So Very Sad....

[Reacher]

2 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Thanks for your reasoned response and conversation, that is consistent with your many posts throughout the years here. As an aside, I think you know I respect your posting, but to the extent my post implied otherwise, I'll emphasize that.

I agree we should avoid "excess regulations" but defining what is excessive and what more may be needed is part of the issue. Consider this a quick aside -- When you point out an example of a situation where laws/regulations failed to stop a crime, you're ignoring the, of course, many situations where the laws in place did prevent or dissuade other crimes. Think about it for a minute -- the regs out there, particularly the more strenuous ones, clearly limit semi-automatic weapon purchases and avoid such incidents in various situations.  It's pretty easy to document examples of people NOT being able to buy a semi-automatic, or a guy with a felony conviction being prevented from buying a gun, etc. But the fact that we have all kinds of incidents of people under 21, or with a history of psychological problems or confinement, etc., getting semi-automatic rifles, including with high capacity magazines, etc., reflects that what we have in place is inadequate. 

Educational reform, criminal justice reform, are huge topics that are absolutely important, and should be addressed -- but that are not going to result in any near-term fixes or help in addressing school shootings and mass shootings. Those are huge program-wide and long-term policy discussions. Trying not to get political here, but illegal aliens? We're talking school shootings and mass shootings. Illegal aliens have nothing to do with this topic. "Drug users" really don't either. You're veering into a significantly different topic -- how should drug users and illegal aliens be treated in our criminal justice system, in our immigration policies, etc. Building a wall isn't going to address school shootings -- let's stay on topic.

I'm not going to be popular among hunters -- that is what it is -- but why do you think a 19-year NEEDS a semi-automatic rifle (whichever of the ones we're discussing), or those easily susceptible to adding high-capacity magazines, etc., to hunt deer (or groundhogs)? There is certainly room for regulating what KIND of rifle a kid can use to hunt, and for that matter what KIND of rifle the average adult hunter can use. Even leaving aside the point made at one point in this thread, that the "sport" of hunting might better be served by using guns actually developed or suited to hunting (how sporting is it to gun down a deer with a semi-automatic loaded with a high capacity magazine??). While I'm sure that comment will aggravate the hunters out there, I am not, at all, opposed to hunters being able to buy hunting rifles, generally, but I do think it's reasonable, in the context of trying to limit school shootings and mass shootings, to start thinking about restrictions on the types of rifles that are readily accessible (just walk into an Academy store) to the average joe, and his kid, because that ready accessibility plays a role in our current environment of fairly regular, annual, school shootings.

You may be surprised, but I agree with a lot of what you say. Why aren't people with problems being reported to the databases?

As someone alluded to earlier, the US is so vast, there is an enormity of differing ideas, needs and requirements. What works for some, will not work for others. I can certainly understand why many schools would not want police stationed in them like in Chicago. Ultimately, each state, or even school, should decide what they deem appropriate. 

Staying on topic, let me bring up why high capacity magazines might be necessary. I think FKIM addressed the issue of training but this just happened a few weeks ago- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-police-officers-fired-65-shots-at-murder-suspect/   These are trained police officers. How do you think a woman in her home would do if somebody breaks in in the middle of the night? I don't know how many bullets are in a standard magazine. 7? 10? Imagine being sleepy, then the rush of adrenaline. Is she supposed to reload under those conditions? I know this is a hypothetical- again just trying to draw attention to both sides of an issue here.

Society has to weigh the costs of potentially limiting a mass shooting vs protecting the rights of those trying to protect themselves.

I think I'm in the middle on this as I see points on both sides. I surely don't have the solutions. It is a complicated issue. And, for many, an emotional one.

 

[Hoosierhoopster]

18 minutes ago, Reacher said:

 

I think I'm in the middle on this as I see points on both sides. I surely don't have the solutions. It is a complicated issue. And, for many, an emotional one.

 

Another quick aside, you quoted me before I went back and "toned down" some of my post because it seemed more antagonistic than I intended -- writing quickly and all, at the office. 

This is good discussion, thanks for talking it through. And I'm more or less in the middle of various of the points -- though I lean towards more limitations and restrictions and/or enforcement mechanisms on existing rules as to access to certain firearms, I see and don't disagree with many points about having a gun for safety, for hunting. For me it's about working through these complicated (and often emotional) issues to find ways to help limit school shootings and mass shootings. Discussion, while trying to keep an open mind, is always a good thing.

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

I'm with you in having reasonable regulations and debate on the issue. And closing loopholes. Not familiar with gun shows, but I'm for everyone having a background check. Consider my last post in connection with my other posts on this. 

As I tried to point out earlier, excess regulations primarily harm law abiding citizens- the same citizens that have prevented many mass shootings. I have no idea where the proper balance is, but I believe saying more regulations would help- even a little- is not necessarily the case. That is why I thought the CA veterans home incident was relevant. Regulations did nothing. Maybe with less regulations a concealed carry holder there (or in San Bernadino?) could have saved lives. Neither one of us knows. 

I'm just trying to bring some different viewpoints to the discussion and in no way "drawing a line in the sand". My only point is to counter people saying we need more regulations  by showing that places with lots of regulatiions (CA, Chicago) are not safer than places with liberalized regulations (contrary to many expectations) seem to be. 

Comparing this to drunk driving is not a valid comparison. Who is saying there should be no laws or no regulations? Not I. I'm for closing loopholes and background checks. I think that is common sense. 

Lastly, just to play devils advovate, (and I have never hunted, don't own a rifle and so have no vested interests here) why shouldn't a 19 year old in rural TX or WY who has been hunting for 10 years, not be able to buy a hunting rifle, or be given one on his birthday? I can't object to that. Should they be subject to a more thorough background check? I think that is reasonable. Should society infringe on someones priviledge to own a firearm in hopes of preventing a tragedy? How about having the FBI, Sheriff, Schools, mental health professionals do their job? It seems to me the blame is being misplaced here. It wasn't a NRA member doing the killing, the NRA member was stopping the shooting at the TX church.

You bring up "limitations, compromises, enforcement mechanisms" as a solution. You assume "regulations, restrictions, policies and/or enforcement efforts can help LIMIT or MINIMALIZE these kinds of crimes".  I tried to show that not only does that not help but that greater to access to firearms does seem to help. I think a multi faceted approach of letting schools do what they feel is necessary (different for inner city, suburban, rural) to better protect our kids, with more involvement among students, parents and teachers to identify and work with potential problematic individuals. I see jails being emptied in Chicago only to see crimes being committed by the same people within days / weeks. Criminal justice reform needs to addressed. Along with mental health issues. I have no idea what % of crime is committed by ex felons, mentally ill, drug users, illegal aliens etc but I bet it is the overwhelming majority so lets address those issues. 

I'm not going to get into a lot of this, but the Chicago part I will. Yes, Chicago has a lot of restrictions and still has gun violence. Chicago is also surrounded by areas that are incredibly easy to get a gun. The Chicago point is one of the most warped points in the debate and the fact that it is so often repeated even after pointing out the problems with it (and not saying you have had them pointed out to you) makes it very clear by those who repeat it the number one priority if to protect their guns. 

I'm all for disagreement and using data, but if you're using bad data your point is worthless. When we are talking about people lives the repeated use of bad data is dangerous. 

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

I'm with you in having reasonable regulations and debate on the issue. And closing loopholes. Not familiar with gun shows, but I'm for everyone having a background check. Consider my last post in connection with my other posts on this. 

As I tried to point out earlier, excess regulations primarily harm law abiding citizens- the same citizens that have prevented many mass shootings. I have no idea where the proper balance is, but I believe saying more regulations would help- even a little- is not necessarily the case. That is why I thought the CA veterans home incident was relevant. Regulations did nothing. Maybe with less regulations a concealed carry holder there (or in San Bernadino?) could have saved lives. Neither one of us knows. 

I'm just trying to bring some different viewpoints to the discussion and in no way "drawing a line in the sand". My only point is to counter people saying we need more regulations  by showing that places with lots of regulatiions (CA, Chicago) are not safer than places with liberalized regulations (contrary to many expectations) seem to be. 

Comparing this to drunk driving is not a valid comparison. Who is saying there should be no laws or no regulations? Not I. I'm for closing loopholes and background checks. I think that is common sense. 

Lastly, just to play devils advovate, (and I have never hunted, don't own a rifle and so have no vested interests here) why shouldn't a 19 year old in rural TX or WY who has been hunting for 10 years, not be able to buy a hunting rifle, or be given one on his birthday? I can't object to that. Should they be subject to a more thorough background check? I think that is reasonable. Should society infringe on someones priviledge to own a firearm in hopes of preventing a tragedy? How about having the FBI, Sheriff, Schools, mental health professionals do their job? It seems to me the blame is being misplaced here. It wasn't a NRA member doing the killing, the NRA member was stopping the shooting at the TX church.

You bring up "limitations, compromises, enforcement mechanisms" as a solution. You assume "regulations, restrictions, policies and/or enforcement efforts can help LIMIT or MINIMALIZE these kinds of crimes".  I tried to show that not only does that not help but that greater to access to firearms does seem to help. I think a multi faceted approach of letting schools do what they feel is necessary (different for inner city, suburban, rural) to better protect our kids, with more involvement among students, parents and teachers to identify and work with potential problematic individuals. I see jails being emptied in Chicago only to see crimes being committed by the same people within days / weeks. Criminal justice reform needs to addressed. Along with mental health issues. I have no idea what % of crime is committed by ex felons, mentally ill, drug users, illegal aliens etc but I bet it is the overwhelming majority so lets address those issues. 

I'm not going to get into a lot of this, but the Chicago part I will. Yes, Chicago has a lot of restrictions and still has gun violence. Chicago is also surrounded by areas that are incredibly easy to get a gun. The Chicago point is one of the most warped points in the debate and the fact that it is so often repeated even after pointing out the problems with it (and not saying you have had them pointed out to you) makes it very clear by those who repeat it the number one priority if to protect their guns. 

I'm all for disagreement and using data, but if you're using bad data your point is worthless. When we are talking about people lives the repeated use of bad data is dangerous. 

And again, not saying you have had anyone point out to you the folly of using Chicago as a benchmark. 

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

I'm with you in having reasonable regulations and debate on the issue. And closing loopholes. Not familiar with gun shows, but I'm for everyone having a background check. Consider my last post in connection with my other posts on this. 

As I tried to point out earlier, excess regulations primarily harm law abiding citizens- the same citizens that have prevented many mass shootings. I have no idea where the proper balance is, but I believe saying more regulations would help- even a little- is not necessarily the case. That is why I thought the CA veterans home incident was relevant. Regulations did nothing. Maybe with less regulations a concealed carry holder there (or in San Bernadino?) could have saved lives. Neither one of us knows. 

I'm just trying to bring some different viewpoints to the discussion and in no way "drawing a line in the sand". My only point is to counter people saying we need more regulations  by showing that places with lots of regulatiions (CA, Chicago) are not safer than places with liberalized regulations (contrary to many expectations) seem to be. 

Comparing this to drunk driving is not a valid comparison. Who is saying there should be no laws or no regulations? Not I. I'm for closing loopholes and background checks. I think that is common sense. 

Lastly, just to play devils advovate, (and I have never hunted, don't own a rifle and so have no vested interests here) why shouldn't a 19 year old in rural TX or WY who has been hunting for 10 years, not be able to buy a hunting rifle, or be given one on his birthday? I can't object to that. Should they be subject to a more thorough background check? I think that is reasonable. Should society infringe on someones priviledge to own a firearm in hopes of preventing a tragedy? How about having the FBI, Sheriff, Schools, mental health professionals do their job? It seems to me the blame is being misplaced here. It wasn't a NRA member doing the killing, the NRA member was stopping the shooting at the TX church.

You bring up "limitations, compromises, enforcement mechanisms" as a solution. You assume "regulations, restrictions, policies and/or enforcement efforts can help LIMIT or MINIMALIZE these kinds of crimes".  I tried to show that not only does that not help but that greater to access to firearms does seem to help. I think a multi faceted approach of letting schools do what they feel is necessary (different for inner city, suburban, rural) to better protect our kids, with more involvement among students, parents and teachers to identify and work with potential problematic individuals. I see jails being emptied in Chicago only to see crimes being committed by the same people within days / weeks. Criminal justice reform needs to addressed. Along with mental health issues. I have no idea what % of crime is committed by ex felons, mentally ill, drug users, illegal aliens etc but I bet it is the overwhelming majority so lets address those issues. 

I'm not going to get into a lot of this, but the Chicago part I will. Yes, Chicago has a lot of restrictions and still has gun violence. Chicago is also surrounded by areas that are incredibly easy to get a gun. The Chicago point is one of the most warped points in the debate and the fact that it is so often repeated even after pointing out the problems with it (and not saying you have had them pointed out to you) makes it very clear by those who repeat it the number one priority if to protect their guns. 

I'm all for disagreement and using data, but if you're using bad data your point is worthless. When we are talking about people lives the repeated use of bad data is dangerous. 

And again, not saying you have had anyone point out to you the folly of using Chicago as a benchmark. 

[Reacher]

1 hour ago, KoB2011 said:

I'm not going to get into a lot of this, but the Chicago part I will. Yes, Chicago has a lot of restrictions and still has gun violence. Chicago is also surrounded by areas that are incredibly easy to get a gun. The Chicago point is one of the most warped points in the debate and the fact that it is so often repeated even after pointing out the problems with it (and not saying you have had them pointed out to you) makes it very clear by those who repeat it the number one priority if to protect their guns. 

I'm all for disagreement and using data, but if you're using bad data your point is worthless. When we are talking about people lives the repeated use of bad data is dangerous. 

And again, not saying you have had anyone point out to you the folly of using Chicago as a benchmark. 

A study released last year showed 60% of guns recovered from crimes were from out of state. 20% from Indiana. Not sure what your point is. They are illegal on public transportation and most city buildings. Consequently, only the criminals are armed in most of the city. i think 90% of the gun crimes are gang related so that is a separate issue. I linked an article earlier about a concealed carry Uber driver preventing a mass shooting. That was not the only instance of private citizens protecting themselves/ others. Many states have seen crime decrease with a rise in guns ownership. Why can't that happen in Chicago? Or California? Or Baltimore or any other city?

Not sure what you  mean about why Chicago shouldn't be used as an example. I used it because I have lived in the area my entire life and that is the news I see on a daily basis.

[KoB2011]

43 minutes ago, Reacher said:

A study released last year showed 60% of guns recovered from crimes were from out of state. 20% from Indiana. Not sure what your point is. They are illegal on public transportation and most city buildings. Consequently, only the criminals are armed in most of the city. i think 90% of the gun crimes are gang related so that is a separate issue. I linked an article earlier about a concealed carry Uber driver preventing a mass shooting. That was not the only instance of private citizens protecting themselves/ others. Many states have seen crime decrease with a rise in guns ownership. Why can't that happen in Chicago? Or California? Or Baltimore or any other city?

Not sure what you  mean about why Chicago shouldn't be used as an example. I used it because I have lived in the area my entire life and that is the news I see on a daily basis.

Because there is easy access to go legally buy guns in Indiana, a surrounding county or anywhere else and bring them to Chicago. It is dishonest to act as if Chicago is representative of what we would see if the country put sweeping regulations in place. If we put nationwide rules in place the option to go somewhere nearby with less restrictions isn't there. 

[rico]

51 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Because there is easy access to go legally buy guns in Indiana, a surrounding county or anywhere else and bring them to Chicago. It is dishonest to act as if Chicago is representative of what we would see if the country put sweeping regulations in place. If we put nationwide rules in place the option to go somewhere nearby with less restrictions isn't there. 

I think Chicago is a perfect example.

And are you suggesting we take away state's rights?

[mrflynn03]

You cant buy handguns from another state as a non resident without first shipping it to an ffl holder in your state of residence who will then run a background check. This is a federal law. I know because i have went through the process.

This is relevant because most all Chicago gun crime is with handguns.  These are black market guns. Illinois has a foid card required for legal owners which adds another barrier.  People are buying and trafficking into chicago because there i s a demand and money to be made . 

 

Being from indiana I can purchase from illinois more easily than someone from Illinois can purchase from indiana. 

 

[KoB2011]

2 hours ago, rico said:

I think Chicago is a perfect example.

And are you suggesting we take away state's rights?

Why is Chicago a perfect example?

I'm not suggesting we take away state rights, the only people who suggest that are those who seek open carry reciprocity.  

[rico]

Just now, KoB2011 said:

Why is Chicago a perfect example?

I'm not suggesting we take away state rights, the only people who suggest that are those who seek open carry reciprocity.  

Chicago has a crime problem.  There is a reason people call it "Chiraq".  People dying everyday.  

You blame it on our gun laws and regulations.  But the fact is they are just criminals and will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal/goals.  We as a society need to come to grips with that.  Take guns away from honest people and these shootings will escalate.

[KoB2011]

1 minute ago, rico said:

Chicago has a crime problem.  There is a reason people call it "Chiraq".  People dying everyday.  

You blame it on our gun laws and regulations.  But the fact is they are just criminals and will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal/goals.  We as a society need to come to grips with that.  Take guns away from honest people and these shootings will escalate.

Of course Chicago has a crime problem, I've never said they don't.  Using Chicago as an example of gun regulation not working is a poor example because they are surrounded by areas that don't have the same regulations.  It makes it very easy to get guns either legally or from an easily set up black market.  That is not representative of what anyone is advocating for.  

Do you think all laws should go away because they all get broken?  

What are other countries with less gun violence doing differently than us?  Are their people just better than ours? If so, what makes them better? 

[mrflynn03]

I guess you are intentionally ignoring my last post?  Chicago is a good example because of their heavy regulations but high gun crime rates. The guns are black market handguns predominately from surrounding illinois counties because of what I stated in my last post. They are black market guns sold by criminals to other criminals.  This is a result of the

d umbass war on drugs. 

You like raw data and statistics?  Both of those data sets show that mass shootings with semi auto rifles are a statistical rarity. If you believe otherwiseyou are wrong.  Most gun crime is inner city gang crime or personal domestic issues. 

Why the focus on semi auto rifles?  99.8%ish of gun homicides are with handguns. 

[mrflynn03]

6 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Of course Chicago has a gun crime problem. Ive never said they don't.  Using Chicago as an example of gun regulation not working is a poor example because they are surrounded by areas that don't have the same regulations.  It makes it very easy to get guns either legally or from an easily set up black market.  That is not representative of what anyone is advocating for.  

Do you think all laws should go away because they all get broken?  

What are other countries with less gun violence doing differently than us?  Are their people just better than ours? If so, what makes them better? 

Where are you from? Have you tried to buy a gun from Indiana as a chicago resident or tried to buy one as an out of state resident?  Or on the black market? How easy Is It really?

 

 

[Reacher]

8 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Of course Chicago has a crime problem, I've never said they don't.  Using Chicago as an example of gun regulation not working is a poor example because they are surrounded by areas that don't have the same regulations.  It makes it very easy to get guns either legally or from an easily set up black market.  That is not representative of what anyone is advocating for.  

Do you think all laws should go away because they all get broken?  

What are other countries with less gun violence doing differently than us?  Are their people just better than ours? If so, what makes them better? 

Using other countries as an example is not relevant to this issue. I should know better but thought that we would face the deflation Japan saw for 20 years from Quantitative Easing. The reality is that there are too many other variables. The US has a larger amount of existing guns compared to other countries so from the very beginning such a comparison is flawed.

Why not use examples within the US that are much more relevant? I provided 2 such examples earlier. And then there is this-https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#3c88280b3f7c.

 

6 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

Why the focus on semi auto rifles?  99.8%ish of gun homicides are with handguns. 

Great point! Why not focus on the gang on gang shootings? The "assault" rifle (however that is defined) is being used to increase regulations of all kind. I understand, it looks menacing and can get a lot of sympathy but where do the regulations stop?

Just like income taxes. What should be the maximum tax rate? 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%? Where do you stop? How much is ever too much?

Lastly, I do not think there is enough media coverage of crimes prevented by guns. It is all one sided and that influences peoples opinions.

Here is an incident from a 2 weeks ago that occurred near me http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/news/ct-abn-oswego-stabbing-charges-st-0227-20180227-story.html. If you don't want to read it, a man with an AR-15 stepped in and saved a neighbor from being stabbed to death. I think the man being stabbed is very grateful his neighbors "assault rifle" wasn't banned!

[KoB2011]

There protests nationally today as students walked out of schools. Regardless of your feelings on why they are protesting, surely we can all agree it is wonderful to see young people getting involved and peacefully protesting. 

[Reacher]

2 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

There protests nationally today as students walked out of schools. Regardless of your feelings on why they are protesting, surely we can all agree it is wonderful to see young people getting involved and peacefully protesting. 

I agree wholeheartedly. Let the kids get involved. Just lets not steer them in one direction. I'm agraid there is a certain amount of that happening.

One thing I am not happy about is politicing out children, however. I can't believe the cash strapped city of Baltimore spent $100,000 to bus kids to anti gun rallies. http://www.wcbm.com/2018/03/08/baltimore-cant-heat-schools-but-sending-busloads-of-kids-to-gun-march-with-free-t-shirts-meals/

Would you feel the same way if students across the country were taken out of school and bused to NRA rallies?

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

I agree wholeheartedly. Let the kids get involved. Just lets not steer them in one direction. I'm agraid there is a certain amount of that happening.

One thing I am not happy about is politicing out children, however. I can't believe the cash strapped city of Baltimore spent $100,000 to bus kids to anti gun rallies. http://www.wcbm.com/2018/03/08/baltimore-cant-heat-schools-but-sending-busloads-of-kids-to-gun-march-with-free-t-shirts-meals/

Would you feel the same way if students across the country were taken out of school and bused to NRA rallies?

I don't think students should be getting bused to rallies by the government. That's a huge overreach even if you don't factor in the lack of school funding in my opinion. 

Having said that, I don't think students messaging is being fed to them. I think they've grown up going through drills that make them afraid for their lives and they have had enough. There is a strong wind of change in this country and the kids are driving the boat. 

[Reacher]

11 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I don't think students should be getting bused to rallies by the government. That's a huge overreach even if you don't factor in the lack of school funding in my opinion. 

Having said that, I don't think students messaging is being fed to them. I think they've grown up going through drills that make them afraid for their lives and they have had enough. There is a strong wind of change in this country and the kids are driving the boat. 

There is a certain amount that is organic and I'm all for that.

Unfortunately, the anti semitic womens march sponsored and co opted this. Why were none of the students blaming Sherriff Israel, the FBI, the inaction of school administrators? At most, guns are only a small part of this story. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/us/national-student-walkout-womens-march-trnd/index.html

A school district in CT is being sued . The attorney had this to say  " Are you going to collectively decide what the law is and follow it, or are you going to take a very emotional issue and take advantage of anyone – children or anyone – to advocate for your position on an issue? To take that kind of an emotional issue, and advocate, and not follow the law while you’re doing it, and use taxpayer dollars to fund your decision to do that is just wrong."

I have no idea whether the walkout was 10% or 90% organic but I don't believe for a minute that students are not being influenced after an emotional event to make a political statement. That is truly sad.

[mrflynn03]

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

There is a certain amount that is organic and I'm al l for that.

Unfortunately, the anti semetic womens march sponsored and co opted.  this. Why were none of the students blaming Sherriff Israel, the FBI, the inaction of school administrators? At most, guns are only a small part of this story. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/us/national-student-walkout-womens-march-trnd/index.html

A school district in CT is being sued . The attorney had this to say  " Are you going to collectively decide what the law is and follow it, or are you going to take a very emotional issue and take advantage of anyone – children or anyone – to advocate for your position on an issue? To take that kind of an emotional issue, and advocate, and not follow the law while you’re doing it, and use taxpayer dollars to fund your decision to do that is just wrong."

I have no idea whether the walkout was 10% or 90% organic but I don't believe for a minute that students are not being influenced after an emotional event to make a political statement. That is truly sad.

Agreed.  The gun control proposals put forth after these events have gathered dust for years just waiting.  These are not new Ideas .  

The students have a right to their opinions but they are being used to try and dictate policy because of the emotional reaction.

 Legislation needs to be well though out, detailed,    with a reasonable chance at success.  Bad bills dont do anyone any good.

[KoB2011]

No one disputes there are other factors at play, at least that I've seen, but maybe the kids are looking at the common denominator in school shootings and deciding enough is enough? 

It is a bit disinegunous to question the authenticity of the kids protest but not mention the NRA contributions to the other side; especially when we can measure the financial benefits for both the politicians and the NRA on that side of the argument. What evidence can you give for the kids being influenced? How can we measure it?

[HoosierFaithful]

Can anyone here read Romeo's mind as discern his motivations and intentions as well as we're all apparently reading the minds of other high school students?  You'd make HSN quite the popular hangout if you got us the scoop.

[Reacher]

18 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

No one disputes there are other factors at play, at least that I've seen, but maybe the kids are looking at the common denominator in school shootings and deciding enough is enough? 

It is a bit disinegunous to question the authenticity of the kids protest but not mention the NRA contributions to the other side; especially when we can measure the financial benefits for both the politicians and the NRA on that side of the argument. What evidence can you give for the kids being influenced? How can we measure it?

I can't follow your logic here.  How do you relate authenticity of kids to financial contributions? Especially contributions to the NRA? It is the Womens March that sponsored the walkout . Aren't those the political contributions we should be looking at and measuring? Isn't that more relevant? The NRA hasn't been involved at all that I have seen. 

And why even ask about how to measure the amount of kids influence when that is really unanswerable and I already mentioned it could be anywhere from 10-90%?

Why would you assume there is no influence when we know a national political organization- the Womens March- sponsored it and school districts are promoting it  and spending $ on it.

Sorry if I appear jaded but I have watched kids taken out of Chicago schools on a very regular basis for years to be used as props for a mayors press conference or rally of some sort. I think it is naive and disengenous to assume no kids are being influenced or outright used here. 

I have 2 kids in High School that I have discussed this with so I do have a limited idea of what the feelings were at 1 particular HS

[Reacher]

Seems like the government dropped the ball again- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/tens-of-thousands-with-outstanding-warrants-purged-from-background-check-database-for-gun-purchases/2017/11/22/b890643c-ced1-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.6f66105b5e5b

Let's fix these issues first before we put in new rules that criminals will break anyways.

[mrflynn03]

Nothing is ever as it seems.  These things start organically, then agitators, community organizers, and agenda pushers latch on. It happens all across the political spectrum so it is not one sided.

It is just the way the game is played . Been that way for centuries.