Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you address the Gun Violence in this country? How do you prevent school shootings?
First you have to admit that there isn't "gun violence", there is violence and sometimes people use guns to commit it.
Second you need to honestly look at the real statistics and understand the scope of the problem.
The death rate for kids playing sports is VASTLY higher than guns, the death rate playing sports is over 80 TIMES higher.
Death rate for children killed by firearms 0.11 / 100,000
Death rate for children killed in sports 8.98 / 100,000 !!!
There are 3 times as many children killed in cross country than are killed by guns.
cross country 0.36
girls water polo 0.42
boys soccer 0.45
boys hockey 0.48
boys basketball 0.76
boys lacross 0.80
boys football 0.81
boys gymnastics 0.95
boys water polo 1.06
boys softball 2.89 https://weather.com/health/news/dead...ports-20130812
Think those numbers are high? Maybe they are. How about this article from the Seattle Times that quotes a 0.15 / 100,000 death rate for just Highschool Football? That's still higher than the firearm death rate for all children. The Seattle Times: High School Sports: How dangerous a sport?
So how bad do you really think the situation is? Do you want to save lives or do you really just want an excuse to ban guns?
Sorry, this is a free forum (and a free country, in case you didn't know). Anyone can respond to your question. I'm a Democrat, but really, it's a waste of time responding to these posts, so I won't. Just wanted to mention to you where you were, and how things work in this country. Republicans are a little fuzzy on civil rights issues. But don't worry, Herr Trump will bring everyone up to speed on this and much more soon :}
Last edited by CaseyB; 03-03-2016 at 06:24 AM..
Reason: TOS
Like the prior poster, I am not a Republican, but choose to answer anyways, as we dont get to pick who posts here. And my answer is simple.
Why do anything? The number dying is trivial in comparison to what I would view as anything significant enough to challenge our rights accorded by the constitution. If your rights mean so little to you that people dying because of them offends you, that's unfortunate. I value mine, and millions have died protecting them.
And yes, its a tragedy, but LOTS of things are tragedies. If we give up our rights for them, we will have no rights at all eventually.
First, you get rid of "Gun Free Zones" in places like schools because all a "Gun Free Zone" does is invite criminals to attack unarmed people including schoolchildren.
Second, you actually enforce the gun laws we have on the books.
Third, meaningfully address mental health access and coverage for the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyster
1) Better physical security at schools. Advertise that security on every door that allows entry into the school.
2) Mandatory firearms training in schools... remove the mystery, make it boring.
3) Stop treating our youth like they are delicate, victimized snowflakes. Make them tougher, more confident and more capable. Treat them more like adults and they'll act more like adults.
4) Zero tolerance for troublemakers. You cause issues, you go to a special facility.
That would be a start.
I will state I totally agree with LoveToRow on his 2nd and 3rd points. I mostly agree with Tyster's 1st and 4th points.
Why do I only mostly agree with Tyster, you might ask? Not every parent wants their child to be around firearms. I respect that. I would agree that there needs to be some time spent removing the mystery around firearms.
Point 4: Define troublemaker. Define issues. Sorry. Be more specific, please.
I partially disagree with LoveToRow's #1. Gun Free Zones do make for a nice soft target. We've let the genie out of the bottle there. I DO NOT think that abolishing the idea of a Gun Free Zone is the answer. Allowing legal carry in some places and hardening others against instrusion may be better assuming it can be done reasonably. This also addresses Tyster's point. There must be reasonable, agreeable, security measures that can be put in place to protect schools. Private property security should obviously rest on the shoulders of the owner.
I'm not advocating for some Wild West shootout in Mall of America. Don't even come with that trash. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that a property owner who refuses to allow patrons to protect themselves, be responsible for the protection of their patrons. Unfotrunately, there are not enough who will actually speak with their money or patronage to sway certain companies. No doubt, many of them fear lawsuits. Cap their liability or eliminate it.
I've hit a block here. And I need to hit the bathroom. Carry on.
Your question makes zero sense in context of my post.
I am sorry if it was over your head.
It makes as much sense as your post.
I'll try again.
WHAT is your purpose, to stop deaths or restrict guns?
If deaths is your concern why do you NOT go after those things that cause MORE deaths then guns?
And by the way there is NO such things as "gun violence"
A gun is an object. Lay it on the table and as long as it is there it will NOT harm a soul, like a car, a swimming, pool a blunt installment, sports and a hundred other things.
The "violence" is from a REAL LIVE PERSON.
If it is to restrict guns be honest about it and quit hiding behind "caring" about deaths.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 03-03-2016 at 06:06 AM..
It's not my fault you did not understand the point I was making. I asked a rhetorical question to show there is a no practical reason to discuss gun control.
Quote:
WHAT is your purpose, to stop deaths or restrict guns?
Neither, the purpose of my post was to show how irrelevant the gun control argument is.
Quote:
If deaths is your concern why do you NOT go after those things that cause MORE deaths then guns?
Re-read my initial post. Like I said, your question is completely nonsensical in context of my position and your condescending tone is way out of place. YOU misinterpreted my post entirely.
It's not my fault you did not understand the point I was making. I asked a rhetorical question to show there is a no practical reason to discuss gun control.
Neither, the purpose of my post was to show how irrelevant the gun control argument is.
Re-read my initial post. Like I said, your question is completely nonsensical in context of my position and your condescending tone is way out of place. YOU misinterpreted my post entirely.
"and your condescending tone is way out of place."
First, you get rid of "Gun Free Zones" in places like schools because all a "Gun Free Zone" does is invite criminals to attack unarmed people including schoolchildren.
Second, you actually enforce the gun laws we have on the books.
Third, meaningfully address mental health access and coverage for the population.
I thought conservatives were against helping the mentally ill. Oh I see, because it would now benefit the conservative it's okay.
"and your condescending tone is way out of place."
If you can't take criticism, DON'T POST.
" YOU misinterpreted my post entirely"
Then speak more clearly.
How much more clear do I need to be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by billydaman
About 30,000 people die as a result of being shot per year, and half of that is by suicide. To give context, there are about 320,000,000 people in our country. Give me a number of what you would consider a practical amount of tolerable gun deaths. Please do not give me a liberal answer of zero, as that is just not possible. When would you consider gun violence under control (hint: The real answer is never, as its an issue that riles up the liberal base, but has no practical importance in the world we live in), liberals love to live in fear of the practically non-existence threat of dying by a gun. The war on guns is nothing more than a political rallying cry.
It's not that I can not handle criticism, its that your criticism was not remotely applicable (even in the most crude and uneducated interpretation) and you became extraordinarily condescending when I pointed it out. Just admit you did not fully take the time to read my post. You are the only person in this thread (or the world?) who thinks I was concerned about controlling gun deaths.
I mean, seriously, who reads my post and thinks I have a concern about gun deaths? The problem is on your end.
EDIT: It makes sense now, knowing that you support Trump.
Last edited by billydaman; 03-03-2016 at 06:32 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
