LDS Teenager Murdered at her High School in Parkland

[_Nightlion]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/01/us/school-shootings-in-2018/index.html
9 counting Parkland I suppose but not 18

What we need is every school with a voluntary HERO CLUB to take down any shooter. Not armed but brave. If twenty ran down the shooter or if an entire class was convinced to rush the BUTT HEAD rather than just take it. The cowards who seek fame or some sort of perverted justice might think twice about being taken down on the spot.

Media is the fertilizer that grows the fungus of mass shootings. It should always be blacked out. No pictures of the shooter and no mention of his name and no images of panic. THINK WORLD?

[_Markk]

Any prohibition isn't going to be 100% effective. I'm fairly certain if we banned firearms we'd see a significant reduction in related *insert incident* over the following decades.

- Doc

After the civil war

[_Themis]

No I understood his Socratic style remark. I just didn't want to follow my own reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Fixed it for you

Markk is not making the argument for any changes to gun laws. His illogical belief is that gun laws would not make a difference so why bother.

[_Markk]

Markk is not making the argument for any changes to gun laws. His illogical belief is that gun laws would not make a difference so why bother.

No my argument is, that if you are going to argue it, know the facts and make the argument worth arguing. I had a boss once that told me "that if I am going to fight for a dollar, I might as well fight for five." So in this case, if you honestly believe a AR-15 should be banned, you should also work to ban weapons that equal the AR in function and capability to kill folks, like the mini 14, and other semi auto weapons.

[_Themis]

Markk is not making the argument for any changes to gun laws. His illogical belief is that gun laws would not make a difference so why bother.

No my argument is, that if you are going to argue it, know the facts and make the argument worth arguing. I had a boss once that told me "that if I am going to fight for a dollar, I might as well fight for five." So in this case, if you honestly believe a AR-15 should be banned, you should also work to ban weapons that equal the AR in function and capability to kill folks, like the mini 14, and other semi auto weapons.

Ya but I don't see people limiting their call for a ban to just the AR-15. So why does a country like Canada have so much less shootings even though a Canadian can own a AR-15?

[_Markk]

Ya but I don't see people limiting their call for a ban to just the AR-15. So why does a country like Canada have so much less shootings even though a Canadian can own a AR-15?

Read the OP...and it goes further to what is an assault rifle, which semi automatic weapons like the Mini 14 are not labeled as such... so far.

As far as Canada...I don't know, the easy answer is that they are more responsible people I suppose...why do you think so?

[_sunstoned]

I think for starters we could apply the same restrictions that we do for automobile use. Before you can operate a automobile, you have to pass a drivers training course. You have to pass a written exam. You are then issued a license which must be periodically renewed (with drivers test). This license much be carried on the person operating the automobile.

Why can't we apply this to gun ownership? Before owning and operating a gun, once should have to go through a training course and then pass a test. A license is then issued that allows a person to own and use a firearm. This license must be on the person when in position of a firearm. This is not perfect, but having the requirement of a training course and test would be a good, basic screen.

[Guest]

I think for starters we could apply the same restrictions that we do for automobile use. Before you can operate a automobile, you have to pass a drivers training course. You have to pass a written exam. You are then issued a license which must be periodically renewed (with drivers test). This license much be carried on the person operating the automobile.

Why can't we apply this to gun ownership? Before owning and operating a gun, once should have to go through a training course and then pass a test. A license is then issued that allows a person to own and use a firearm. This license must be on the person when in position of a firearm. This is not perfect, but having the requirement of a training course and test would be a good, basic screen.

Throw in fingerprinting and a photograph and what you are describing here is essentially the process to obtain a permit for carrying a concealed weapon (CCW).

Law enforcement will tell you that concealed carry permit holders, as a group, are far less likely to be involved crimes or accidents involving firearms than those without such permits.

Emphasized in concealed carry permit training are the legal responsibilities of gun ownership including the potential legal and financial consequences of firearm use in public, even in justifiable self defense.

Another useful aspect of the training is how to behave during a traffic stop so as to show that you understand the process and intend to cooperate fully, thus reducing the chances that the officer will feel threatened in any way.

[_Markk]

I think for starters we could apply the same restrictions that we do for automobile use. Before you can operate a automobile, you have to pass a drivers training course. You have to pass a written exam. You are then issued a license which must be periodically renewed (with drivers test). This license much be carried on the person operating the automobile.

Why can't we apply this to gun ownership? Before owning and operating a gun, once should have to go through a training course and then pass a test. A license is then issued that allows a person to own and use a firearm. This license must be on the person when in position of a firearm. This is not perfect, but having the requirement of a training course and test would be a good, basic screen.

You do to get a hunting license, at least here in Ca. I think the argument would be that we have the right to bear arms for protection via the constitution, not the right to bear arms if we pass a test.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

[Guest]

Right, however I'm commenting on his penchant to default to convoluted and sometimes pointedly regressed takes on human sexual dynamics. It's like it's a mystery to him, but he's forging ahead anyway.

Dude, you are the one who needs a therapist. You hate women,you think most women lie, and you blame the victim.

As for me, I read peer-reviewed research to make conclusions. I am just educated Doc, you are not.

"regressed takes on human sexual dynamics."

What "regressed takes"? LOL Dude we are talking about gun control here. You get help. You obviously have the mind of a conspiracy theorist, you are seeing things that aren't really there. Old creep.