Tobacco, alcohol, candy?

Evangelical family members on my FB are blaming the rise of mass shooters on the lack of children being disciplined over the past 30 years (conveniently ignoring how crime rates have plummeted over this time). Surely if these kids got a good spanking or two they'd never think about picking up that AK.

Kander 4 prez



Too bad only liberal elites will understand this reference

In one of his other posts he cited hunting seasons which include archery only hunts as evidence of the utility of gun ownership for hunting purposes.

Why not A/B test the outcomes? Have half of the country ban AR-15's and other types of weapons and one half post up armed teachers. Whichever one has the least casualties we go with. I would think a year would be sufficient.

If neighboring states run a beggar thy neighbor type gun policy, banning X makes virtually no difference.
Remember when DC banned stuff and people just drove 15 minutes into Virginia to get their fix?

Armed teachers is such a horrible idea.

Nobody wants an open-carry teacher trying to discipline a class of middle schoolers in inner city public schools. Even worse if it's a group of unpredictable preschool kids who grab for the "toy" hanging off of their teacher's hip when he/she is distracted by the other 30+ kids they have to look after.

No kidding. That's the point. Some people actually think it's a good idea. Only way to prove its not is to show them.

Proving stuff to people doesn't work if they are closed minded and only want to believe what makes them feel good.

And the fact that you seem to know that the side that arms the teachers would have more dead children doesn't bother you, ethically?

Imagine if we applied that logic back when people were arguing over the health effects of tobacco.

"People think smoking isn't unhealthy. Let's prove them wrong by mandating that children smoke a pack a day. That'll show them."

Doing nothing bothers me.

EddyB like

You got that **** right!

Here is an analogy that I believe captures much of the problem:

Suppose drivers can get a permit to run red lights when there is no traffic in sight. Suppose half the population has no interest in having such a permit and will (barring emergencies) always wait for the green. Those with no permit have an extra reason to be against all permits. They suffer those rare cases when a permit holder screws up and gain nothing in return. And because of that, permit holders are skeptical of their arguments when they claim that even permit holders don't gain enough from their permits to justify the wide availability of permits. It is particularly difficult to accept those arguments if you yourself are an especially careful driver and that permit just might save your life. In fact that last type almost can't be persuaded.

And of course there is the fact that most of the permit holders erroneously think that they are in that third category even though they are not.

The only solution I see is to say something like "we realize that if everybody who got a permit was like YOU there would be no problem. But they are not." You would be lying but it might work.

I don't think even all the Dems in congress want to restrict AR-15s. Are you a member of the NRA?

at last, a reasonable comment.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

re: Sklansky

What?

What the **** did I just read

We don't need an analogy, roughly 20% of the country and the NRA want gunsapalooza and since they are single issue voters they have taken over the political system to ensure that nothing ever changes. Not until the politicians stop taking the NRA's money.

It's even easier to regulate ammunition. And it should be done. You have to have a license and register to buy ammunition. You are databased on purchase. You can buy x number of rounds per month/year (tied to your license number) and once you hit the limit there are harsh penalties to any retailer who sells anything over the x.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Folks are allowed to buy guns.

People that have little/ no interest in buying guns.

Many people that have little/no interest in owning a gun have an extra reason to be opposed to people being allowed to own guns.

Guns can cause great harm and irresponsible people that own guns directly and indirectly cause great harm with guns. People that see no reason to own a gun put up with that bull**** and it is at the very least troubling to the non gun owners that there are so many gun owners who are irresponsible douches. The douches guns allow great harm to come to innocent people.

There are too many irresponsible douches that own guns given the mayhem their guns cause.

There are a lot of gun owners that are responsible, knowledgeable, careful with their guns. They have taken a lot of time to practice and train with their guns thus feel they are safer in owning their guns.

Why should the responsible gun owner give up their guns?

Irresponsible gun owners pretty much think they are responsible gun owners.

Responsible gun owners have to acknowledge that there are many, many people who own guns that shouldn't. The responsible gun owner knows that their are too many folks that own guns that are completely clueless about gun safety, don't care enough about gun safety, and are inept using guns for self defense.

LOL at this response. What part of 300,000 million guns don't you understand?

Anyway here is the model that a lot of people think is viable.

Austrailia Gun Confiscation

There are all kinds of links one can find using Google that both support the idea that it worked out fine and that it didn't work out so well.

You know, I'm not entirely confident that adios doesn't know there aren't 300 billion guns in the country