I really shouldn't have to smartsplain to people that the opinions 16 year olds hold about anything don't really matter.┬á That should be axiomatic. My three year old is very unhappy her shipping box house got cut up for packing material.┬á She has strong opinions about this.┬á Those opinions aren't relevant.┬á She'll get over it.
In fact, most opinions don't matter, and I can offer an historical example.
Right after WWII, the US Army conducted a scientific study of combat engagements--ours, allies, enemy, every firefight and battle they could get data on, all the casualty reports, everything.
The conclusion was that 90% of combat engagements were under 100 meters, and 98% were under 300 meters.┬á The recommendation came down for a lighter, more effective bullet that would accomplish this, saving resources and enabling more ammo load.
The officers of the Infantry Board refused to accept this fact. They'd been in combat.┬á And who are you going to trust? Some guy in a lab, or the man who had been in combat?
And the answer is: The guy in the lab, who has time to be objective, not the guy scrambling around in the weeds, who isn't actually sure if he hit anything and what happened after.
Eventually, science prevailed, and at this point, pretty much every military in the world has gone (and some already had) from a 7-8mm bullet to a 5-6mm bullet. Us, Europe, ANZAC, Russia, China, everyone.
The US adopted the M-16 variant of the AR-15 starting in 1963 (yes, the AR-15 is probably older than you), and is still using an evolved variant.┬á Meanwhile, there are troops who've never used anything else insisting "wood is stronger than plastic" (Wrong) and that "we need a 'full power cartridge' capable of killing a man at 2000 yards." By which they mean a .30 caliber cartridge, without any scale to explain why that is magically "full power."┬á Nor with any support to the claim that it was even possible to see an enemy at 2000 yards, much less get him to hold still long enough to be hit, using a rifle that was sight limited to a 460 yard range anyway.
Moving to gun control on that note, we see false statements such as "military style weapons" (Pretty much every weapon in existence is based on a military development) and "high capacity clips," by which they mean "It's a standard capacity magazine but I don't like it even though I know nothing about it." And even bizarre, completely fabricated terms like "The shoulder thing that goes up" and "automatic bump stock."
And back to the earlier point. Gun control's only philosophical argument is waving the bloody shirt. There are literally zero facts to support the claims, when any objective study is done. In fact, four of the most widely cited sources against gun control all started out in support, and changed their minds based on facts. (Wright, Rossi, Kleck, Lott)
So then the bleat is, "Who are you going to believe? Some researcher with an "Agenda"(Because obviously, there's zero agenda to taking weapons away from people), or the kids who were at the shooting?
Well, that's easy.┬á It doesn't matter what a Tide Pod eater thinks. Especially when the ones being genuflected before weren't even at the shooting, they were in a completely different building.┬á That's like saying. "I wasn't in combat, but I was on the base near where it happened and I talked to a bunch of shooters, so my opinion on what rifle to use is important!"
No, not really. Science matters.┬á Opinion from a glory seeker who wants CNN coverage is not.
Those two narcissistic twits from Florida, one of whom admitted to being part of a group who bullied the shooter mercilessly, are utterly irrelevant on the subject of firearms.
And only a complete idiot even bothers to acknowledge they exist, much less waste any time listening to them.
If this offends you, you're obviously a complete idiot.┬á┬á