Impassioned speech. Very eloquent actually.
He's right about a lot of what he says. Law abiding tax paying citizens in a perfect world wouldn't have to take it the chin.
Where he crosses a line is he's wrong about his facts. The majority of Americans support new legislation.
And extrapolating gun restrictions to lawlessness and increased crime is a stretch. And shown to be untrue.

Law abiding folks who are proven staple and responsible should never be denied their 2nd amendment rights. But, at least the way i see it, we have to look at every aspect and cause of school shootings. And maybe not at the top of the list but clearly on the list is gun availability.

Huck, serious question how would you balance the right to safety you are extolling and not minimizing Americans rights. At least for myself, once this door is open I see serious problems due to a continuation of gun seizure by those who fear guns in the hands of the American public.

What about the Alcohol and Automobile availability?
or the drownings and boat availability?
or the Railroad crossing accidents and train availability?
or the running of the bulls and the bull availability?
or the Diabetes and sugar availability?
Pretty hard to legislate away all the dangers in the world.....

Me thinks you might want to reread what you posted.

From the article cited:

The modern origins of the impasse can be traced to 1996, when Congress passed an amendment to a spending bill that forbade the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using money to ”advocate or promote gun control.”

Abrig it’s a ban on research. That’s how it’s couched but make no mistake.

Why would they want less research conducted on gun violence? [sarcasm]

Seriously though, did Obama not put millions into gun violence research years back? I forgot that this happened...

I wish I could pass this baton ....

Speyside, obviously I'm not an expert on the subject. But I'd hope people that are on both sides of the issue could talk calmly, come up with solutions, and walk away from the table unhappy with the compromise.

There is hard evidence that the more guns, the more shootings.
If all of them are absolutely necessary, make it impossible for children to get them or fire them.

School zones should be safe zones, right? If that means bringing in airport-type security, do that.

Where and how kids can get their hands on guns clearly becomes a serious area for investigation. Those pathways need to be blocked. Legislate. Oversee.



RMAN: ya killing me.
Kids are intentionally shooting kids. Legislation to stop them from acquiring guns is just one tool in the tool box we have to stop that. It's a small but invaluable sector of our society.
Legislation alone will do nothing. Doing everything we can think of without smarter legislation will also do nothing.
But.....
Legislation can neither be wise nor just which seeks the welfare of a single interest at the expense and to the injury of many and varied interests.
Andrew Johnson

So, is that it? I'm the anchor leg? There's nobody to pass this baton to? Think I'm done.

I did find this article qouting Obama's gun violence studies by "Guns & Ammo." Ha! No doubt they cherry-picked the data to support their agenda, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.

I still believe in funding more studies regardless, but it seems like if there was some good findings to support the anti-gun crowd, they would be pointing to some of these studies, no?

http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/ 

If you read the entire article, an honest assessment was the bill's purpose was to prevent the CDC from doing research on gun violence, not to advocate for gun control, but that quote was effective to ensure its passage. Read the last paragraph of the article, to clear up any confusion about research/advocacy.

Ark. Rep. Jay Dickey, (the original bill in 1996 was named after Dickey) who put that language in the bill on behalf of the NRA...later had a change of heart. After the Aurora CO shooting he wrote in an op-ed:

“Scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners,” the two unlikely friends wrote. “The same evidence-based approach that is saving millions of lives from motor-vehicle crashes, as well as from smoking, cancer and HIV/AIDS, can help reduce the toll of deaths and injuries from gun violence."

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/10/05/five-times-times-congress-chose-fundgun-research 


Easy to fool some people by calling something it is not...think "middle class tax cut"

I mean... at least kids are intentionally shooting kids before anyone spends money on their college education...

Can you imagine what a waste it would be if they did this after their parents paid all that tuition??

Spoken like a true sociopath.

I dunno... a real sociopath would prefer they shoot each other after the significant investment is made by the parents.

...im practically caring...

😲 😲 😂 😂 😂 😂

Actually, the goal here should be that only the stupid ones get shot. I would look at that as more of a win win. Potential college education does leave a slight assumption of intelligent kids dying.

Umm yeah but once that "No kid left behind" crap came in to play, now even the ones that can't be left alone with safety scissors are getting into college. I mean how do you think I got my AS degree. 😲

You thought you needed a degree to be an azz?

Psh... waste of money there!

Well not really, once you get them letters after your name, you then become a Professional azz and people tend to pay you a lot more money.

I have been preserving my amateur azz status so I can compete in the Olympics...

take the money, pro athletes compete now.

There might be a better way to phrase that one...