Good to see the kids stand up

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Post Reply
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Not sure what you're argument is. You're saying that people are using AR15s to kill deer because they're effective at killing from distance. From what I was told earlier in this thread, they should using handguns instead.
I have no idea what you're trying to say. I said the tumble of the round creates the damage, not high velocity. It's not a bone smashing round. I don't use that round because of the soft tissue damage as I want to eat what I kill so go with something that will cleanly exit the animal and not screw up the meat. What you described as an .223 round was actually how a higher caliber round behaves.

Just to point our another dimension of stupidity in this, you can make an AR that shoots plenty of other caliber rounds or you can fire that same round from a varmint gun. You ignorant people destroy the debate as you're focused on products as that's all you can see. But weapons is a whole other universe of options and configurations. The language you use and point of reference about a specific brand of weapon make debate impossible as it's not the language or understanding educated people would have. This isn't like buying a hat at Miller and Rhoads where the only options are what's in the display case. It's more like building a computer where you can get or make parts that achieve what you want. So trying to ban X product or X style product is just stupid. Not to mention that what you're getting at about wanting to ban military weapons is already the law.
You seem to agree that an AR15 causes a lot of damage. It causes that damage because it's a lighter round that expands more when it breaks apart and carries a lot of energy because of the high velocity.
And why a 9mm round, which is heavier and slower, penetrated further and leaves a smaller wound.

Your second paragraph has no relation to anything I've said.
You're changing your argument. You said it was a bone crusher and that's why it kills. That's BS. It's a soft tissue killer. The 9mm isn't tumbling, it enters and leaves, even through bone. You can load your own rounds and play with velocities too. They design of the bullet itself has the most effect on damage.
I'm not. I said the lighter faster round destroys the bone, which it does because the energy is distributed outward, and that the large, slow round creates a hole.

And you're back to the round. I get what you're saying, but in a general discussion, how about sticking with the most common combination. And in general, a longer barrel produces higher velocities. And lighter rounds will deliver higher velocities.
Nope, not a bone crusher
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Jack Galt
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:55 am
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: none of the above
Location: Secret hideout in Colorado

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by Jack Galt »

HokieFanDC wrote: Here are 3 potential answers.

1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.

2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.

3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.

Thoughts?
Here are a few of my thoughts.

1) It depends. This isn't just a matter of kinetic energy. It is also a matter of terminal ballistics. A 124gr 9mm HP will do more damage at close range than a 55gr 5.56mm ball at close range. So basing an argument on a small caliber long gun vs a upper-mid/large caliber hand gun is deceptive.

The terminal ballistics of the 5.56 x 45 mm ball (55gr @ 3200 fps muzzle velocity) was the one of the reasons the US switched from the 7.62 x 51 mm (147gr @ 2800 fps muzzle velocity). At close range, the 7.62 punched right through the target, while the 5.56 would ricochet and tumble inside the target if it hit anything substantial. So if you wanted to deliver the most damage at close range in a crowd, the higher caliber would be preferred considering the ability for through and throughs into the next person and taking into account the response time for medics in a situation such as that. They aren't combat medics, so they won't be treating injuries until after the situation is contained.

2) High capacity magazines. You can get 30+ round magazines for rifles and pistols if you live in the right location, or get them outside of an area that bans them. Anything over 10 rounds is banned in Cook County, IL (Chicago), but not in the neighboring counties.

With that being said, anything over 30 rounds for a rifle typically jams. Same with lots of aftermarket pistol magazines. Proper spring tension throughout the operation of the magazine is harder than most people understand.

As for quickly reloading, it is much easier to quickly reload a pistol than a rifle. Especially without a lot of training. It's essentially the difference between putting something in your hand (pistol) vs putting something inside a box in space inches in front of your hand (rifle).

3) True. So far, there has only been one incident in the last 20+ years where this made any difference. That was Las Vegas. And the shooter was a horrible shot. The crowd size was large enough that he didn't have to worry about his poor marksmanship.

Since most mass shootings occur at short range in contained spaces, the evil idiots that pull off these vile acts show their complete lack of knowledge and training. But this doesn't surprise me, as most of the people commenting on these acts also do not have much knowledge either.

Now for some other thoughts.

I wouldn't mind basic marksmanship being a requirement for purchasing firearms. In fact, I think it should be a requirement for it to be taught in school, just as civics and basic finance should be required. Military service would automatically count, as weapons qualification is required. If people actually had to learn and demonstrate firearms proficiency, maybe we wouldn't have such a large completely uninformed populace.

The AR-15 is an okay rifle. There are other options available, such as the Mini-14. One thing that makes it popular is that is looks like the M-4/M-16. But it's not. Just like the M1A is not an M14. Yes, I own an AR-15. Yes, I know how to use it.

The AR-15 is the better choice for 3 gun. It's easier to maneuver and has the advantage of Picatinny rails for adding sights and such. There are just more options available.

The vast majority of people who own guns will never kill another person. The vast majority of people who own guns are law-abiding citizens (especially when it comes to guns).

I constantly see a lot of people talking about denying rights that they clearly do not understand. Maybe "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers" should be required reading. Along with the Constitution.

My Ruger 10/22 with the standard wooden stock isn't considered an assault rifle. My Ruger 10/22 in my Blackhawk Axiom stock is. Again, uneducated people making uneducated arguments. And typically, it's the lawmakers in DC who are the most uneducated.

If the people who know about and are accomplices to these crimes were punished as if they committed the crimes themselves, I believe we would see an increase of people trying to stop the crimes before they happened. After a few people got life in prison or the death penalty, things would get straightened out pretty quickly. And before anybody makes an asinine argument against this, just remember there are people who did absolutely nothing to prevent these vile acts from occurring and knew they were going to happen. They should pay for their role in the act. A terrorist getting help is still a terrorist, and those who help them are terrorists. They should all be treated as terrorists.
"Russia? The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” - B. Obama

Image
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
I don't really care. You are just proving the point about not coming up with any solutions.

You keep yapping about things I'm not talking about. I don't know as much about guns as you.
Whoopeee. I know a trauma doctor who has treated lots of gun wounds, including AR 15. I am going to take his experience over yours.
1. Ahh, there you go. The "we have to do something" emotional infant argument. Violent crime has been on a steady downward trend for the last 30 or so years. What we're doing now seems to be working great.

2. Your imaginary trauma doctor friend is more full of excrement than you are. 5.56 wounds are statistically extremely rare, not that he would even know what caliber weapon the wounds were caused by. A trauma doctor should know that bones don't "disintegrate" too.
Yes, there we go. I didn't say we have to do something. That's you're trigger response.

On #2, yawn. He was talking about the damage done to the bones, i.e. so many tiny pieces and a large radius, it's impossible to repair.
1. You said we had to come up with a solution. Basic statistics show that premise is false. You're making an emotional soccer mom appeal to emotion.

2. Interesting. What was your "friend's" sample size to make this determination?
On #1, I didn't.

On #2, I don't know. He's seen lots of handgun wounds. None was like the AR wound he saw. Not sure why you're harping on this. What does your hydrostatic shock knowledge say about high velocity/light vs low velocity/heavy projectiles?
1. Yep

2. What does hydrostatic shock have to do with penetration through bone? :?: :?:
1. Nope, that's you playing with your jump to conclusion mat.

2. I didn't ask you about penetration through bone. I was asking about the damage impact based on different variables.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

Jack Galt wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Here are 3 potential answers.

1) The destructive power of an AR15 is greater than that of a handgun. The velocity is 3x (or so) that of a normal handgun, so when it hits a bone or an organ, it destroys it. Not the case with a typical handgun.

2) AR15 and high capacity. If you have a 30 or 60 round magazine vs something like a 10 round magazine, that’s a lot less reloading. Not sure how long it takes an average person to change out a magazine, but if people are running away from you, that’s meaningful time.

3) Range. AR15 has a longer range than a handgun, so that area that can be covered by an AR15 is significantly larger than a handgun.

Thoughts?
Here are a few of my thoughts.

1) It depends. This isn't just a matter of kinetic energy. It is also a matter of terminal ballistics. A 124gr 9mm HP will do more damage at close range than a 55gr 5.56mm ball at close range. So basing an argument on a small caliber long gun vs a upper-mid/large caliber hand gun is deceptive.

The terminal ballistics of the 5.56 x 45 mm ball (55gr @ 3200 fps muzzle velocity) was the one of the reasons the US switched from the 7.62 x 51 mm (147gr @ 2800 fps muzzle velocity). At close range, the 7.62 punched right through the target, while the 5.56 would ricochet and tumble inside the target if it hit anything substantial. So if you wanted to deliver the most damage at close range in a crowd, the higher caliber would be preferred considering the ability for through and throughs into the next person and taking into account the response time for medics in a situation such as that. They aren't combat medics, so they won't be treating injuries until after the situation is contained.

2) High capacity magazines. You can get 30+ round magazines for rifles and pistols if you live in the right location, or get them outside of an area that bans them. Anything over 10 rounds is banned in Cook County, IL (Chicago), but not in the neighboring counties.

With that being said, anything over 30 rounds for a rifle typically jams. Same with lots of aftermarket pistol magazines. Proper spring tension throughout the operation of the magazine is harder than most people understand.

As for quickly reloading, it is much easier to quickly reload a pistol than a rifle. Especially without a lot of training. It's essentially the difference between putting something in your hand (pistol) vs putting something inside a box in space inches in front of your hand (rifle).

3) True. So far, there has only been one incident in the last 20+ years where this made any difference. That was Las Vegas. And the shooter was a horrible shot. The crowd size was large enough that he didn't have to worry about his poor marksmanship.

Since most mass shootings occur at short range in contained spaces, the evil idiots that pull off these vile acts show their complete lack of knowledge and training. But this doesn't surprise me, as most of the people commenting on these acts also do not have much knowledge either.

Now for some other thoughts.

I wouldn't mind basic marksmanship being a requirement for purchasing firearms. In fact, I think it should be a requirement for it to be taught in school, just as civics and basic finance should be required. Military service would automatically count, as weapons qualification is required. If people actually had to learn and demonstrate firearms proficiency, maybe we wouldn't have such a large completely uninformed populace.

The AR-15 is an okay rifle. There are other options available, such as the Mini-14. One thing that makes it popular is that is looks like the M-4/M-16. But it's not. Just like the M1A is not an M14. Yes, I own an AR-15. Yes, I know how to use it.

The AR-15 is the better choice for 3 gun. It's easier to maneuver and has the advantage of Picatinny rails for adding sights and such. There are just more options available.

The vast majority of people who own guns will never kill another person. The vast majority of people who own guns are law-abiding citizens (especially when it comes to guns).

I constantly see a lot of people talking about denying rights that they clearly do not understand. Maybe "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers" should be required reading. Along with the Constitution.

My Ruger 10/22 with the standard wooden stock isn't considered an assault rifle. My Ruger 10/22 in my Blackhawk Axiom stock is. Again, uneducated people making uneducated arguments. And typically, it's the lawmakers in DC who are the most uneducated.

If the people who know about and are accomplices to these crimes were punished as if they committed the crimes themselves, I believe we would see an increase of people trying to stop the crimes before they happened. After a few people got life in prison or the death penalty, things would get straightened out pretty quickly. And before anybody makes an asinine argument against this, just remember there are people who did absolutely nothing to prevent these vile acts from occurring and knew they were going to happen. They should pay for their role in the act. A terrorist getting help is still a terrorist, and those who help them are terrorists. They should all be treated as terrorists.
appreciate the thoughtful response Jack.
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by cwtcr hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:And fight for those of us who have grown cynical. I wish them the best.

Furious students who survived school shooting call for tougher gun laws - CNNhttps://apple.news/AyoJRT6ETTguREgskeX7RYQ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SAD to see students willing to get rid of our constitutional rights.... I wonder if they want to ban free speech?
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by cwtcr hokie »

nolanvt wrote:
HokieHam wrote:Emotional arguments. Typical
Maybe they should only ask for thoughts and prayers. Those have done a great job of stopping these things so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and as we see the begging for your life options sucks also.... Now, the second any opposition showed up the guy in FL dropped his weapon and ran..... So maybe if people had the option to protect themselves (say teachers for instance) he would have been much less successful. But if we continue with the fantasy that people that IGNORE THE LAW THAT KILLING OTHER HUMANS IS AGAINST THE LAW, will pay attention to yet another gun law.... then we are idiots
User avatar
HokieHam
Posts: 26373
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieHam »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:And fight for those of us who have grown cynical. I wish them the best.

Furious students who survived school shooting call for tougher gun laws - CNNhttps://apple.news/AyoJRT6ETTguREgskeX7RYQ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SAD to see students willing to get rid of our constitutional rights.... I wonder if they want to ban free speech?
Results of government school brainwashing.
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."

ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

Looks like "kids standing up" is actually kids being manipulated and astro-turfing. These kids protesting did not suddenly become anti-2A. These kids were already leftists who were not taught how to think critically.

And now we're learning that one of them is an activist whose father is ex-FBI. And of course there's CNN, right in the middle of the whole thing all too willing to push this bullshit Anti-Trump narrative & agenda.

=====================================

EXPOSED: School Shooting Surviver Turned Activist David Hogg’s Father in FBI, Appears To Have Been Coached On Anti-Trump Lines [VIDEO]
February 19, 2018 by Lucian Wintrich

As previously reported:

In less than a week since they survived a mass murdering gunman attack on their school, two student who quickly became media stars of the Parkland, Florida school shootings are now media obsessed to the point they say they are snubbing an invitation to meet with President Donald Trump this Wednesday in favor of appearing on a televised town hall with CNN’s Jake Tapper. […]

One student, in particular, David Hogg seems articulate and highly skilled at setting a new anti-Conservative/anti-Trump narrative behind the recent school shooting. Few have seen this type of rapid media play before and when they have it has come from well-trained political operatives and MSM commentators.

Immediately, these students-turned-activists threw up some red flags.

In what seemed initially as an incredibly odd move for a high school student, Hogg’s vehemently defended the FBI and placed the blame squarely on the President’s shoulders…. before admitting that his father was in the FBI.
“I think it’s disgusting, personally. My father’s a retired FBI agent and the FBI are some of the hardest working individuals I have ever seen in my life,” proclaimed David Hogg to CNN.

“It’s wrong that the president is blaming them for this.”

Continuing, Hogg demonstrated his complete lack of American civics knowledge. A clueless Hogg appeared unaware of the fact that the President is not ‘in control’ of each department and branch of government, but must work and negotiate with them. Hogg added that Trump is in charge of the FBI.

“He can’t put that off on them. He is in charge of them and these people, what they love to do is push this off on bureaucracy and say it’s not them,” he said. “He is in charge of the FBI … the executive branch is supposed to enforce laws and as such, President Trump is in charge of that and the FBI.”

Anyone who has been following the news could tell you that many in the FBI have been working against the president from the start, with the most notable case being the Obama Administration alongside the Clinton campaign’s attempts to push the false ‘verification’ of the junk Steele Dossier. It has also been widely reported that the FBI received tips well in advance of the Flordia school shooting and decided, for whatever reason, not to act.

The fault for this tragedy lies squarely on the shoulder’s of the FBI who could have prevented this back in January.

Adding to the credibility of Hogg, in a recently uncovered early cut from one of his interviews it appears he was heavily coached on lines and is merely reciting a script. Frequently seen in the footage mouthing the lines he should be reciting, Hogg becomes flustered multiple times and apologizing and asking for re-takes.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02 ... nes-video/
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

Shapiro had some good coverage on this today:
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:Shapiro had some good coverage on this today:
Leftist logic:

1) We need to pass laws to prevent 18 year olds from purchasing guns because they are not mature enough to own them.

2) We need to listen to the advice of 18 year olds and pass more gun control laws.

Anyone else see the problem here?
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:Shapiro had some good coverage on this today:
He's right that the FL high school kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion on gun control. Of course, that's not actually happening.
Trump's views on what should be done, if anything, are certainly not driven by those kids. Trump has spoken favorably in the past about changing some laws. His comments today are not a new stance.

Shapiro is also right that we should listen to the experts. Most of them put better checks on mentally ill as a top policy issue.
But, we all know how that fight has gone.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Shapiro had some good coverage on this today:
He's right that the FL high school kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion on gun control. Of course, that's not actually happening.
Trump's views on what should be done, if anything, are certainly not driven by those kids. Trump has spoken favorably in the past about changing some laws. His comments today are not a new stance.

Shapiro is also right that we should listen to the experts. Most of them put better checks on mentally ill as a top policy issue.
But, we all know how that fight has gone.
You have quite the knack for disagreeing without saying anything.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Shapiro had some good coverage on this today:
He's right that the FL high school kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion on gun control. Of course, that's not actually happening.
Trump's views on what should be done, if anything, are certainly not driven by those kids. Trump has spoken favorably in the past about changing some laws. His comments today are not a new stance.

Shapiro is also right that we should listen to the experts. Most of them put better checks on mentally ill as a top policy issue.
But, we all know how that fight has gone.
You have quite the knack for disagreeing without saying anything.
It's just hard for you to understand how someone can agree with someone on one point, while disagreeing with them on a different point.

I agree that HS kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion.
I disagree that the HS kids influenced Trump's views on gun policy.
I agree that we should listen to the experts.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Shapiro had some good coverage on this today:
He's right that the FL high school kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion on gun control. Of course, that's not actually happening.
Trump's views on what should be done, if anything, are certainly not driven by those kids. Trump has spoken favorably in the past about changing some laws. His comments today are not a new stance.

Shapiro is also right that we should listen to the experts. Most of them put better checks on mentally ill as a top policy issue.
But, we all know how that fight has gone.
You have quite the knack for disagreeing without saying anything.
It's just hard for you to understand how someone can agree with someone on one point, while disagreeing with them on a different point.

I agree that HS kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion.
I disagree that the HS kids influenced Trump's views on gun policy.
I agree that we should listen to the experts.
I don't feel like arguing over lexicon today DC. Suffice it to say, I think the democrats would love for these kids to lead policy discussion - it's their plan in all likelihood. Who better to make appeals to emotion than emotional children. To the latter point, I'm not sure what policy the majority of experts have endorsed which was apparently ignored?
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:Shapiro had some good coverage on this today:
He's right that the FL high school kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion on gun control. Of course, that's not actually happening.
Trump's views on what should be done, if anything, are certainly not driven by those kids. Trump has spoken favorably in the past about changing some laws. His comments today are not a new stance.

Shapiro is also right that we should listen to the experts. Most of them put better checks on mentally ill as a top policy issue.
But, we all know how that fight has gone.
You have quite the knack for disagreeing without saying anything.
It's just hard for you to understand how someone can agree with someone on one point, while disagreeing with them on a different point.

I agree that HS kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion.
I disagree that the HS kids influenced Trump's views on gun policy.
I agree that we should listen to the experts.
I don't feel like arguing over lexicon today DC. Suffice it to say, I think the democrats would love for these kids to lead policy discussion - it's their plan in all likelihood. Who better to make appeals to emotion than emotional children. To the latter point, I'm not sure what policy the majority of experts have endorsed which was apparently ignored?
Not arguing sounds like a good choice, since I agree with you on the policy discussion by kids.

But, I'm not sure what you're not sure about. Gun policy experts have said that we can do better at preventing people with mental illnesses from buying guns. There isn't a specific policy. It's a complex issue, and would be hard to balance the rights of mentally ill people with that of protecting the public, but it's one that should be looked at. A lot of these guys do have mental health issues, and ones that have been identified.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
He's right that the FL high school kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion on gun control. Of course, that's not actually happening.
Trump's views on what should be done, if anything, are certainly not driven by those kids. Trump has spoken favorably in the past about changing some laws. His comments today are not a new stance.

Shapiro is also right that we should listen to the experts. Most of them put better checks on mentally ill as a top policy issue.
But, we all know how that fight has gone.
You have quite the knack for disagreeing without saying anything.
It's just hard for you to understand how someone can agree with someone on one point, while disagreeing with them on a different point.

I agree that HS kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion.
I disagree that the HS kids influenced Trump's views on gun policy.
I agree that we should listen to the experts.
I don't feel like arguing over lexicon today DC. Suffice it to say, I think the democrats would love for these kids to lead policy discussion - it's their plan in all likelihood. Who better to make appeals to emotion than emotional children. To the latter point, I'm not sure what policy the majority of experts have endorsed which was apparently ignored?
Not arguing sounds like a good choice, since I agree with you on the policy discussion by kids.

But, I'm not sure what you're not sure about. Gun policy experts have said that we can do better at preventing people with mental illnesses from buying guns. There isn't a specific policy. It's a complex issue, and would be hard to balance the rights of mentally ill people with that of protecting the public, but it's one that should be looked at. A lot of these guys do have mental health issues, and ones that have been identified.
You said most experts agree, I assumed you had a source.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
He's right that the FL high school kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion on gun control. Of course, that's not actually happening.
Trump's views on what should be done, if anything, are certainly not driven by those kids. Trump has spoken favorably in the past about changing some laws. His comments today are not a new stance.

Shapiro is also right that we should listen to the experts. Most of them put better checks on mentally ill as a top policy issue.
But, we all know how that fight has gone.
You have quite the knack for disagreeing without saying anything.
It's just hard for you to understand how someone can agree with someone on one point, while disagreeing with them on a different point.

I agree that HS kids shouldn't be leading a policy discussion.
I disagree that the HS kids influenced Trump's views on gun policy.
I agree that we should listen to the experts.
I don't feel like arguing over lexicon today DC. Suffice it to say, I think the democrats would love for these kids to lead policy discussion - it's their plan in all likelihood. Who better to make appeals to emotion than emotional children. To the latter point, I'm not sure what policy the majority of experts have endorsed which was apparently ignored?
Not arguing sounds like a good choice, since I agree with you on the policy discussion by kids.

But, I'm not sure what you're not sure about. Gun policy experts have said that we can do better at preventing people with mental illnesses from buying guns. There isn't a specific policy. It's a complex issue, and would be hard to balance the rights of mentally ill people with that of protecting the public, but it's one that should be looked at. A lot of these guys do have mental health issues, and ones that have been identified.
You said most experts agree, I assumed you had a source.
Sure, why not, here's a source.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -help.html
fatman
Posts: 2439
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:18 am

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by fatman »

Agreed. Kudos to these communities. The kids, the parents, the cops...they are spot on. Shame of those politicians who take $ from the NRA, refuse to consider changes to stop this epidemic that only exists in the US, and then repeatedly offer "thoughts and prayers." The survivors are telling this group of politicians to F@?! Themselves with their bullshit thoughts and prayers. I think this has been the case with other recent communities that have to suffer thru the slaughter of their children. That "thoughts and prayers" bullshit from pols taking big NRA $$$ is getting called out.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote: Sure, why not, here's a source.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -help.html
1. "gun violence experts" aka anti-self defense advocacy lobbyists. OK.

2. Doesn't look like they agree.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Sure, why not, here's a source.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -help.html
1. "gun violence experts" aka anti-self defense advocacy lobbyists. OK.

2. Doesn't look like they agree.
1. Yeh, anti-self defense lobbyists like Volokh. What are you basing this comment on?
2. Umm, there are a few that they agree on...the upper right hand of the chart.

:roll:
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Sure, why not, here's a source.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -help.html
1. "gun violence experts" aka anti-self defense advocacy lobbyists. OK.

2. Doesn't look like they agree.
1. Yeh, anti-self defense lobbyists like Volokh. What are you basing this comment on?
2. Umm, there are a few that they agree on...the upper right hand of the chart.

:roll:

1. One of 28 folks asked to rank anti-gun measures picked by someone else. It's a stupid article and entirely unscientific.

2. There's nothing they all agree on.

:roll:
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Sure, why not, here's a source.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -help.html
1. "gun violence experts" aka anti-self defense advocacy lobbyists. OK.

2. Doesn't look like they agree.
1. Yeh, anti-self defense lobbyists like Volokh. What are you basing this comment on?
2. Umm, there are a few that they agree on...the upper right hand of the chart.

:roll:

1. One of 28 folks asked to rank anti-gun measures picked by someone else. It's a stupid article and entirely unscientific.

2. There's nothing they all agree on.

:roll:
David Kopel is another, I'm sure there are more. You're standard preconceived reaction to anything you disagree with bit you again.

The results show the policies that a diverse group of people think have the highest likelihood of having an impact. Sounds like a rational way to talk about potential solutions or improvements, unless you're someone that has an irrational objection to any change.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote: David Kopel is another, I'm sure there are more. You're standard preconceived reaction to anything you disagree with bit you again.

The results show the policies that a diverse group of people think have the highest likelihood of having an impact. Sounds like a rational way to talk about potential solutions or improvements, unless you're someone that has an irrational objection to any change.
1. Using criteria picked for them by others. That's a classic way to design a bullshirt study.

2. No, evidence-based studies are the best way to evaluate, but I reject your premise that we have to find a "solution." - again, a hallmark of a crap study.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: David Kopel is another, I'm sure there are more. You're standard preconceived reaction to anything you disagree with bit you again.

The results show the policies that a diverse group of people think have the highest likelihood of having an impact. Sounds like a rational way to talk about potential solutions or improvements, unless you're someone that has an irrational objection to any change.
1. Using criteria picked for them by others. That's a classic way to design a bullshirt study.

2. No, evidence-based studies are the best way to evaluate, but I reject your premise that we have to find a "solution." - again, a hallmark of a crap study.
Like I said, you are 100% against any change, so you dismiss any discussion whatsoever.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: David Kopel is another, I'm sure there are more. You're standard preconceived reaction to anything you disagree with bit you again.

The results show the policies that a diverse group of people think have the highest likelihood of having an impact. Sounds like a rational way to talk about potential solutions or improvements, unless you're someone that has an irrational objection to any change.
1. Using criteria picked for them by others. That's a classic way to design a bullshirt study.

2. No, evidence-based studies are the best way to evaluate, but I reject your premise that we have to find a "solution." - again, a hallmark of a crap study.
Like I said, you are 100% against any change, so you dismiss any discussion whatsoever.
I'm in full support of the significant decline in violent crime over the last 25yrs - a period in which gun rights and guns themselves have proliferated. How's that for some evidence-based analysis?

Beyond that, why should I deal with folks who don't even acknowledge our right exists? Forget that.
Post Reply