Nationwide A March For Our Lives

[Amarok]

I think this thread is losing focus.  The topic is about USian schoolkids advocating for something to be done about the seemingly incessant school shootings.  Yes, more people die in car crashes.  Yes, more people die of cancer, liver disease, insect stings, being run over by farm equipment, being hit on the head repeatedly with iron bars, and so on.

But bringing these up is not only off-topic, it dishonestly tries to make the case that since more people die from things that aren't school shootings, then nothing should be done about school shootings.

Boru

Yup  it's really a distraction just because more die to X then Y .Does not mean we should do nothing about Y

[Lok1]

I think this thread is losing focus.  The topic is about USian schoolkids advocating for something to be done about the seemingly incessant school shootings.  Yes, more people die in car crashes.  Yes, more people die of cancer, liver disease, insect stings, being run over by farm equipment, being hit on the head repeatedly with iron bars, and so on.

But bringing these up is not only off-topic, it dishonestly tries to make the case that since more people die from things that aren't school shootings, then nothing should be done about school shootings.

Boru

Claiming that anyone believes "nothing should be done about school shootings" is every bit as dishonest. In fact, it is more so. You employ your 'opinion' in an attempt to discredit a position for which you have been incapable of producing a valid rebuttal to; in effect, a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack/false accusation. A false accusation that is easily disproved by merely reading through the thread. No one has come even close to suggesting what you claim. A person of integrity would acknowledge such, issue an apology and correct oneself. Ego permitting.

[Aegon]

If that was supposed to be a joke, it wasn't funny. 

I still wonder to this day what might have happened if my mom hadn't grabbed me and ran out of the house with me.

Sure it is/was funny. 

What I wonder is why your mom had the sense to run out of the house and you didn't.  Somebody taught her about guns but not you?

Maybe thats why kids are getting killed.

Are you going to write something of substance or do you just prefer trolling?

[The Grand Nudger]

Soooo...circling back around, one of the more eclectic things we could do without taking away or banning a single gun....is restrict the sale of problem rounds to less-than-lethals without flagging.  

Cletus can buy all the rubber bullets he wants for target shooting and "home defense".  Better for the environment, better for him when his wife inevitably mistakes him for an intruder...and certainly better for the schoolchildren of the world trying to hide under their desks like it was 1980 all over again.

[Jackalope]

I have to wonder if those who are opposed to such marches give the same consideration to those they agree with.

[Brian37]

Soooo...circling back around, one of the more eclectic things we could do without taking away or banning a single gun....is restrict the sale of problem rounds to less-than-lethals without flagging.  

Cletus can buy all the rubber bullets he wants for target shooting and "home defense".  Better for the environment, better for him when his wife inevitably mistakes him for an intruder...and certainly better for the schoolchildren of the world trying to hide under their desks like it was 1980 all over again.

The core of the problem has been the same for decades. 

Now while the sane want a ban on spray weapons and big clips, the long term problem has always been the firearm CEOs pay their heat shield lobby NRA to protect our flooded market and ease of access. Break that hostage holding, then things will get done.

Unfortunately when the worshipers read this, they won't understand that we are not the enemy of firearm owners. We are the enemy of the greed and fear marketing of the industry.

It is an ease of access issue. It isn't about the rounds, it is about the MARKETING of the industry.

It won't do you a damned good to limit stockpiling of rounds for an Glock or AR-15. Both firearms and ammo are still far to easy to get, both legally and illegally.

The industry pays the lobby to scare the shit out of everyone. Just like big oil uses lobbies to block anything that hurts their profit margin.

[Jackalope]

Claiming that anyone believes "nothing should be done about school shootings" is every bit as dishonest.

Bullshit.

Just yesterday I encountered a mouth breather who asserted that dead kids were simply the price of freedom.  You know, Jefferson's Tree of Liberty needing to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants - and apparently dead children.  This was literally his last word on the subject.

There are plenty of despicable people on the pro-gun side who definitely care more about their toys than they do about the lives of others.

I used to be one, many years ago, and I've been exposed to plenty of such people who are literally unwilling to do *anything* to limit the availability of anything firearm related.

So please, go fuck yourself with your broad-brush strokes.

P.S.  Spotted the NRA shill.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Brian.

I think that easy access to less than lethal rounds would be less of an issue than easy access to ball ammo - on the front of school shootings especially, where there's usually alot of hard and soft cover - and they're more expensive than standard or fmj so that'd please the producers too.

Besides, they're the best type of round for "home defense".....and if that's why people are buying guns nowadays..like they say.....

Not a solution in and of itself, but it could be a step in the right direction that sidesteps alot of nutter and industry objections.

On the bit about limiting stockpiling..well, it absolutely -would- do us good if we could limit stockpiling. Firearms are reduced to clubs when they run out of bullets. Every time some asshole wants to shoot up a school he brings a bando. If he didn't have a bando, his final stats would suck. Combine regulations on the legally purchaseable limit (and storage) of what are. in effect..tiny little explosives....with a funneled preference for rubber rounds in ratio and you're talking about a kid who shows up at a school with an ar-15..very little in the way of ammo (they aren't great shooters) and most of that ammo being unlikely to go through a chair. That, to me, sounds improved.

[Brian37]

@Brian.

I think that easy access to less than lethal rounds would be less of an issue than easy access to ball ammo - on the front of school shootings especially, where there's usually alot of hard and soft cover - and they're more expensive than standard or fmj so that'd please the producers too.

Besides, they're the best type of round  for "home defense".....and if that's why people are buying guns nowadays..like they say.....

Not a solution in and of itself, but it could be a step in the right direction that sidesteps alot of nutter and industry objections.

On the bit about limiting stockpiling..well, it absolutely -would- do us good if we could limit stockpiling.  Firearms are reduced to clubs when they run out of bullets.  Every time some asshole wants to shoot up a school he brings a bando.  If he didn't have a bando, his final stats would suck.  Combine regulations on the legally purchaseable limit (and storage) of what are. in effect..tiny little explosives....with a funneled preference for rubber rounds in ratio and you're talking about a kid who shows up at a school with an ar-15..very little in the way of ammo (they aren't great shooters) and most of that ammo being unlikely to go through a chair.  That, to me, sounds improved.

Less lethal means you don't need big clips or assault riffles. But sure, you don't need hollow points either. Yes the size and shape of the bullet would matter too. But even then it is still an access issue issue to both. 

If firearm owners and shop owners would do the right thing and consider where their products end up BEFORE the sale that would go a long way into reducing firearm violence. I would not expect the industry to want that, because just like any CEO of any business, your job is to increase sales and bring in stock holders.

Nobody needs big clips, handgun or riffle, but not only less lethal rounds, also no hording rounds. Just like you don't need to stockpile firearms.

If America's firearm owners would listen to our allies like Australia and Scotland, they would know that firearms are still sold there and not outlawed. 

I think before you even get to your idea, you have to force the industry, just like Nader did with the auto industry, to face that a problem exists.  

But sure, I agree limiting the amount of rounds you can have and the size would be a help. But still, nobody needs big clips for handguns or long guns.

It still, even after that would be an access issue. Even then, you would not want the mentally ill, domestic abuser, or political/religious nut/violent criminal getting their hands on them.

I get what you are saying, but it is a combo of things, not one thing. 

I think the most important thing is to stop the industry from their destructive marketing, just like big Tobacco cant use Cowboys and cartoon Camels to sell their products. I think what you want is a good idea too, but it still has to ultimately be an attitude change on how we view firearms.

[The Grand Nudger]

When I say less than lethal I'm referring to a type of round.  Personally, I wouldn't waste legislative capital on a restriction than can be defeated by masking tape, like magazine sizes. The only way to really limit the amount of rounds somebody can spit out from..say, a semi auto or fast bolt..is with floor plate models that have obstructive hinges that keep the bolt from function if the mag exceeds the depth of the seat.

Any bottom loading mag fed (or open bolt top fed - or side fed..for all you eastern bloc fuckers) firearm is going to waltz right around a mag restriction. Which is to say, simply, that every gun one might seek to regulate with that sort of language is inherently capable of defeating it.

---

-a demonstration



Now, these are high cap bananas, but you can do it with 5 round straight mags just the same.  Adds what, a few seconds extra time to a shooting spree?  This is why a mag restriction would mean that people would just legally purchase legal mags, and legally purchase legal tape..and legally tape their legal mags together..then illegally execute schoolchridren with them. Bonus for the manufacturers..they get to sell 6 five round units instead of one 30 round unit.

Sound familiar?

---

-I know I sound like a broken record in these threads but I just think that it would be a tragic waste if we squandered whatever momentum we have oin ineffective legislation like we did last time, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before that.  The NRA laughs all the way to the bank everytime we do that.