These Students will change US gun landscape

[Twilight Hue]

The article explains that 3-4 people were badly hurt in that crash, which is not terror related.

Your average stats suggest that 80 people got shot in the US today. Could we see 76 other incidents of car deaths? Please not that you can pick from the whole world for your stats, all we need to do is pick from US mass murders...... with fast-fire guns.

Oh I get it, its just mass murders in schools using guns.

Deaths outside the schools however are okay alright.

You win.

I'll back you on vilifying guns inside schools.

For the rest of the deaths, I will gladly post this....

117 Deaths Each Day

Oh wait a minute silly me those are 2004 statistics....

This is better...

A self-driving Uber car killed a pedestrian. Human drivers will kill 16 people today.

You win in schools, I win outside of schools. Hows that? A nice compromise.

 

[Brickjectivity]

People being afraid or liking guns isn't a good argument against gun control, fyi.

Not sure you are replying to my post. My post is about government seizure of guns as has happened in Australia and UK, not about gun control. We already have gun control regulations. In fact our Republican president surprised everybody by approving of new gun control regulations very recently. It seems he has God's blessing to do whatever he wishes.

 

[Augustus]

More sarcastic nonsense.

There is no need at all to go to such lengths as you describe, but as before I wont
make suggestions, and you seem uninterested in giving it even a moment's thought.

I gave it a moments thought and decided that, while there are many potential arguments for gun legality, claiming they are some form of harm reduction device that prevents people from seeking out more effective methods is nonsense.

There is plenty of evidence for this given there are many countries with very restrictive gun laws.

 

[oldbadger]

Lol. You seem surprised. Like I should be keeping a tally or something. I do not know how many mass school killings or school killings there have been since 2001. Are you really trying to take me to task for not knowing?

This debate is about the students of the USA who are demonstrating across the USA about the many mass shootings and other shootings that have been happening, so if you've come to this debate without any knowledge of their missions or complaints then, 'yes', I would be surprised.

 

[oldbadger]

Uh..No.

Audie, I didn't think for one moment that you would, (or could?) tell us how that 'home invasion' happened.

You would still be able to have a gun in the home if these student's wishes are met with (one day), but you just wouldn't be allowed to have a fast-firing gun in your home. But it's a good idea to secure your home properly in the first place, and somehow I doubt that you had done that, is all....

 

[oldbadger]

That is interesting, though IMHO, armed comercial security is a very different proposition than private individuals armed for "self defence".

Absolutely!
A frightened householder with a fast-fire gun could do some very dangerous things, in fact we see situations on 'real-life-telly' programs where such folks fire through their doors and walls as police are attending their 911 calls! Total Nutters!

Do you notice how some members tell us about the tragic 'home invasions' that happened to them in the past, but can't bring themselves to tell us how the baddies got in to their homes? I suspect that they've done nothing but buy a big gun to cuddle at night. Wives (and husbands) are much better for that....

 

[oldbadger]

There's been very little to respond to.

Then you've not got a telly.......... must still be sending smoke signals in the Detroit area.

School kids across the USA (with schoolkid-support in other countries!) are demonstrating for the common-sense of gun-control, something which (to a degree) you would support, but you say there's little to respond to. ????

Go outside and look..... you might see smoke on the horizon!

 

[oldbadger]

I would encourage people to buy or adopt dogs, real big one, not the little ones that yap away. Best home invasion security.

Fair enough, if big nasty dogs are acceptable in your yards, etc.

Over here we can't use 'em............. The Guard Dogs Act 75' banned the use of guard dogs roaming freely, or even on running traces....... they must have a dog handler present with them at all times, even on private ;premises. A child making his way along a wall fell down on the wrong side and got ripped to pieces, which motivated the legislation.

And some home owners make the mistake of putting up signs which read 'Guard-Dog', Dangerous-Dog' etc..... which they don't realise will automatically make them criminally responsible if their uncontrolled pets might bit an intruder.

A mate of mine who lives in a bungalow in the woods just uses passive infra red/micro-wave dual; technology detectors which activate lights and very loud, very nasty sounding growls and barks as a first line of defence, but most activations are foxes and badgers......... but it doesn't matter 'cos there are no neighbours and he is trippe glazed for sound attenuation.

 

[oldbadger]

...............................
This is better...

A self-driving Uber car killed a pedestrian. Human drivers will kill 16 people today.

You win in schools, I win outside of schools. Hows that? A nice compromise.

Yes, I read about the Uber car-death.
It seems that guns kill four times as many people each day as car-deaths, is that what your link shows?

I expect that attention will turn from child murders to the many other mass shootings which occur 'all the time', where fast-fire guns are used........... be patient.............. the youths of America are stirring.

 

[oldbadger]

Children are immature, obviously, and easily manipulated by authority figures such as teachers. Teachers are more liberal than society in general. It is high time that teachers stop using children to promote causes dear to teachers. It is morally wrong and disgusting. It is a form of child abuse.

Clearly you don't trust your teacher's professional abilities or characters.
But the abuse is all about fast-fire guns here. The children will soon be voters. Their opinions count already.

 

[oldbadger]

and even if someone DOES break in, past security screens, sensor lights and deadbolts... is there anything in your house worth killing over? Everything in my house is insured. At the end of the day, if someone were that determined to break in to take anything in my house, there's nothing worth killing anyone over. I've killed people before, and believe me, I would happily pay the insurance deductible if it meant I could have avoided it.

And before anyone pulls a "don't you care about your family?" card, once again, I don't believe in roving bands of evil doers intent on breaking in to stranger's homes with an intent to do harm. If anyone breaks in here, it's because they either want to rob the place, or we already know them and it's a personal issue. Either way, arming for fear of strangers doesn't apply in either case.

.....Exactly.
These people must dream up 'wrong-turn' and 'Freddie on Elm Street' nightmares as a justification for filling their homes with guns. It's as mad as buying torn jeans from Versace for twenty times more than good ones from the local cost-cutter store!

It's daft.

Home security must be a foreign language to some of these folks.

 

[oldbadger]

Mandatory insurance with firearms, like cars, would help this.

Yes....
And if you cannot get insurance (bad risk?) then you shouldn't be able to get the licence.

Insurance, home safe for all guns, random home inspections, etc..... all good.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes....
And if you cannot get insurance (bad risk?) then you shouldn't be able to get the licence.

Insurance, home safe for all guns, random home inspections, etc..... all good.

Licensing and testing by a central authority... pretty much the same deal as cars

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Fair enough, if big nasty dogs are acceptable in your yards, etc.

Over here we can't use 'em............. The Guard Dogs Act 75' banned the use of guard dogs roaming freely, or even on running traces....... they must have a dog handler present with them at all times, even on private ;premises. A child making his way along a wall fell down on the wrong side and got ripped to pieces, which motivated the legislation.

And some home owners make the mistake of putting up signs which read 'Guard-Dog', Dangerous-Dog' etc..... which they don't realise will automatically make them criminally responsible if their uncontrolled pets might bit an intruder.

A mate of mine who lives in a bungalow in the woods just uses passive infra red/micro-wave dual; technology detectors which activate lights and very loud, very nasty sounding growls and barks as a first line of defence, but most activations are foxes and badgers......... but it doesn't matter 'cos there are no neighbours and he is trippe glazed for sound attenuation.

I have this guy in my yard. He has the personality of a teddy bear, but he's 40 kg of highly excitable erzats-wolf and his happy-to-see-you bark when anyone comes into his yard is louder and deeper than most muscle cars. He's not a guard dog in the rip-you-apart sense, but with him in the yard, I'm pretty confident any would be home invader will be deterred. That isn't why we got him, but I offer this as a counter argument to the people who insist that they need a gun to feel safe. Indeed, his reaction time is a lot better than mine. If some random evil doer tried to break in, he'd be on them in seconds, making more noise than a landing helicopter. If it was down to me and my guns, I might wake up within an hour or two of the home invader leaving with the last of our valuables.

 

[sayak83]

Fair enough, if big nasty dogs are acceptable in your yards, etc.

Over here we can't use 'em............. The Guard Dogs Act 75' banned the use of guard dogs roaming freely, or even on running traces....... they must have a dog handler present with them at all times, even on private ;premises. A child making his way along a wall fell down on the wrong side and got ripped to pieces, which motivated the legislation.

And some home owners make the mistake of putting up signs which read 'Guard-Dog', Dangerous-Dog' etc..... which they don't realise will automatically make them criminally responsible if their uncontrolled pets might bit an intruder.

A mate of mine who lives in a bungalow in the woods just uses passive infra red/micro-wave dual; technology detectors which activate lights and very loud, very nasty sounding growls and barks as a first line of defence, but most activations are foxes and badgers......... but it doesn't matter 'cos there are no neighbours and he is trippe glazed for sound attenuation.

I have seen Labrador, German Shephard, Huskies etc. It would be a brave robber indeed to get past them.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Mine's safer, thank you very much. In all fairness, I have advised many of my clients not to purchase a firearm for one simple reason--they weren't ready to take another human life even in protecting their own. As harsh as this sounds, if you hesitate, you die. And you may very well die. That's the world we live in and no amount of legislation is going to change it.

I don't mistake paranoia for safety. Sure one of the spiders you kill could be a hobo spider, but chances are not listening to the data means you're causing way more harm than helping.
The 'if you don't get a gun you're not safe, protect your home and family better with a gun!' Is neither borne by evidence nor doing much to help our toxic gun culture cowboy fantasy.

 

[Curious George]

This debate is about the students of the USA who are demonstrating across the USA about the many mass shootings and other shootings that have been happening, so if you've come to this debate without any knowledge of their missions or complaints then, 'yes', I would be surprised.

How is not knowing the answer to a specific question lead to a conclusion that I have no knowledge of their "mission" or complaints?

 

[BSM1]

I don't mistake paranoia for safety. Sure one of the spiders you kill could be a hobo spider, but chances are not listening to the data means you're causing way more harm than helping.
The 'if you don't get a gun you're not safe, protect your home and family better with a gun!' Is neither borne by evidence nor doing much to help our toxic gun culture cowboy fantasy.

You can believe whatever gets you through the night, but I have never said this. As a matter of fact, if you read my other posts you will see that I have advise others not to have a weapon in the home. It is not "paranoia" or "cowboy fantasy" it's taking responsibility for your own and your family's safety; you might be the only defense you have. If you have an aversion to at least having a shot (no pun intended) at fighting back, so be it. However, I don't ever want to have a Tee shirt in my closet that says "Victim".

 

[Audie]

Audie, I didn't think for one moment that you would, (or could?) tell us how that 'home invasion' happened.

You would still be able to have a gun in the home if these student's wishes are met with (one day), but you just wouldn't be allowed to have a fast-firing gun in your home. But it's a good idea to secure your home properly in the first place, and somehow I doubt that you had done that, is all....

It was not a " " invasion, nor was it my fault. What kind of man are you?

I have had to retell each awful detail many times. I certainly am able to do so, unpleasant as it has heen

Your request for exact details seemed off some way, and my instinct not to supply
you with any information was certainly correct. You so plainly reveal that your only interest was
to find a mean spirited way to exploit my misfortune for your own purposes.

I dont want synpathy, I dont expect compassion or understanding.

But you-

Maybe you are too old and set to see yourself clearly. I hope not, surely
you dont have to be like that.

 

[Curious George]

It was not a " " invasion, nor was it my fault. What kind of man are you?

I have had to retell each awful detail many times. I certainly am able to do so, unpleasant as it has heen

Your request for exact details seemed off some way, and my instinct not to supply
you with any information was certainly correct. You so plainly reveal that your only interest was
to find a mean spirited way to exploit my misfortune for your own purposes.

I dont want synpathy, I dont expect compassion or understanding.

But you-

Maybe you are too old and set to see yourself clearly. I hope not, surely
you dont have to be like that.

To be fair, trauma informed care was probably not a thing for badger. That said, I believe he is coming at it from a standpoint of home defense. He will endeavor to pick apart what else you could have done in order to suggest that the gun was unnecessary.

You absolutely should not have to go over the details. His point could have been made without asking personal questions. You should be entitled to take reasonable measures to take care of your own personal security.