"If it saves one life"

↑ Alternative ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 1:09 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2016 data shows 37,461 people were killed in 34,436 motor vehicle crashes, an average of 102 per day.[1]

In 2010, there were an estimated 5,419,000 crashes, 30,296 of with fatalities, killing 32,999, and injuring 2,239,000.[2] About 2,000 children under 16 die every year in traffic collisions.[3] Records indicate that there has been a total of 3,613,732 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States from 1899 to 2013.

Let's ban cars.

Cars do a lot of good. However, we seriously limit their ability to damage. We restrict licenses, people need to pass a test to prove they can drive, speeding limits are imposed, you can't run a red light, etc. More and more laws are created to make sure that there are less accidents (at least in Israel, where now it is illegal to drink coffee or eat a snack while driving).

Guns don't do as much good as cars (self-defense? What is the ratio of people saved by a gun compared to those killed by one?) And it seems like it's a lot easier to get hold of a gun in the states than it is to get a driving license.

↑ marina ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 7:51 pm

Fox wrote:

ITA, 100 percent!

I think the answer to your question is threefold.

First, it's a problem of polarization. I'm guessing that the majority of liberals would be okay with leaving the 2nd Amendment in place. I'm also pretty sure that the majority of conservatives are perfectly fine with most of the background checks and other commonsense restrictions that are proposed.

But like virtually every other public debate, the voices that get the airtime and attention are the most extreme voices on each side. So you get an unarguably wacky leftie shrieking that all gun owners are murderers, and you get a creepy conservative nutjob who lives off the grid screaming back that he needs his guns to shoot varmints.

That makes for good television, but the only possible positive outcome is if everyone gets fed up and shoots both the wacky leftie and the conservative nutjob. And that would kind of defeat the purpose of reducing gun violence.

Second, both liberals and conservatives back in the 70s and 80s made a mistake of allowing particular stances on gun control to be associated with them politically. That was a huge mistake which was aided and abetted by both gun control advocates and the NRA/gun manufacturers' lobby. We don't consider drivers' licenses and car registrations to represent liberal or conservative points of view, and there's no reason guns should be any different. But if we identify in a general sense as liberals or conservatives, we find ourselves carrying baggage on this issue that really shouldn't be there.

Third, most regrettably, gun violence is typically discussed in the aftermath of a mass shooting, when emotions run high. The people who are the most emotionally affected are not necessarily the best people to implement actual solutions. In fact, I find that a lot of people who get very upset about tragic or disturbing events -- and this is not limited to gun violence -- lose interest when you start talking about the nuts and bolts of solving the problem. Their eyes glaze over pretty quick.

In the other thread I mentioned Gabby Giffords' organization, Americans for Responsible Solutions. Not a lot of drama or demands for immediate action. Lots of interaction with people in the military, law enforcement, and gun community. Specific, modest goals.

I think -- or maybe just hope -- that these are the kinds of voices that will prevail. It's a difficult fight, though, to get everyone's attention off the wacky lefty and the conservative nutjob.

I spent thirty minutes arguing with a guy who kept going on and on about the evils of gun control and the leftists who want to take away all our weapons. He then started to explain that what we really need is * crime control* and when I asked what that was, he explained that *crime control* is when we make sure criminals and those with severe mental illnesses don't get access to guns...

this guy believed in gun control but couldn't admit it so much that he had to invent an entirely new term. LOL

↑ Jeanette ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 7:52 pm

Squishy wrote:

Everytime there is a school shooting, I say BH my kids are in private school. There is so much violence locally and regionally in public schools that hits closer to home than Florida. We both have students murdering students by stabbing. Some of these of female.

There is so much energy being wasted on nonsense that could be directed towards bringing attention to how important an issue school violence is.

If the crazy people on the left designated one day to scream to the sky about the school shootings, they would have gotten support. Or if the ladies who wore genitili@ hats would have match marched against school shootings ( in respectable clothes) instead of an election they lost, they might have achieved something positive. If the rioting would have been directed towards saving children's lives, they would have gotten the attention of elected officials instead of just making fools of themselves.

I want you to go to Parkland, Florida, and tell those kids who just buried their friends that they're making fools of themselves. Tell them that the shooting was not the fault of the shooter, not the fault of the NRA nor the politicians that they buy off, not the fault of our country's lax gun laws. It was the fault of the Women's Marchers. Please, go, tell them this to their faces.

↑ 33055 ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 8:18 pm

Jeanette wrote:

You have such ridiculous tunnel vision that you can't even see I am agreeing with you.

The Trump is not my president, vugar matching women, rioting because he won, and screaming at the sky because he is still in office after a year is really stupid.

The Democratic party needs something other than fighting over an election they lost. Their candidate has been totally discredited. Give it up, and get behind something that can do good for the country and reinvigorate the party.

With a humming economy, this might be the issue. Put all the anti-Trump energy into something meaningful like saving children's lives instead of the stupidity of the baby tantrums and over the top hysteria we have been subject to.

I have read several interesting policy proposals since this shooting. If the Democrats could come up with a clear effective policy, they would have something to go against 4.1 unemployment. I would love to see the student energy spread, but I am not optimistic.

↑ Jeanette ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 8:28 pm

Squishy wrote:

It's extremely telling that in moments like these you reserve your greatest passion, your most seething putdowns, for those protesting the president.

↑ 33055 ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 8:34 pm

Jeanette wrote:

It's extremely telling that in moments like these you reserve your greatest passion, your most seething putdowns, for those protesting the president.

No. It is extremely telling that you are fixated on Trump to a degree where I wonder if you have real life issues. I can't ever see where you have been reasonable and saw both sides of an issue.

You rather attack me personally than discuss the Democratic party moving forward by incorporating the students' message.

The message is a strong and powerful one. It needs energy which is not likely to come from the Republicans.

The liberals already have this energy, but they are fixated on a lost race. You are a prime example.

↑ Jeanette

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 8:38 pm

Squishy wrote:

Yeah, you may be on to something here.

It's hard to imagine anyone being opposed to the Trump administration unless they have some serious life issues.

↑ 33055 ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 8:47 pm

Jeanette wrote:

Yeah, you may be on to something here.

It's hard to imagine anyone being opposed to the Trump administration unless they have some serious life issues.

You have just proved my point. I totally agree with you. It takes a not so well balanced person to bang their head against a brick wall constantly. It takes a bunch of crazies to scream at the sky.

What do you think of the Democratic party incorporating the students' message? Do you think taking that energy and focusing it on something positive may help invigorate the party and move forward with school safety?

fmt4

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 9:17 pm

Squishy wrote:

The only person who seems obsessed and fixated to an unhealthy degree is you. You’re the one who brought up the anti- trump protesters and the women’s march when it had nothing to do with anything.

↑ southernbubby ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 9:29 pm

marina wrote:

Also National School Walkout Day is March 14 https://www.facebook.com/event.....5694/

I figured something like that was in the works:
http://abc7.com/students-activ.....6311/

but what about lawsuits against the gun manufacturer, the store that sold the gun, the school district, etc?

basically don't the courts decide based on cases that come before those courts?

A friend of mine works in an inner city public school and they are all demanding armed guards. The schools have metal detectors but often the security personel ignore the alarms and tell the students to have a nice day without ever checking the backpacks and if there was an attack, without armed security, they would lose lives until the police arrived.

Also, children must be told not to try to locate or rescue siblings in the building during a shooting. This could cause a family to lose several children if the siblings try to unite during an active shooting. There has to be a rescue policy in force for the possibility of a school shooting and children have to have various types of disaster drills.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 10:12 pm

Squishy wrote:

You wish that your kids were in schools like the ones in Parkland.

According to a 2008 estimate, the median income for a household in the city was $277,072, and the estimated median house value was $973,176. About 2.0% of families and .4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.2% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. The school was 40% Jewish. 97% graduation rate. Half take AP classes. Was one of the safest places in the US.

If it could happen there, it could happen anywhere.

sushilover ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 11:21 pm

marina wrote:

I agree that it sounds like good common sense to ban people with mental illnesses from owning guns. Unfortunately, the ACLU disagrees, and I hear their point.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/disa.....-fair

↑ 33055 ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 11:32 pm

WhatFor wrote:

You do realize that the Republicans control the House, Senate, and Executive branch, right? Meaning, if they were all on board, they could pass whatever they want right now with minimal Democratic support. Sure, Democratic representatives should be on board too, but I'm puzzled how you believe that the women marching with pink hats, largely Democratic, have anything to do with passing gun reform.

And under Obama, the Democrats controlled both houses and failed to pass gun control.

I am of two minds on this problem. I believe a grass roots ground swell of support could make a difference.

I also believe that Newt Gingrich might be on to something when he says to arm random school personal who are not in uniform like the Air Marshals. The guns are out there already, and the children need protection.

Also the gun free zones must be studied. They seem to invite attacks because it is relatively safe for attackers to open fire. I read 98% of the mass murders are in gun free zones. I also read that only half the attacks take place there. It depends on how you define the shootings.

↑ SixOfWands ↓

Sat, Feb 17 2018, 11:45 pm

Squishy wrote:

o

Democrats had a supermajority, needed to defeat a filibuster, for 72 days of Obama’s presidency. Nevertheless, I think there’s plenty of blame for them as well as the Republicans.

More guns isn’t the answer. We don’t need the Wild West.