"National Walk-Out Day"

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2018, 05:26 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: That was my comment about the organizers..  And, there certainly must have been organizers.  After all it was the National Walk-Out Day, not just some random, spontaneous, homogenized actions by some school kids wanting to draw attention to gun violence.   

Of course their were adult organizers. As I said: I have a special loathe for adults that manipulate children to do their bidding. I appreciate that my disgust might be greater than most. As I thought that Potty Mouth Princess was one of the most manipulative and absolutely disgusting examples I have ever seen, while most on here applauded it.

Perhaps I am naive; however, I feel it is our duty to protect the innocence of our children. This comes from witnessing cultures that remove that innocence. I do not blame one child that walked out. 

[Dill]

(03-15-2018, 08:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm guilty. As an American Government teacher, I have influenced hundreds of children over the past 7 years by teaching them ways in which they're legally allowed to protest, both in and out of school, and ways administration can and cannot punishment for doing that. 

I have empowered them to discover their personal political leanings and to express themselves on a multitude of issues visually, verbally, and written. 

So when our 600 or so students walked out, hundreds of them were made aware of their political rights and given an oppurtunity to voice themselves in the past as part of my curriculum. 

I am that awful activist teacher manipulating children into knowing what their rights as Americans are. God damn common core. 

See, that is what I am talking about. We cannot make America great again without a compliant work force.

Except for the 2nd Amendment, teachers should not be allowed to inject their leftist personal beliefs about fundamental political rights and representative government into the classroom.

Schools need to focus on reading, writing, and math, and then leave it to students' employers to help them understand who to vote for and what to protest.  :andy:

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2018, 06:54 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Baloney.    That is a myth perpetuated by the anti-gun crowd.


https://mises.org/wire/there-are-fewer-school-shootings-now-during-1990s

No it isn't.  They are just using statistical cherry picking.  In the '90's when there was a lot more gang violence there were more shootings at schools, but these usually involved very small numbers and the victims were targeted for a reason (usually gang membership).

However if you just look at the number of shootings were at least 4 people were shot at a school here is what is happening

1990's........................15
2000's........................15
8 years of the 2010's...27

Don't just blindly believe something just because it supports your side of the argument.


Stop letting children get shot just because your political party tells you nothing is wrong.

[GMDino]

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/

Quote:Why Can't the U.S. Treat Gun Violence as a Public-Health Problem?
A 1996 bill has had a chilling effect on the CDC’s ability to research firearms.


After a deadly shooting, the debate always, it seems, breaks down like this: One side argues for gun control, and the other argues there is no research proving those measures work. There is, in fact, little research into gun violence at all—especially compared to other causes of death in the United States.

The modern origins of the impasse can be traced to 1996, when Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to “advocate or promote gun control.”


The National Rifle Association had pushed for the amendment, after public-health researchers produced a spate of studies suggesting that, for example, having a gun in the house increased risk of homicide and suicide. It deemed the research politically motivated. Gun-rights advocates zeroed in on statements like that of Mark Rosenberg, then the director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In response to the early ’90s crime wave, Rosenberg had said in 1994, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes ... It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol—cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.”


The actual amendment sponsored by Jay Dickey, a congressman from Arkansas, did not explicitly forbid research into gun-related deaths, just advocacy. But the Congress also lowered the CDC’s budget by the exact amount it spent on such research. Message received. It’s had a chilling effect on the entire field for decades.


Medical and public-health professionals have been pushing back—more and more forcefully in recent years. The American Public Health Association and the American Medical Association have both taken to calling gun violence a public-health problem. In 2016, more than 100 medical organizations signed a letter to Congress asking to lift the Dickey Amendment.


“We in public health count dead people. It’s one of the things we do. And we count them in order to understand how to prevent preventable deaths,” Nancy Krieger, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told NPR in 2015.


The CDC is best known for fighting diseases—it’s in the name—but its public-health purview is indeed wider. The agency studies drownings, accidental falls, traumatic brain injuries, car crashes, suicides, and more. And while mass shootings grab headlines, they account for only a small fraction of the 30,000 gun deaths a year in the United States. More than half are suicides. Yet the 1996 amendment has restricted how much the CDC can focus on gun ownership as the risk factor in suicides.

Researchers who do want to study gun violence have cobbled together funding from a patchwork of sources, often from private foundations. President Obama signed an executive order directing the National Institutes of Health to fund research into gun violence after the Sandy Hook shooting, but the program has since petered out.

RELATED STORY



Americans Don't Really Understand Gun Violence

The problem, researchers say, is also a lack of data. While motor-vehicle deaths are tracked in minute detail in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, no such comparable database exists for gun deaths. Basic questions like exactly how many households own guns are not definitively answered.


Dickey, the congressman responsible for the amendment suppressing the CDC’s gun violence research, passed away last April. He had come to regret his role in the episode. In 2012, he coauthored a Washington Post op-ed with Rosenberg, the very CDC official he squared off against when passing the amendment. Together, they argued for more gun-violence research.
Dickey told reporters, “I wish I had not been so reactionary.”

The NRA does not want the data known so they can continue to create their own narrative void of facts that they do not like.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2018, 08:31 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Also a myth perpetuated by Trump. He claimed crime was rampant when we're at some of our lowest levels in highest.

Very true.  Also true is that the number of firearms in private hands skyrocketed during the same period of time that violent crime was dropping. 

Quote:Not to use this as a "whataboutism" but to point out that we need to all agreed that we're safer now than we have been in a long time.

I've been saying this for years on this and the old board.  I've also pointed out that you're more likely to die in a car crash or getting out of the shower then you are in a mass shooting.  This simple fact hasn't done anything to reduce the outrage we've seen in the past month.

Quote:That said, there is data to suggest that since the assault rifle ban has expired, mass shootings are up. 

I think you'd have a hard time tying the expiration of the ban as the cause of these shootings.  Much like any copy cat crime, a sick individual looking for fame will follow the example of another who achieved it.

Quote:But all of that aside, this is why, as a teacher, my focus post Parkland has been support services for teachers, schools, and students. We need the kids who are falling through the cracks and contemplate self harm, suicide, or mass shootings. Arm me with support services, not a hand gun. I don't need metal detectors, I need counselors and social workers. 

This is an outstanding response.  If the efforts of these kids were focused in that direction then they'd have the entire country and both houses of Congress behind them.  it's a shame they chose to focus on the tool used to kill instead of the reasons why this person decided killing was a viable, even preferable, option.

(03-19-2018, 01:18 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/gun-violence-public-health/553430/



The NRA does not want the data known so they can continue to create their own narrative void of facts that they do not like.

Of perhaps they don't want tax payer funds used to advance an anti-2A agenda?  What was it Twain said about statistics?  In any event Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire, he could fund such a study out of his own pocket and not even notice.  He claims that limiting gun ownership is his goal, why not facilitate the research to back his agenda?

[GMDino]

(03-19-2018, 02:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very true.  Also true is that the number of firearms in private hands skyrocketed during the same period of time that violent crime was dropping. 





I've been saying this for years on this and the old board.  I've also pointed out that you're more likely to die in a car crash or getting out of the shower then you are in a mass shooting.  This simple fact hasn't done anything to reduce the outrage we've seen in the past month.



I think you'd have a hard time tying the expiration of the ban as the cause of these shootings.  Much like any copy cat crime, a sick individual looking for fame will follow the example of another who achieved it.


This is an outstanding response.  If the efforts of these kids were focused in that direction then they'd have the entire country and both houses of Congress behind them.  it's a shame they chose to focus on the tool used to kill instead of the reasons why this person decided killing was a viable, even preferable, option.


Of perhaps they don't want tax payer funds used to advance an anti-2A agenda?  What was it Twain said about statistics?  In any event Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire, he could fund such a study out of his own pocket and not even notice.  He claims that limiting gun ownership is his goal, why not facilitate the research to back his agenda?

Not sure why it is anti-2A to have the actual statistics about gun death and gun violence like we do other deaths.  Heck, maybe it would show guns aren't the boogeymen man some people say they are?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 02:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not sure why it is anti-2A to have the actual statistics about gun death and gun violence like we do other deaths.

I believe I covered this with my point about Twain's quote.

Quote:  Heck, maybe it would show guns aren't the boogeymen man some people say they are?

I'm not sure what they would find that would sway the opinion of the people on either side of this issue.  On one side you have people who claim that owning firearms is guaranteed by our founding documents.  On the other you have people who say that you do not have this right.  There is, of course, considerable middle ground, such as to what degree, and with what firearms, the second amendment covers.

There is no denying that private firearms ownership means more people will die from gunfire.  There is equally no denying that allowing cars to exceed 75 MPH means more people will die in automobile crashes.  The only debate is to what extent the freedom to own a firearm, or have a car that can go faster than the speed limit, exceeds the extra lives that will be lost because of it.

As I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility, and our rights as US citizens, I don't think that the ~2,500 people murdered every year who were not criminals killed by other criminals or people killed by the police are sufficient cause for me and other gun owners to lose our civil rights.  In the same vein I don't think hate speakers like Spencer or Farrakhan necessitate my losing my right to free speech.  You want freedom, the cost is less safety. 


I've made this point before, but I'll reiterate.  Law enforcement could end organized, and gang related, crime in under a month if you suspended 4th amendment rights.  I don't hear anyone advocating for this, so having rights over safety does appear to be a priority for many of our citizens.

[GMDino]

(03-19-2018, 02:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe I covered this with my point about Twain's quote.

Do you feel the same about other studies like cancer and lead paint for example?

We don't even HAVE the statistics...and get them due to NRA interference...hard to pass judgement on them.

(03-19-2018, 02:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm not sure what they would find that would sway the opinion of the people on either side of this issue.  On one side you have people who claim that owning firearms is guaranteed by our founding documents.  On the other you have people who say that you do not have this right.  There is, of course, considerable middle ground, such as to what degree, and with what firearms, the second amendment covers.

There is no denying that private firearms ownership means more people will die from gunfire.  There is equally no denying that allowing cars to exceed 75 MPH means more people will die in automobile crashes.  The only debate is to what extent the freedom to own a firearm, or have a car that can go faster than the speed limit, exceeds the extra lives that will be lost because of it.

As I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility, and our rights as US citizens, I don't think that the ~2,500 people murdered every year who were not criminals killed by other criminals or people killed by the police are sufficient cause for me and other gun owners to lose our civil rights.  In the same vein I don't think hate speakers like Spencer or Farrakhan necessitate my losing my right to free speech.  You want freedom, the cost is less safety. 

I totally agree that freedom vs safety. Much like all the new regulations to fly...in exchange for safety we have given up some freedom. Or in the spying the US is doing on its own citizens.

I just will never understand why something simple like national registration is so feared by a group. I mean I get the paranoid fear that eventually something bad will happen to them, but it seems silly when we have registration already for so many things.

(03-19-2018, 02:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've made this point before, but I'll reiterate.  Law enforcement could end organized, and gang related, crime in under a month if you suspended 4th amendment rights.  I don't hear anyone advocating for this, so having rights over safety does appear to be a priority for many of our citizens.

Given the abuses already with illegal search and seizure maybe support for that is gonna be hard to gather up. Not sure why that's brought up in a 2A discussion though.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-19-2018, 02:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you feel the same about other studies like cancer and lead paint for example?

We don't even HAVE the statistics...and get them due to NRA interference...hard to pass judgement on them.



I totally agree that freedom vs safety.  Much like all the new regulations to fly...in exchange for safety we have given up some freedom.  Or in the spying the US is doing on its own citizens.

I just will never understand why something simple like national registration is so feared by a group.  I mean I get the paranoid fear that eventually something bad will happen to them, but it seems silly when we have registration already for so many things.



Given the abuses already with illegal search and seizure maybe support for that is gonna be hard to gather up.  Not sure why that's brought up in a 2A discussion though.

It's brought up as an example of freedom versus safety where we have opted for freedom.

[GMDino]

(03-19-2018, 03:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's brought up as an example of freedom versus safety where we have opted for freedom.

But there have been clear, lea gal abuses of the 4A...by the people responsible for upholding the law.  

Nothing close to that has happened with the 2A.

Heck, the 4A helps with the 2A as we can't just randomly search houses for guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 02:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Do you feel the same about other studies like cancer and lead paint for example?

We don't even HAVE the statistics...and get them due to NRA interference...hard to pass judgement on them.

No, for a very simple reason, no one is trying to give people cancer or put lead in your paint.  Well, I'm sure there are corporations who would trade either for a certain profit margin, but there is no one advocating for either from a political standpoint.  Let's put it this way, do you agree that the results of such a CDC study would slanted by the party in power at the time of release?

Quote:I totally agree that freedom vs safety.  Much like all the new regulations to fly...in exchange for safety we have given up some freedom.  Or in the spying the US is doing on its own citizens.

I just will never understand why something simple like national registration is so feared by a group.  I mean I get the paranoid fear that eventually something bad will happen to them, but it seems silly when we have registration already for so many things.

I'll pose the same question to you that I did Fred in an earlier thread.  Would you be amenable to a law that made collection of DNA for a national database mandatory at birth?  The argument for such a registry would be significant.  We could identify bodies easily which would make solving murders easier.  We could identify a criminal by DNA left at the scene and immediately seek them out for arrest.  We could even easily prove paternity, enabling us to catch a rapist that otherwise left no collectible evidence.  See no drawbacks to such a database?  There are likely millions of US citizens who would disagree with you. 

Quote:Given the abuses already with illegal search and seizure maybe support for that is gonna be hard to gather up.  Not sure why that's brought up in a 2A discussion though.

Because we've decided that letting a criminal continue to commit crime is more important than giving law enforcement sweeping powers, i.e. people will be victimized and die because of this right.  People will be raped, children will be molested.  The Framers decided that this is an acceptable trade off for limiting police powers in this country.

(03-19-2018, 03:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It's brought up as an example of freedom versus safety where we have opted for freedom.

Precisely.

(03-19-2018, 03:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: But there have been clear, lea gal abuses of the 4A...by the people responsible for upholding the law.  

Nothing close to that has happened with the 2A.

Heck, the 4A helps with the 2A as we can't just randomly search houses for guns.

There have been clear legal abuses of the 2nd amendment, which is why we're having this very discussion.  Unless you're arguing that the Florida shooter did not abuse his 2A rights when he murdered all those people, which I don't think you're doing.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 02:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think that the ~2,500 people murdered every year who were not criminals killed by other criminals or people killed by the police are sufficient cause for me and other gun owners to lose our civil rights.

Don't know where you got your statistics, and I don't know why you think it should be legal to murder anyone who has a criminal conviction on his record, but what number would be enough for you?  I believe there were about 12,000 gun homocides in the US last year.

And why don't you care about the other 70 thousand people who were shot but did not die?

And why don't you care about the hundreds of thousands of aggravated assaults and armed robberies where guns are used but never fired?

And finally, if you were allowed to legally own whatever gun you wanted to, but had to have a license to own them and had to register them would you still consider that "losing your civil rights"?

How many people have to die each year from gun violence before you will agree to something as minor as owner licensing and gun registration?  A hundred thousand?  A million?  Ten million?

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 03:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because we've decided that letting a criminal continue to commit crime is more important than giving law enforcement sweeping powers, i.e. people will be victimized and die because of this right.  People will be raped, children will be molested.  The Framers decided that this is an acceptable trade off for limiting police powers in this country.

Kind of a strange way to state that argument.

The 4th amendment was written to protect innocent people, not just criminals.  The framers were very wise when it came to recognizing the damage that can be wrought on innocent people by unlimited police powers.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 04:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Don't know where you got your statistics, and I don't know why you think it should be legal to murder anyone who has a criminal conviction on his record,

Oh, Fred.  Why must you engage in such insane levels of hyperbole?

 

Quote:but what number would be enough for you?  I believe there were about 12,000 gun homocides in the US last year.

Correct.  Around 8k of them are criminals killed by other criminals.  Around 1,500 of them were people killed by the police, the vast majority of them in "good shootings".  That leaves ~2,500 non-criminals being killed every year.  While certainly of no solace to the friends and family of those killed, those numbers don't justify restricting the constitutional rights of others in a nation of 330,000,000.

Quote:And why don't you care about the other 70 thousand people who were shot but did not die?

I'd be willing to bet that the same percentages hold true here as well.  As for caring, of course I care about innocent people being shot, why would you infer otherwise?

Quote:And why don't you care about the hundreds of thousands of aggravated assaults and armed robberies where guns are used but never fired?

I think I've been rather consistent with my stance on criminals using firearms and the need to incarcerate them for a very long time.  Please feel free to point out if I have done otherwise.

Quote:And finally, if you were allowed to legally own whatever gun you wanted to, but had to have a license to own them and had to register them would you still consider that "losing your civil rights"?

It depends.  How would I get said license,  What would be the requirements to acquire one?  On what grounds could I be denied said license?  Would I have to pay for said license?  As I discussed with hollodero, in a very entertaining and illuminating back and forth, I see no difference between requiring a gun license and requiring a government issued ID at a polling station to confirm your identity.  Yet many on the left vehemently oppose such an ID requirement, stating it amounts to a poll tax.  So, should you have to pay to exercise your constitutional rights or not?

Quote:How many people have to die each year from gun violence before you will agree to something as minor as owner licensing and gun registration?  A hundred thousand?  A million?  Ten million?

Is there a number of people that have to be killed by gang violence before you are willing to suspend 4A protections for known gang members?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 04:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Kind of a strange way to state that argument.

The 4th amendment was written to protect innocent people, not just criminals.

The second amendment was meant to protect innocent people. 

Quote:  The framers were very wise when it came to recognizing the damage that can be wrought on innocent people by unlimited police powers.

The framers were very wise in recognizing that the state should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 03:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll pose the same question to you that I did Fred in an earlier thread.  Would you be amenable to a law that made collection of DNA for a national database mandatory at birth?  The argument for such a registry would be significant.  We could identify bodies easily which would make solving murders easier.  We could identify a criminal by DNA left at the scene and immediately seek them out for arrest.  We could even easily prove paternity, enabling us to catch a rapist that otherwise left no collectible evidence.  See no drawbacks to such a database?  There are likely millions of US citizens who would disagree with you. 

What is this big "drawback" you think exists?

We already have a registry of fingerprints, and a huge database of photos from drivers licenses.  I don't see how those have been abused.

What exactly are you afraid of?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 04:55 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What is this big "drawback" you think exists?

We already have a registry of fingerprints, and a huge database of photos from drivers licenses.  I don't see how those have been abused.

What exactly are you afraid of?

With respect, I did not direct this question towards you and you have already indicated your willingness to have such a database.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The second amendment was meant to protect innocent people. 

No one disagrees with you.  That is what the entire balancing argument is about.

We let some criminals escape prosecution to protect us from the power of an unlimited police force.

Right now we let criminal own guns but there is no potential damage from the other side to balance.  What do innocent people gain from letting criminals have unlimited access to buy guns?  There is no counter-balance.  Citizens could still own guns with licensing and registration laws, but it would make it much more difficult for criminals to buy and posses them.

[fredtoast]

(03-19-2018, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The framers were very wise in recognizing that the state should not have a monopoly on the means of self defense.

Since the framers did not even envision a standing army, what would have been the source of this "monopoly"?

The militia?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-19-2018, 05:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one disagrees with you.  That is what the entire balancing argument is about.

Odd, it would seem many disagree with me.

Quote:We let some criminals escape prosecution to protect us from the power of an unlimited police force.

We "let" some criminals own guns to protect us from having the guns of law abiding citizens taken from them.

Quote:Right now we let criminal own guns but there is no potential damage from the other side to balance.  What do innocent people gain from letting criminals have unlimited access to buy guns?

 
Criminals aren't allowed unlimited access to buy guns.  A convicted criminal can't legally buy any guns, much less have unlimited access to buying them.

Quote:There is no counter-balance.  Citizens could still own guns with licensing and registration laws, but it would make it much more difficult for criminals to buy and posses them.

Sure there's a counter balance as I've explained in other threads.  Also, make your argument to a resident of California, because it falls flat here.