March for our lives is flawed.

Tone policing is not an argument.

 

Certainly, but it isn’t really necessary, and it doesn’t put weight behind the validity of your argument to be aggressive, despite what people think.

 

When I said mentally ill people, I meant mentally ill people whose illness would give them the capacity to commit a violent act. Sorry I didn’t make that clear. Personally, I feel like anyone who has the capacity to commit a mass shooting is mentally ill, perhaps not in the medical term but in any sort of social situation.

 

I don't know about you guys but if a kid is shooting up a school I'd rather them use a pistol than a freaking AR-15 but that's my humble opinion.

 

How can you effectively stop a kid from getting a weapon with ar-15 capabilities?

 

With reasonable regulation. Plus, it’s more about the kid then the weapon. By all means keep dangerous weapons away from dangerous people, but the dangerous people should be the top priority.

 

This is nonsense. What regulation is going to stop someone from getting a weapon functionally identical to an AR-15. "Reasonable regulation" is a worthless policy position.

 

Statistically it will help, but the bottom line is, people will still be able to acquire weapons illegally, just like people acquire illegal drugs.
If there were no drug laws, there would be a good bit more drug use.

 

What specifically is "it"?

 

Regulations on who can purchase/own certain weapons such as ARs

 

Jesus Christ.

WHAT SPECIFIC REGULATIONS DO YOU THINK WILL HELP!?

 

I DONT KNOW SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE I AM NO LAWMAKER , but I would propose a system that requires a background check into the gun owner and others, and legislation that would make psychological evaluations for kids easier, because right now kids cannot have a psych evaluation above the age of 14 without their consent. I believe parents should be able to send their kids to 2 or 3 sessions before requiring a court order. this would help catch a lot of issues with violent behavior, and it would have very likely brought awareness to Nikolas Cruz

 

Background checks are already a thing. Additionally most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally so how would more restrictions on legal gun ownership have any affect? (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/)

A court can order someone to be psychologically evaluated regardless of age.

Nikolas Cruz had been evaluated multiple times. What you are saying is counterfactual. (Mental health agency examined Cruz in 2016, didn't hospitalize him)

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 1, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 1, 2018 ---

If you are going to talk about any political issue it shouldn't be unreasonable to expect you to have a thought out position. If this is too burdensome for you the.

 

You brought up some good points. Id be interested in hearing what your proposed solution is to the issue.

 

That's such an awful argument. "Most drugs are obtained illegally so how would restrictions on legal drug ownership have any affect?"

 

If you are talking specifically about mass shootings I don't think anything can be done. We have too many guns in circulation for us to be comparable to European countries and logically it seems like mass shooters are motivated enough to get guns illegally. Additionally with the Advent of 3d printers any sort of gun control is increasingly becoming fantasy regardless of how much we don't like guns. On the topic of gun violence in general I think decriminalizing a lot of drugs (I'll focus on marijuana) will result in lower rates of crime in general and .y extension gun crime. This is for a few reasons:
-decriminalizing marijuana causes it's price to drop meaning addicts won't need to steal to buy it
-decriminalizing marijuana would lead to less people put in jail In the first place. Being in jail cuts off employment opportunity (thus reducing non-criminal opportunity for people to succeed) and people who are in jail and then get out of jail are significantly more likely to be violent later in life.

The data point I cited shows most people who commit gun crime already obtain guns illegally. I fail to see how changing the laws on legally obtaining a gun would have an effect on someone illegally obtaining a gun is an "awful" argument.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vi...e-inside-story-of-the-3d-printed-gun-movement <--3d printed guns
When Marijuana Is Legalized Here's What Happens To Violent Crime <-- decriminalizing marijuana cuts violent crime
Violent Crime Has Dropped In Border States With Legal Cannabis: Study <-- decriminalizing marijuana cuts violent crime
Report Documents U.S. Recidivism Rates for Federal Prisoners | HuffPost <-- previously incarcerated are more likely to commit crime
Here's what might happen to marijuana prices if it were legalized across the US <-- legalizing marijuana would cause the price to drop
(Do I really need to cite data to show ex-cons have a harder time getting employed and are more likely to be poor?)

 

This may be one of the smartest things I’ve read on here in a while.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 1, 2018, Original Post Date: Apr 1, 2018 ---

.............. NRA donations have gone up since the March. David Hogg is helping us pro-gun, pro-2A, American citizens by making themselves look so stupid. For him to say every gun owner is basically a murder, wtf? My entire family has guns and not one person in my family has killed anyone.

Deaths that happened at a gun show: 0.

Guns aren’t the problem.

 

Boy, 8, accidentally kills self at gun show
Why say things that are so easily disproven?

 

Did you read the article? This was at a training course, not an actual gun show. The headline is misleading.

 

I think it's more of that the movement is so mainstream that the disenfranchised feel the best counter to that is the NRA and thus they donate more to them. I'm curious if the number of donors has gone up significantly or if people are just making larger and more repeated donations.