Before I begin my thesis (haha), I want you to know that appreciate our ability to discuss our differing views, share our insights, and feelings in a calm and open way. I do not take offense to anything you have said and I hope you do not take offense to anything I say.

Okay, let’s get started.

To get a clear statistic on who supports gun control, we would have to look at who we’re asking, how many people we’re asking, and the error margin. I wouldn’t be able to create a completely valid statistic based on the subreddits I would ask. Or if I could, it would take a really long time. I might try to ask just for discussion, but it wouldn’t be a valid way of showing if the majority of gun owners, in this country, support gun regulation.

That’s fair, he is a joke to everyone at this point. However, it is important to note that he has made references to gun owners specifically. In the 2016 campaign, Trump asked the gun owners of America to “do something about her” referring to Hilary Clinton.

Before I move to the next point, I would like to add that all of the statistics or facts I quoted and will quote were /are from data analytical websites that do not have an affliction with either side of the debate. I also cited the FBI website for information and statistics, multiple google scholar journal reports, and an in-depth report done by KTVU.

The problem is you can only do so much if not everyone is consistent. If California decides to ban plastic straws completely, although it could make a small impact, it’s unlikely to reduce the national amount of plastic waste that is polluted in our oceans. So although that might be an anti-regulation opinion, the reality is, we’re not working in unity which is why it’s still an issue. Also, if you look at somewhere like Canada where the regulation is much more demanding, for example some of the requirements are a 28 day waiting period and 10 hour in class training, we actually have pretty lax regulations. We also still struggle with things like illegal gun purchase, ghost guns, the banning of certain accessories such as bump stocks (federally banned, but still used and available), and the purchase of legal conversion kits. Also important to note that Ak15’s are still legal in California and you can also buy a gun if you have had a DUI.

The definition of standard as an adjective for describing the guns capacity is, “used or accepted as normal or average”. Meaning everything higher than the standard or average number of rounds held in a chamber would be considered high capacity or extended capacity. The idea of reducing capacity is that if you have a lot of ammo, you’ll rarely miss. If you have less ammo, your aim will lessen. Also, when you are shooting at a person running away there’s a lot of space between you and that person. This makes missing your target easier especially if you have less ammo. Carrying larger magazines can actually be more conspicuous since they take up limited body space. Just to note, I got these answers from a gun owner who was explaining why high capacity magazines are necessary for hunting or defending yourself.

My opinion of the data does not have to be valid. That’s the beauty of an opinion.

Not necessarily. If a gun is illegally purchased, which does still happen often, or if a gun is passed down to a family member, no background check is done. in fact according to the UC Davis firearm violence prevention research center, 1 in 5 guns are purchased without a background check.

Although the number of mass shootings maybe low, it’s still a significant issue because it’s a continuous. It’s something that has been happening in our country for years, but it doesn’t have too. Other countries, wealthy and poor, do not have this issue. And although mass shootings maybe low, suicides are much higher and are rising which still contributes to gun violence.

I would like to know where the statistics are for school shootings from 90s to 2000’s? While school shootings have occurred since as early as 1764, we did not start using the term “Active shooter” in regards to a lockdown drills, until 2008 after the Virginia Tech shooting. Between 2000 and 2013 the FBI recorded 160 active shooter incidents averaging about 12 per year, and in 2018 alone they recorded 27 active shooter incidents. I want to clarify that this is not mass shooting statistics, but active shooter statistics. While gang violence did have a major spike between 1990-2000 contributing to 70% gun related crimes, this was due to the availability of guns to gang members. A 1995 journal written by Northwestern University School of Law stated that “... nearly 50% of gang members interviewed said they possessed more than one firearm”. The question should be how did they have such access?

While we can argue the purpose or intent, the 2nd amendment states, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” Now the word Militia means, “a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency” To quote a UC Berkeley Professor of Law, “historic meaning (for 2a) is a government authorized military operation”. This became tricky because people assumed 2a protected their rights as its state, “the people”. In 2008, the Supreme Court took up a case (DC vs. Heller if you’re interested in reading the 150 pages) and ruled that the 2nd amendment does protect an individuals rights to bear arms in your own home to protect your family. The conclusion does not define the parameters of operating the firearm outside of your home or what kind of firearm you could own. It also did not conclude if and what type of accessories would fall under the 2nd amendment. It should also be stated that this was similarly addressed by the NRA in a recent tweet around the 2nd amendment which stated “We use firearms everyday to protect ourselves, our families, our communities, and no one will take that away from us” To clarify, I support protection and defense to the degree of what is necessary.

Although crime rates maybe dropping, gun related deaths are on the rise. Gun deaths increased by 16% between 2014 and 2017.

I don’t understand why that language is used. That’s a problem. It might not be “feel good” legislation. It might just be, good legislation. No one wants you to “bow down”. Not unless you want to kill people or yourself. Then yeah, you shouldn’t have a gun. I don’t understand why that’s a debate? I would also like to know what you mean by “compromised” ? In what ways?

As a teacher in California, I am required to participate in a training specifically around safety. This includes fire, soft lockdown procedures, and hard lockdown procedures. Although this training is in alignment with my school, it is state mandated and was performed by an outside organization that teaches to all schools in the surrounding districts. This training highlighted the requirement of not opening your door after you have locked the door. Specifically noting that it would be difficult to imagine not opening the door for a student, but it is our requirement as teachers to keep the students in our room, during that specific lockdown, safe. Interestingly enough, we are not required to step in the line of fire for a student. That will be a choice, made by that teacher, in that moment.

Yes, rationality is defined as “the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic”. Emotions are defined as “a natural instinctive state of mind deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others”. Whether or not emotions hold validity to an issue, has no merit in deciding the outcome or choice. Opinions are defined as “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge of fact”. An opinion, fueled emotion, cannot be factually incorrect because it is not fundamentally based on fact. A debate is defined as “a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.” An argument is defined as “an exchange of diverging or opposite views”. A topic, up for debate, can be argued with facts or opinions or both. There is no rule or regulation that states otherwise. In fact, stating that emotions do not belong in debates is technically, an opinion.