work. I know Ive heard some of those kids say exactly that so I think they understand that as well.


No more than having your first grader shot in his class room precludes emotional grieving parents from having any say on gun legislation because its only for "level headed unemotional adults"... Nonsense. They are the face thats going to make this movement work. And can you blame them? They dont think anyone else will do it since theyve failed to for decades so they think their only alternative is to do it themselves. More power to them. Will they sometimes come off sounding like scared kids? Sure. But this is life and death. This isnt a discussion about excise taxes. And they arent going to take 'be quiet and go back to the kids table' as a response to getting shot at. And anyway in a blink of an eye these kids are going to be in their 20's and 30's and voting by the millions. Better listen to them now...


The 85% figure was about people supporting background checks I believe. Universal background checks for ALL purchases federally applied. And 72% support policies requiring people who want to buy or sell guns to obtain a license first which is a state by state issue right now. 70% of respondents even support letting law enforcement remove guns from a person's home in cases where they're considered a threat to another person. 70% also support some restrictions on assault rifles. And this is of course all stuff the NRA opposes. But significant majorities (including gun owners!) support it. And we get no where with that kind of stuff. Why?

I think its predictable that he caught flack that night (not sure about more than anyone else). I dont necessarily feel sorry for him though. Although he has back tracked some, he was still part of the problem for a long time. He was still willing to take NRA money and toe their line that allowed tragedies like this to happen. So its no surprise those kids would be furious with him. Maybe he does a full 180 in which case he should be embraced for doing so. But lets see what he does first. And lets give him credit if he does.

But almost nobody is saying we need to ban gun ownership. What most people who want a change in the country's gun policies are saying is that just need some sane reasonable laws about background checks and assault rifles and huge magazine availability and bump stocks etc. But that pouring MORE guns onto an avalanche of guns is never going to make the situation better. Are you surprised thats the NRA's response to school shootings? That we should arm teachers with hundreds of thousands of MORE guns? Guess who gains profits from that...

Im fully in support. And related to that we need more focus on counseling and recognizing problematic situations involving kids who slip through the cracks. We need to tighten those cracks. The real tragedy about this recent Florida school shooting is that the kid had impending explosion written all over him. So many failures lead to this. So many people and groups dropped the ball. To ignore kids who glaringly and obviously need help because we dont like to spend the money it takes to be preventive is about the most unforgivable of sins I can imagine.

And people haven't been suggesting they have blood on their hands for decades? Like I said: everyone thinks this. With any opposing groups of significant size it's really easy to spotlight the extreme rhetoric and pretend it's emblematic on one side while dismissing similar examples on the other as isolated incidents not indicative of the movement.

Also, let's be clear, "that game" in this context is people suggesting that they don't care kids are dead, so it's not an example of playing "that game" to just take a firmer stand on gun control than you think is reasonable. The appropriate comparison would be gun rights advocates saying that gun control advocates want their homes to be invaded and their family raped and murdered.

Serious question: was there a Republican you even might have voted for otherwise? Because I can't imagine anyone taking this stance who wasn't going to vote against all of them anyway.

As far as I can tell this is a total non-sequitur. Nobody said victims or grieving parents did not have "any say on gun legislation." What was said was that you can't hold these teenagers up as serious activists advancing serious arguments one second, but then let them off the hook for any falsehoods or hyperbole because they're "frightened kids."

Exactly. This is the real reason. It's not that they're making good, new, or even coherent arguments. It's just that people think the optics of arguing with them are bad, so it's politically useful to elevate them. Far from being a defense of this, pointing out that they're scared kids just highlights how cynical and damaging this elevation is.

Yeah, gun owners think of it as life and death, too. Every political issue on the national stage is life and death, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend that anyone who disagrees likes dead people. That's obscene.

And as a thought experiment, every time you make an argument like this, replace "gun control" with "abortion restrictions" and "NRA" with "Planned Parenthood" and see if you feel the same way.

They don't have to go back to the kids table, they just don't get to come to the adult's table and keep playing by kid's table rules.

Teenagers are always considerably more liberal than their parents, yet somehow the massive wave of policy changes either never materializes, or ends up diluted and different by the time they all start voting. Why, it's almost as if growing up shows you that the world's problems aren't actually simple or easy to solve.

If you could cite some of these numbers, I'd be happy to reply more specifically, though I've already explained how one-sided polling on single issues is a demonstrably poor way to measure actual political support.

I think it's a good general rule to be very skeptical of any belief that is too self-serving or too psychologically comforting. And the idea that almost everybody agrees with us, but an evil group is sabotaging some easily achievable social progress even though almost everybody wants it, definitely qualifies. It's borderline conspiratorial.

Let's give him credit if he does a "full 180"? There's nothing magnanimous about saying you'll give credit to your political opponents if only they would completely surrender. How about giving them credit when they show up, listen to the disagreements, argue from principle, and openly discuss and advance compromises? Because that's literally what he's doing, and as I pointed out, he's getting more flack for it, not less.

This can't be brushed off as some incidental unfortunate byproduct of the debate: it is the direct and inevitable result of the this-is-life-and-death, scorched earth politics you're defending here. You keep asking why, why there isn't more progress on this front, while simultaneously defending people laying into the leaders who actually work to forge a compromise because they refuse to change their minds completely. Seems like there might be a connection there, eh?