Was a bunch of children marching for gun control a success or an embarrassment? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Videos about news and current events.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14900551
Godstud wrote:The youth rallies against gun violence are not "choreographed" by adults. That's an idiotic argument and it doesn't make their stand any less important. Children are dying in school shootings because assholes don't want to change gun laws because they think gun rights are more important than the rights of children to life.

The "agenda" is no less important simply because the children have taken it up. Your argument is inane.


Really? I spent 17 years as a teacher and 30 years as a parent fighting adults using children for their own purposes. Everything from selling junk that could not compete on the free market to ‘charities’ that were total scams. The children embraced them all because they trusted the judgement of the authority figures. I am well aware of the utter despicable humans who use children to advance their own agenda. This is all I see when mentioning children marches or school walkouts; ruthless manipulation by the unscrupulous.
#14900602
One Degree wrote:I am well aware of the utter despicable humans who use children to advance their own agenda.
:eh: Answer me this question: What about making schools safer for school children is a despicable agenda?

One Degree wrote: This is all I see when mentioning children marches or school walkouts; ruthless manipulation by the unscrupulous.
So that's how you "feel" about it. It's not factual, however.

Do you have any evidence that would suggest that this agenda to stop school shootings and make them a thing of the past, is not a worthy goal? I doubt you'll find many people who would argue against this, unless they work for the NRA or the gun lobby.
#14900629
Godstud wrote::eh: Answer me this question: What about making schools safer for school children is a despicable agenda?

So that's how you "feel" about it. It's not factual, however.

Do you have any evidence that would suggest that this agenda to stop school shootings and make them a thing of the past, is not a worthy goal? I doubt you'll find many people who would argue against this, unless they work for the NRA or the gun lobby.

You are not going to prevent school shootings. The discussion is pointless. Most schools already have appropriate safety measures but they are meaningless when someone is intent upon killing you. We can’t even prevent our Presidents from being shot. The odds of them being shot are probably the highest of any group.
Perhaps looking at overpopulation and the mental stress it causes would be more beneficial. Stop the reasons these crazies exist instead of daydreaming about creating safety. Stop the over protection of juvenile criminals that allows them to still be on the street as adults. Our confusion of idealism and reality does not help.
Our society needs fixing. Barricading the schools and banning weapons will not fix our flaws. Don’t forget in China where a knife was used almost as effectively in a school.
#14900636
One Degree wrote:You are not going to prevent school shootings. The discussion is pointless.
That's a defeatist attitude. It's also not realistic. There are ways to stop mass shootings. It's far from pointless. Young people getting killed in school shootings is what is pointless. What you appear to be saying is that you simply don't care enough to want to do anything about it.

One Degree wrote: Most schools already have appropriate safety measures but they are meaningless when someone is intent upon killing you.
That's not true. There are ways to prevent mentally ill people, and young people from getting their hands on firearms. It's called GUN CONTROL. It works in every country in the world.

One Degree wrote:We can’t even prevent our Presidents from being shot. The odds of them being shot are probably the highest of any group.
That's also false, as you have Secret Service agents and bodyguards who are the prevent such a scenario from occurring. Millions of dollars are spent each week on this, and that's only for a very few people. It's costing a fortune to protect the Trump family
http://www.businessinsider.com/cost-of- ... ice-2017-2

One Degree wrote:Our society needs fixing. Barricading the schools and banning weapons will not fix our flaws.
True, but controlling the weapons to prevent mass shootings is a good start. Gun control does work. There is a lot of evidence that points to this.

One Degree wrote:Don’t forget in China where a knife was used almost as effectively in a school.
This is a cop-out argument. It's also not true. You aren't going to be able to kill 17 people with a knife, and a knife is far easier to defend against than a firearm. Are you going to explain how 59 people are going to be killed, and hundreds injured at a concert by a guy with a knife?

Also, regarding China:
A man with a knife climbed over the wall of a kindergarten in China and attacked 11 students, according to Chinese state media.

No children sustained life-threatening injuries, according to police.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/04/asia ... index.html
#14900642
@Godstud There have been more than 30 attempts to kill Presidents despite all the expensive security you mentioned.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _and_plots
How is it reasonable to expect we can prevent attacks on schools?
Gun control is only effective if there are no illicit means of obtaining them. We are well aware anyone can buy a gun illegally in the US. The laws only effect legal buyers which is why I oppose them. No, mentally unstable people should not be able to buy guns but they will be able to anyway illegally. The law would just be cosmetic and place undue burdens on honest people.
I don’t have the answers but the solutions being proposed are not it.
#14900795
One Degree wrote:Gun control is only effective if there are no illicit means of obtaining them. We are well aware anyone can buy a gun illegally in the US. The laws only effect legal buyers which is why I oppose them. No, mentally unstable people should not be able to buy guns but they will be able to anyway illegally. The law would just be cosmetic and place undue burdens on honest people.
:knife: False. If you make it illegal it becomes harder to procure the weapons. That much is a well known fact.

Your argument seems to be like this one...
Marco Rubio’s case against gun control defies simple logic
It’s basically an argument against having any laws.
As Matt Yglesias pointed out, this is basically an argument against having any laws at all. Just imagine Rubio applying this same logic to other policies: People are going to commit murder anyway, so why bother banning it? People are going to use drugs anyway, so why bother making them illegal?

What Rubio’s argument misses is that what he described is an effective policy intervention. As he put it, people who can’t buy a gun legally or can’t pass a background check will have to go to the gray or black market. But that actually is a deterrent for a lot of people — enough of one that, based on the research, it could prevent some deaths.

Laws don’t have to be perfect to be effective
The process Rubio described involves going out of your way to find someone who will sell a gun illegally — which is simply more difficult than looking up your local gun store or licensed dealer. And these guns are going to be more expensive; since they involve smuggling and the risk of getting caught, illegal guns are costlier — a few hundred or even thousands of dollars more, depending on the place and type of firearm — than legally purchased ones.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... l-shooting

Go see if you can find an illegal fully automatic machine gun in your community. I'll wait. I doubt you'd be able to do so, because it's illegal. That means it'd be expensive and nigh impossible to procure. Reality smacks you in the face, yet again.

30 attempts to kill the President over 240+ years. I'd not say this is a huge problem, and yet you throw enough money at it. Why not throw the same amount at protecting school children, by changing policy and laws? The children are far more at risk than some President.
#14900868
@Godstud You don’t consider attempts on the President a big problem statistically but you do consider attempts on schools a big problem even though the attempts on the President are more likely by multiple degrees statistically. This demonstrates emotional reasoning which is understandable since it concerns kids, but does not make it any more reasonable.
The type of people you have associated with in your life explains the different beliefs in the accessibility of illegal weapons. Weapons are only less assessable if you don’t associate with criminals which is the argument why the law mainly effects non criminals. People who want to kill other people have no problem with associating with criminals.
#14900871
One Degree wrote: You don’t consider attempts on the President a big problem statistically but you do consider attempts on schools a big problem even though the attempts on the President are more likely by multiple degrees statistically.
30 attempts in 240+ years, and how many school shootings? Don't blather to me about statistics that are meaningless. These are children, not famous people being put in the spotlight and in a knowlingly vulnerable position, with bodyguards, who are aware of the danger they might be placing themselves in.

One Degree wrote:This demonstrates emotional reasoning which is understandable since it concerns kids, but does not make it any more reasonable.
There is an emotional argument to be made, but as I've already stated, there is a logical and reasonable argument that is stronger for taking care of the youth of America. If you can't see that, then you are lacking the empathy and compassion common to human beings.

One Degree wrote:The type of people you have associated with in your life explains the different beliefs in the accessibility of illegal weapons. Weapons are only less assessable if you don’t associate with criminals which is the argument why the law mainly effects non criminals. People who want to kill other people have no problem with associating with criminals.
That does not change the facts involved in gun control, and making certain weapons inaccessible. You are ignoring the facts. You can associate with criminals and still find getting certain weapons expensive, and difficult. Those are FACTS. What part of this reality are you not understanding?? :eh:
#14900873
@Godstud since the early 60’s the liberal argument has been tp prevent crime by altering the behavior of the victims. Conservatives have argued stronger punishment for the criminals is the answer. Gun control debate is simply a variation of this theme. Neither side is correct, though conservatives are closer imo. Most mass shooters were known to be weird. Our failure to do anything about them at an early age is the problem. We need to recognize our limitations of helping others and permanently remove those we know are a potential danger. We doubt our ability to do this, so we do nothing.We then rant and rave about the atrocities, so we can pretend we are not simply incapable at present of dealing with the problem.
#14900881
One Degree wrote:@Godstud since the early 60’s the liberal argument has been tp prevent crime by altering the behavior of the victims. Conservatives have argued stronger punishment for the criminals is the answer. Gun control debate is simply a variation of this theme. Neither side is correct, though conservatives are closer imo. Most mass shooters were known to be weird. Our failure to do anything about them at an early age is the problem. We need to recognize our limitations of helping others and permanently remove those we know are a potential danger. We doubt our ability to do this, so we do nothing.We then rant and rave about the atrocities, so we can pretend we are not simply incapable at present of dealing with the problem.
The studies and facts say this is bullshit, but hey, you want to write your own narrative? Go right ahead. It doesn't make it any less true.

Other countries have dealt with mass shootings with gun control, and it has always has a positive effect.
#14900901
Godstud wrote:The studies and facts say this is bullshit, but hey, you want to write your own narrative? Go right ahead. It doesn't make it any less true.

Other countries have dealt with mass shootings with gun control, and it has always has a positive effect.


Take away guns works, but it is still punishing the victim instead of the criminal. It is assbackwards. Just because a solution works does not make it the right solution.
#14900908
Punishing the victim? Since when are gun owners "victims"? :lol: Emotional argument? I think so!

One Degree wrote:Just because a solution works does not make it the right solution.
:roll: It's the right solution because it works and no one else is doing anything else effective. Why would an effective method of stopping school shootings NOT be considered, unless you think that school children do not deserve the defense of society... which would be totally fucked up...
#14900948
I can not believe the number of adults grumbling about taking automatic weapons off the table.

50 years ago, Christmas cards rattled on about the spirits of Christmas. Santa was drunk. There was a "one for the road" mentality afoot. As a result, people died. Then MADD arose, and slowly the drinking and driving attitude began to be seen for what it is: an irresponsible force that put innocent lives at risk. The resistance against common sense gun laws suggests you need another MADD-like movement. Unbelievable.
#14900958
Sounds like this protest actually had very little children in it, and was just a bunch of bullshit propaganda from the MSM.

The March for Our Lives was, of course, billed as a march by students affected by mass shootings for students who might, in the future, be affected by a mass shooting. But, it turns out, despite the hours spent bussing in kids from all over the country, and the attention lavished on a handful of student organizers, the vast majority — a whopping 90% — of marchers were middle-aged.

This shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone familiar with the anti-Trump "Resistance." After an initial wave of marches, the Resistance began to skew older and more female, and by early 2018, consisted almost entirely of Baby Boomer-aged women lecturing their kids and grandkids about the forthcoming nuclear holocaust on social media.

Although the kids provided a catalyst that catapulted the movement back into the headlines, the March for Our Lives had only a thin veneer of youth. Aside from the Parkland students that spoke, and the motivated, progressive kids who boarded buses to Washington, D.C. with only weeks lead time, the organizers were all legacy progressive organizations led by career progressive lobbyists.

And now, the data pans that out. According to a scientific survey taken during the March itself by researchers associated with The Washington Post and who have tracked the anti-Trump "Resistance" since it began the night after the election in 2016, the same people just keep showing up at everything.

The March for Our Lives was 70% women. Nearly three quarters of the marchers — 72% — had a bachelor's degree or higher level of graduate education, putting them well into the category of "leftist elite."

Most importantly though, less than 10% of marchers were under the age of 18, even though the march was clearly supposed to be for and about high school aged children. Of those adults attending the march who were over the age of 18, the average age was 49 years old — well within the realm of "Baby Boomer."

And the vast majority were career agitators: only about a quarter of marchers had "never protested before."

Weirder still, according to The Washington Post's data collection operation, most of the marchers weren't even motivated by the issue of gun control. Only 12% of the people who had never marched in a protest before were at the March for Our Lives because they were motivated by gun control.

"Instead, new protesters reported being motivated by the issues of peace (56 percent) and Trump (42 percent), who has been a galvanizing force for many protests," WaPo reported.

And to no surprise, they were mostly career leftists: "79 percent identified as 'left-leaning' and 89 percent reported voting for Hillary Clinton."

So, in other words, nearly all of the people who showed up last weekend are the same people who have showed up at protests, organized against a conservative agenda, perhaps since the mid-1960s. That's good news for gun advocates, who were worried the show of force last weekend in Washington, D.C. would lead to more stringent gun control legislation by popular demand. But it's bad news for Democrats who thought they'd harnessed a whole new generation of progressive advocates.


https://www.dailywire.com/news/28778/mo ... ly-zanotti
#14900967
Stormsmith wrote:I can not believe the number of adults grumbling about taking automatic weapons off the table.

50 years ago, Christmas cards rattled on about the spirits of Christmas. Santa was drunk. There was a "one for the road" mentality afoot. As a result, people died. Then MADD arose, and slowly the drinking and driving attitude began to be seen for what it is: an irresponsible force that put innocent lives at risk. The resistance against common sense gun laws suggests you need another MADD-like movement. Unbelievable.


Automatic weapons weren't on the table. Automatic weapons have not been widely available since the '30s.
#14900983
Stormsmith wrote:I can not believe the number of adults grumbling about taking automatic weapons off the table.

50 years ago, Christmas cards rattled on about the spirits of Christmas. Santa was drunk. There was a "one for the road" mentality afoot. As a result, people died. Then MADD arose, and slowly the drinking and driving attitude began to be seen for what it is: an irresponsible force that put innocent lives at risk. The resistance against common sense gun laws suggests you need another MADD-like movement. Unbelievable.

Drunk driving laws and gun control have nothing in common. Drunk driving laws only punish the violator. Gun control punishes everyone, because you aren’t satisfied with just punishing the violator.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Were Israelis not taking Palestinian land and hom[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]