Author Topic: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days  (Read 87075 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #400 on: February 23, 2018, 02:20:39 PM »
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/23/17044318/nra-membership-partners-cut-ties

Its about time. Brands flee celebrities and politicians after mere poorly chosen words or affairs. 

Its taken how many mass shootings for these companies to bail on the NRA?

It takes a short amount of time to tweet your thanks to these companies....It takes guts to stand up to the NRA.  (I'd say ask a politician, but I haven't found one yet that had ties to the NRA and has yet to stand up to them)

This is a very good point. I'm going to add this to my list of things to do.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2846
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #401 on: February 23, 2018, 03:06:37 PM »
What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.

Airports aren't gun free zones. There are armed police and TSA all over the place and, somehow, they still have shootings.

Maybe it's not so simple as you think it is.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #402 on: February 23, 2018, 11:57:58 PM »
Thank you for the question:

You're welcome and thank you for the response.
Quote from: TheOldestYoungMan
Article V of the U.S. constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two
thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to
all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by
the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be
made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and
eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate.

So you can accomplish it via state legislatures or a constitutional convention.
So if I'm reading things right, Congress can propose an amendment or a Convention can be held if 2/3's of states agree to having it and the Convention can then propose an amendment.  That's the first part.  Then the amendment, whether proposed by Congress or by the Convention, must be agreed to by 3/4's of the States for it to come into effect.  Is that correct?

Do the people ever actually have a say in any of this?  Is the amendment ever put to a vote by the people and if so are the various State Legislature obligated to abide by the vote or can they ignore it?

px4shooter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #403 on: February 24, 2018, 08:48:00 AM »
What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.

Airports aren't gun free zones. There are armed police and TSA all over the place and, somehow, they still have shootings.

Maybe it's not so simple as you think it is.

I don't think you understand that gun free zones only apply to the people and not the government's agents. It is only gun free for the people and those that choose to obey the law.

So, the unarmed masses that are in the airport's gun free zone aren't safe? Say it isn't so. Just like the school in Florida, where the only armed person chose not to go after the shooter, while unarmed teachers were trying to protect the kids.


bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2846
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #404 on: February 24, 2018, 09:32:57 AM »
What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.

Airports aren't gun free zones. There are armed police and TSA all over the place and, somehow, they still have shootings.

Maybe it's not so simple as you think it is.

I don't think you understand that gun free zones only apply to the people and not the government's agents. It is only gun free for the people and those that choose to obey the law.

So, the unarmed masses that are in the airport's gun free zone aren't safe? Say it isn't so. Just like the school in Florida, where the only armed person chose not to go after the shooter, while unarmed teachers were trying to protect the kids.

You're right. I didn't know the Gun-Free Zone law.

What you don't understand is that truly mentally ill don't care if there are a lot of guns around. These people aren't making rational decisions. Why would they strategically decide to go to a mall instead of, say, shoot up a police station?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_attack_on_Dallas_police

The "arm everyone" advocates have been watching too many movies and think that the good guys wear White Hats and the bad guys wear Black Hats and never the lines cross. No White Hats get road rage and pull out a gun. No White Hats get in a bar fight and pull out a gun. The Bad Guys are also super-duper easy to tell because they're Middle-Eastern looking. Or they use Chinese weapons? Whatever -- I think the identifiers are explained in the NRA membership packet.

To put it bluntly, I trust myself with a gun and I trust my partner with a gun. However, I don't trust [the general] you with a gun. [The general] You probably didn't have enough training and the general you is not as disciplined as you should be.

Are there any examples where every adult is armed and it's gone well?

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #405 on: February 24, 2018, 09:53:36 AM »

The "arm everyone" advocates have been watching too many movies and think that the good guys wear White Hats and the bad guys wear Black Hats and never the lines cross. No White Hats get road rage and pull out a gun. No White Hats get in a bar fight and pull out a gun. The Bad Guys are also super-duper easy to tell because they're Middle-Eastern looking. Or they use Chinese weapons? Whatever -- I think the identifiers are explained in the NRA membership packet.

To put it bluntly, I trust myself with a gun and I trust my partner with a gun. However, I don't trust [the general] you with a gun. [The general] You probably didn't have enough training and the general you is not as disciplined as you should be.

Are there any examples where every adult is armed and it's gone well?

This is what gets me. I always think of the LEGO shows my kids watch where the "criminals" all wear black and white shirts. The criminals are us; every last one of us can be a criminal at any point in time. Also, the "government" a segment of our population thinks it's so important to be armed against? It's people like my husband. It's people we know and love.

About these teachers, do people think it also will be like the movies where the bad guys go down with a single shot, and the good guys always hit their target? I really need to start making a greater effort to explain how dumb that stuff is to my kids in the shows they watch...

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #406 on: February 24, 2018, 10:17:23 AM »

But there is a reason people shoot at people in churches, schools, movie theaters, and not police stations and army bases. Its because they know they wont last long attacking a police station or army base, and they want to inflict as many casualties as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

You do realize that military members can't carry guns, right? Using the military base was probably not a good example, as these are heavily controlled restricted firearm zones. All of that particular muslim terrorist's targets were forced to be unarmed, even though they could carry a gun at work.

The military has shifted its views (slightly) on firearm possession.

Israeli schools have armed guards and the staff is armed. Jewish schools seem to do the same in the US too.

What should be learned is that gun free zones are soft targets. These are targeted by terrorists and the crazy. The criminals do not care if they violate the gun free zone law. It does not make the area any safer, as it only disarms those that want to comply with the laws.

That's not true at all. When is the last time a terrorist/mass shooter picked a place purely on the basis it was marked as a gun free zone? The Florida shooter didn't shoot up the school because it was a "gun free zone." Hell they had literally an armed guard at the school. He didn't care! Mass shooters have agendas that don't really involve "gun free zones."

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.

That whole "they pick gun free zones" is a giant red herring.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #407 on: February 24, 2018, 12:09:32 PM »
At any given time there might be a dozen armed people on a military base - much like a small university police force. The rest of the guns are locked up.

It would still be a soft target unless the assault was a long one and people had time to get to the armory and be issued weapons.

There would be more armed people on guard duty if the base was on alert though. 

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #408 on: February 24, 2018, 01:28:25 PM »
Just wanted to weigh in on this issue. I am for gun rights. First of all, this post is based on the premise that this issue is argued on both sides with the arguments rooted in, I donít know if emotion is the right word or at least not based on pure logic or rationality. People that argue for guns, myself included, come at it from the emotional standpoint of liking guns at least in part. Itís not purely logical. On the gun control side, thereís a lot of emotion too. I posted a post awhile back talking about this, but logically alcohol kills much more people than guns. Do not mistake it, this is not deflecting or whatever logical fallacy youíd like to say, because I am NOT saying that we canít have a conversation about guns because something else that is also preventable kills more people. We can talk about multiple things simultaneously. But itís not deflection to simply state the fact that people on the gun control side do not talk with the fervor about banning alcohol that they do about banning firearms. There arenít news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever. Iím not claiming the high ground here. Iím just saying that itís not as if a person is impartial, looks at the statistics holistically, and then makes a decision to push their congressmen and tell their friends to support gun control or to support gun rights. No, we see a tragedy thatís in the grand scheme of things (even in regards to overall gun homicides) an anomaly and then argue vehemently to restrict guns. On the other side, we hear rumors that Obamaís going to take the guns or whatever and post memes all over Facebook about how you can blame misspelling on pencils if you blame guns for murders. All that to be said, at our core, weíre much more emotionally driven than logically driven.

All that being said, Iím curious as to how people for gun control feel about this from a philosophical standpoint at least. Thereís a lot of blame and guilt laid out in regards to this. Iíve seen it on these posts. Weíve heard it where at the town hall in Florida, people were yelling at the NRA spokesman that they were murderers. Iíve seen it with people saying, gun rights people are at fault because they donít have solutions to prevent killings. Thereís blood on their hands. They bear at least some responsibility in the murders that are committed.

My thought is this. Thereís a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe weíre not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasnít meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, letís change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as theyíre just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, thatís pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense. Plan a hunting trip, gather everything up and go or plan a trip to the range or whatnot. Just donít have it accessible for you to potentially defend yourself. Again, this is based on the examples of requirements people want combined with the arguments that defense isnít or shouldnít be part of the rights to have a gun.
OK, so if thatís the case, let me give you a story. A very intoxicated/high (not sure) person attempted to break into my grandfatherís house. He was older, probably 65-70 or so. The guy was so out of it that he wrecked and thought someone in his car was hurt (no one was in the car). He was so belligerent about it that he smashed through the glass door to get in. My grandfather had a shotgun and was able to get him to leave with it. Iím not sure if he fired a warning shot or the sight of it simply got through to him. The guy fled and was eventually caught. So, would anything have happened if the gun hadnít been there? No one could possibly know. The guy, however, was so out of it and was in his 20ís, so who knows if he would have gotten so angry about my grandfather ďresisting helpingĒ or what not that he seriously hurt or killed him. He certainly could have, as he was much younger and stronger. Again, no one could possibly know, and this story is one of the many examples of guns preventing crime that there are almost certainly no statistics about because no one was shot. All in all, this is an anecdote. I know that, but arenít they all? The Florida shooting is ultimately an anecdote. A very tragic one, but itís a single story thatís captured the publicís thoughts.

Protecting yourself where I live is a fact of life. The police are many minutes away when things happen. If my grandfather would not have had a loaded gun to be able to dissuade the guy from coming in, would he have been hurt or killed? I have no idea. All I know is that I got to spend 25 more years or so with him that I might not have.

My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that? Iím a product of my perspective as much as anyone else, and I do know multiple people who may have gotten hurt or worse if their access to loaded firearms as a deterrent were removed.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1148
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #409 on: February 24, 2018, 01:43:38 PM »
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

The other observation I'll make is that the pro-gun rights crowd talk about their rights on a regular basis.   How about a statement of your responsibilities as gun owners?

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #410 on: February 24, 2018, 01:55:52 PM »
Quote
There arenít news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever.

There is in my country. Thereís also extensive education on the consequences of drink driving, and the promotion of responsible behaviour. Also if you are irresponsible and caught over the legal blood to alcohol limit while in control of a vehicle at the minimum you loose the right to drive a car.

Quote
Thereís a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe weíre not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasnít meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, letís change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as theyíre just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, thatís pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense...

...My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that?

Yes I thought about the desire for self defence. If you see my suggestions, the requirement to lock up firearms is explicitly when the owner is NOT at home. When they are home, and they are not safely stored, the owner shares the responsibility of any damage caused by their guns.

How do you feel about this?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2018, 02:22:49 PM by gooki »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #411 on: February 24, 2018, 03:02:12 PM »
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

Yep.

Hunting, sure.  Target practice at the range?  OK.  Farm use, defending livestock from predators . . . yeah that makes sense.  Carry with you every day because you live in mortal fear of being robbed, murdered, beaten, home-invaded?  That's kinda a strange reason to love guns.



Quote
My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt?

I'll see your grandfather story and raise you this one:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/.  Given that things have already gone down the path of almost no restrictions or rules for buying/keeping guns, does anyone on the gun advocacy side feel guilt for the toddlers who are shooting people on a weekly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47) basis in the US?

The bulk of the research done on the issue seems to indicate that despite popular opinion, on the balance owning a gun is not protective from violence.  (Good article here:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/.)  So no, I wouldn't feel any guilt if it was a bit harder to get a gun.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #412 on: February 24, 2018, 04:45:02 PM »
At any given time there might be a dozen armed people on a military base - much like a small university police force. The rest of the guns are locked up.

It would still be a soft target unless the assault was a long one and people had time to get to the armory and be issued weapons.

There would be more armed people on guard duty if the base was on alert though.

There are a hell of a lot more than 12 MPs or SPs on duty at any given time. You are missing the large "smack you in the face" point. You literally have to pass a security check point manned by armed military police. A random person with no connection to the military is never going to pick a military installation to carry at a mass shooting.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #413 on: February 24, 2018, 07:58:18 PM »
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

The other observation I'll make is that the pro-gun rights crowd talk about their rights on a regular basis.   How about a statement of your responsibilities as gun owners?

Thanks for the response, Scottish. I can't speak in terms of a non-American, as I am an American. I am, however, not ignorant of the statistics. We are getting safer overall as a nation. The chances of me being involved in a violent conflict are tremendously small. That being said, if I were to keep a gun locked up in a safe (ammo with it), where only I know where the key or combination is (or potentially a spouse), pay attention to anyone in my house with issues that would make them getting it very dangerous (and taking steps to prevent that if it were so), and doing some other common sense measures, the chances of that firearm being a problem are also tremendously small. Again, I default to my experiences. Neither I nor anyone I know has harmed anyone with a gun. I have known several who have. Anecdotal? Of course. Extremely rare on both sides, certainly.

In regards to responsibilities, I would say the primary responsibility of a gun owner would be the things I mentioned above. The biggest other responsibility would be to not sell off guns to people who don't need them. That would kind of keep the responsibility pretty much out of a gun owner as an individual's hands IMO.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #414 on: February 24, 2018, 08:08:46 PM »
Quote
There arenít news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever.

There is in my country. Thereís also extensive education on the consequences of drink driving, and the promotion of responsible behaviour. Also if you are irresponsible and caught over the legal blood to alcohol limit while in control of a vehicle at the minimum you loose the right to drive a car.

Quote
Thereís a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe weíre not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasnít meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, letís change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as theyíre just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, thatís pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense...

...My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that?

Yes I thought about the desire for self defence. If you see my suggestions, the requirement to lock up firearms is explicitly when the owner is NOT at home. When they are home, and they are not safely stored, the owner shares the responsibility of any damage caused by their guns.

How do you feel about this?

In regards to your first part about the rules for driving, they certainly seem to be a step in the right direction. I would challenge, though, that even if the USA were to enact such a thing, drunk driving is simply a significant minority of all the consequences of alcohol. Abuse caused, self inflicted injuries, and generational poverty are the majority of the issues. Drunk driving is a very serious and easily highlighted problem. The other stuff isn't as easy to rally behind. I don't mean to rehash the previous post, but to treat alcohol the same as many people want guns to be restricted, you would have to restrict people much more and do it before people do anything wrong. If they do something wrong, you would have to restrict not just ability to drive but actual ability to consume. While I have found some who may casually agree with this sentiment, I have seen no one who can genuinely say they are actively pushing for it, lobbying for their congressmen to do it, etc.

In regards to your second point, I do not see a big conflict with that and what I was meaning (if it did not come across clearly, and if I understand you correctly). If you have a gun in your house and your child gets it and hurts themselves or someone else, I completely understand prosecution of the person for doing it. The only issue I have, and to be honest, it is a personal gripe of mine (not sure if you supported this or not) is that the homeowner be responsible if someone breaks into their house while they are not there and steals it if it's not "secured properly enough." I have this problem on a lot of issues, though, probably from my country background. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that responsibility is so often shirked by people who want to be "sue happy." You have a swimming pool. It's not "guarded properly," and a child jumps in and gets hurt......I'm sorry, that's the responsibility of the parent. I'm a parent. If I let my child loose outdoors in an area that had swimming pools nearby where they weren't old enough to know better (or were and chose not to restrain themselves, jumped in, and got hurt), that's my responsibility as a parent. I'm not operating a business on my property, charging people to come in, and thus holding liability for making it safe. It's just my house. I feel the same way about guns. You break into someone's house, sheesh, that's on you. The gun doesn't have to be locked into a state of the art 1 ton safe that can't be carted off. You broke into their house. That's on you for stealing it. The owner should report it, but not hold responsibility in that case, IMO. Sorry for the rant. Other than that, I default back to knowing your family and keeping it out of the hands of people in your family who shouldn't have it (underage, unstable, etc.), and if you don't, yea, that's a problem.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #415 on: February 24, 2018, 08:21:39 PM »
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

Yep.

Hunting, sure.  Target practice at the range?  OK.  Farm use, defending livestock from predators . . . yeah that makes sense.  Carry with you every day because you live in mortal fear of being robbed, murdered, beaten, home-invaded?  That's kinda a strange reason to love guns.



Quote
My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt?

I'll see your grandfather story and raise you this one:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/.  Given that things have already gone down the path of almost no restrictions or rules for buying/keeping guns, does anyone on the gun advocacy side feel guilt for the toddlers who are shooting people on a weekly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47) basis in the US?

The bulk of the research done on the issue seems to indicate that despite popular opinion, on the balance owning a gun is not protective from violence.  (Good article here:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/.)  So no, I wouldn't feel any guilt if it was a bit harder to get a gun.

Thanks for the response, GuitarStv, and for the interesting article. I think it's a challenge to statistically determine safety in individual cases when there are so many individual components to it. A gun left loaded in a safe that, when it's taken out, is handled in a casual and not respectful fashion is different than one that's handled by someone who respects it, treats it as always loaded, etc. IMO, overall statistics on whether a specific home would be safer or less safe is a little hard pin down. I am not a statistics major, and freely admit this opinion may come off as naive.

Thanks for your forthright response on the fact that you would not feel guilt if it were a bit harder to get a gun. I am not advocating for no rules, changes or further restrictions. If I came across that way in some of my more generic statements, it was in error. I am specifically targeting the line of logic that guns used for defense are in no way a right. I am not a big guilt person. I don't feel guilty that someone else chose to poorly handle something and it got their family hurt. I don't typically tell others they should feel guilty either. It doesn't seem to me that gun rights people propose the feeling of guilt upon people who are for gun control a lot (maybe I am wrong on this, and I stand willing to be corrected if I am). Gun rights people are more on the mockery, righteous indignation, etc. kind of thing to me. However, the reverse, I can attest is not true. Gun control people often propose that gun rights people should feel guilty. My question is, would they be willing to take on some of that guilt themselves if they defeat a person's ability to defend themselves and, as a result, someone who was simply minding their own business at home got hurt when they could have protected themselves if they had a gun (which inevitably would happen if some of the restrictions propose occur).

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #416 on: February 24, 2018, 08:27:23 PM »
Good thing Wolfpack's grandpa had an AR-15.  If not, I'm sure the intruder would have just laughed at a hunting rifle pointed at him, and Wolfpack never would have got those 25 years.

Thank you so very much for the snarky, mocking reply, and for making me regret sharing a story after only a few hours of posting it that, believe it or not, was actually very personal for me who, as a 6 or so year old boy was so very thankful that his grandfather didn't get hurt. I truly appreciate your bringing up him having an AR-15 when it was specifically commented that he had a shotgun (I believe that is called a strawman, but who am I to dare to defy such deft logic). I also appreciate you commenting as if my response had anything to do with the type of weapon he had, instead of his access to the weapon with ammunition in it (the very definition of self defense with a gun as an unloaded gun is not very helpful). My discussion was specifically focused on the right to have a loaded weapon (and thus useful weapon), not a type of weapon, but congratulations on scoring your point for the gun control side. Your compassion overtakes me.

SharkStomper

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Great State of Tennessee
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #417 on: February 25, 2018, 12:09:33 AM »

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #418 on: February 25, 2018, 06:48:02 AM »

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and patrol the post/base much like an actual police unit.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them. And deployed to a couple overseas. But you probably know more since you visited. LOL

And let's completely ignore the fact that armed guards secure every entrance to a military installation which has strict requirements for gaining access to. Sounds like an easy target!
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 06:57:36 AM by MasterStache »

SharkStomper

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Great State of Tennessee
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #419 on: February 25, 2018, 06:59:39 AM »

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and drive around the base on patrol. All of them armed.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them.

Then you know how large many of the bases are and how sparsely manned security forces are.  I can drive around many bases for hours and never pass an MP, you make it sound like they're everywhere.

I find your statement that bases are filled with armed soldiers and security response times measured in seconds to be ludicrous.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #420 on: February 25, 2018, 08:04:07 AM »

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and drive around the base on patrol. All of them armed.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them.

Then you know how large many of the bases are and how sparsely manned security forces are.  I can drive around many bases for hours and never pass an MP, you make it sound like they're everywhere.

I find your statement that bases are filled with armed soldiers and security response times measured in seconds to be ludicrous.

I know how condensed they are in terms of liveable/workable space. For instance I can enter the southeast gate of Ft. Drum, drive less than 4 miles and exit the northwest gate. Ft. Drum maintains roughly 13K active military personnel and is the most deployed unit in the US.  And I know personally how huge their training ranges are. A very large portion of military personnel actually live off post in fact. Can't really house tens of thousands of soldiers in a relatively small area. Those who do live on post live in dorms.  Why are you driving around bases for hours? That seems very suspicious.

Of course you find my statement ludicrous. I mean you drive around bases for hours, so someone who was stationed at bases (actually they are "post")  and worked with, deployed with and trained with MPs and SPs, probably doesn't know as much as you.

Thanks for schooling me ( :
« Last Edit: February 25, 2018, 08:26:30 AM by MasterStache »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #421 on: February 25, 2018, 08:15:04 AM »
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

Yep.

Hunting, sure.  Target practice at the range?  OK.  Farm use, defending livestock from predators . . . yeah that makes sense.  Carry with you every day because you live in mortal fear of being robbed, murdered, beaten, home-invaded?  That's kinda a strange reason to love guns.



Quote
My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt?

I'll see your grandfather story and raise you this one:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/.  Given that things have already gone down the path of almost no restrictions or rules for buying/keeping guns, does anyone on the gun advocacy side feel guilt for the toddlers who are shooting people on a weekly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47) basis in the US?

The bulk of the research done on the issue seems to indicate that despite popular opinion, on the balance owning a gun is not protective from violence.  (Good article here:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/.)  So no, I wouldn't feel any guilt if it was a bit harder to get a gun.

Thanks for the response, GuitarStv, and for the interesting article. I think it's a challenge to statistically determine safety in individual cases when there are so many individual components to it. A gun left loaded in a safe that, when it's taken out, is handled in a casual and not respectful fashion is different than one that's handled by someone who respects it, treats it as always loaded, etc. IMO, overall statistics on whether a specific home would be safer or less safe is a little hard pin down. I am not a statistics major, and freely admit this opinion may come off as naive.

Thanks for your forthright response on the fact that you would not feel guilt if it were a bit harder to get a gun. I am not advocating for no rules, changes or further restrictions. If I came across that way in some of my more generic statements, it was in error. I am specifically targeting the line of logic that guns used for defense are in no way a right. I am not a big guilt person. I don't feel guilty that someone else chose to poorly handle something and it got their family hurt. I don't typically tell others they should feel guilty either. It doesn't seem to me that gun rights people propose the feeling of guilt upon people who are for gun control a lot (maybe I am wrong on this, and I stand willing to be corrected if I am). Gun rights people are more on the mockery, righteous indignation, etc. kind of thing to me. However, the reverse, I can attest is not true. Gun control people often propose that gun rights people should feel guilty. My question is, would they be willing to take on some of that guilt themselves if they defeat a person's ability to defend themselves and, as a result, someone who was simply minding their own business at home got hurt when they could have protected themselves if they had a gun (which inevitably would happen if some of the restrictions propose occur).

With regards to guilt . . . the difference I suppose, is that gun advocacy has completely won in the US.  The current gun climate is the result of decades of loose to no restrictions on ownership.  You want a fully automatic weapon?  You can get one without too much difficulty (although greater cost).  You want a grenade launcher?  Same story.  You want a semiautomatic hand gun?  Even easier.  You want a semiautomatic rifle?  Ridiculously easy.  There's no registry.  There's no record of sale if they're not sold from a gun dealer.  You're allowed to openly carry in all but six states.  You're allowed to concealed carry in all states.  There isn't a single issue that gun advocacy has won on.

If all firearms but the ball/powder muskets were banned from private ownership in the US, and it was illegal to carry a weapon openly anywhere, and it was illegal to store a firearm that wasn't kept in a gun safe, and it was illegal to transport firearms without a permit, and all firearms were part of a registry, and an owner was legally held responsible for any illegal accident/action that took place using his firearm . . . that's what it would look like if a similar number of disproportionate wins had been made on the other side.

The reason that guilt is often levied towards gun rights supporters is that gun related problems appear to be directly caused by the policies that you have supported and won on.

SharkStomper

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 60
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Great State of Tennessee
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #422 on: February 25, 2018, 08:52:33 AM »

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and drive around the base on patrol. All of them armed.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them.

Then you know how large many of the bases are and how sparsely manned security forces are.  I can drive around many bases for hours and never pass an MP, you make it sound like they're everywhere.

I find your statement that bases are filled with armed soldiers and security response times measured in seconds to be ludicrous.

I know how condensed they are in terms of liveable/workable space. For instance I can enter the southeast gate of Ft. Drum, drive less than 4 miles and exit the northwest gate. Ft. Drum maintains roughly 13K active military personnel and is the most deployed unit in the US.  And I know personally how huge their training ranges are. A very large portion of military personnel actually live off post in fact. Can't really house tens of thousands of soldiers in a relatively small area. Those who do live on post live in dorms.  Why are you driving around bases for hours? That seems very suspicious.

Of course you find my statement ludicrous. I mean you drive around bases for hours, so someone who was stationed at bases (actually they are "post")  and worked with, deployed with and trained with MPs and SPs, probably doesn't know as much as you.

Thanks for schooling me ( :

You'd think with all of that MP presence they'd easily notice a suspicious contractor looking for a building that is always numbered logically.  Hell I'd be satisfied with being able to find one for directions.  Please stop me so I can find the damn vet clinic!  LMAO

TIL that MP's will respond within seconds to base emergencies!

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1564
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #423 on: February 25, 2018, 09:35:06 AM »

In terms of military bases they are filled with soldiers carrying guns. They are called MPs or SPs.  You literally have an entire police force in a tiny little area able to respond in seconds.


I'm not sure what bases you're referring to, but I travel to military bases for a living and can assure you that the only armed people I ever see are the gate guards.  To say that bases are filled with soldiers carrying guns is just not true.  I'm sure they have special response teams, but so does your local PD and their response time isn't going to be measured in seconds. LOL

MP = Military Police. SP = Security Police. They are referred to differently with different services. They man the gates and drive around the base on patrol. All of them armed.

It's great that you visited military installations. I actually lived on them.

Then you know how large many of the bases are and how sparsely manned security forces are.  I can drive around many bases for hours and never pass an MP, you make it sound like they're everywhere.

I find your statement that bases are filled with armed soldiers and security response times measured in seconds to be ludicrous.

I know how condensed they are in terms of liveable/workable space. For instance I can enter the southeast gate of Ft. Drum, drive less than 4 miles and exit the northwest gate. Ft. Drum maintains roughly 13K active military personnel and is the most deployed unit in the US.  And I know personally how huge their training ranges are. A very large portion of military personnel actually live off post in fact. Can't really house tens of thousands of soldiers in a relatively small area. Those who do live on post live in dorms.  Why are you driving around bases for hours? That seems very suspicious.

Of course you find my statement ludicrous. I mean you drive around bases for hours, so someone who was stationed at bases (actually they are "post")  and worked with, deployed with and trained with MPs and SPs, probably doesn't know as much as you.

Thanks for schooling me ( :

You'd think with all of that MP presence they'd easily notice a suspicious contractor looking for a building that is always numbered logically.  Hell I'd be satisfied with being able to find one for directions.  Please stop me so I can find the damn vet clinic!  LMAO

TIL that MP's will respond within seconds to base emergencies!

Perhaps the specialized ESP MP's weren't on shift. You would think during those aimless hours of driving you would have used this thing called a phone. ( : Maps help as well.

TrudgingAlong

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #424 on: February 25, 2018, 10:03:35 AM »
Just wanted to weigh in on this issue. I am for gun rights. First of all, this post is based on the premise that this issue is argued on both sides with the arguments rooted in, I donít know if emotion is the right word or at least not based on pure logic or rationality. People that argue for guns, myself included, come at it from the emotional standpoint of liking guns at least in part. Itís not purely logical. On the gun control side, thereís a lot of emotion too. I posted a post awhile back talking about this, but logically alcohol kills much more people than guns. Do not mistake it, this is not deflecting or whatever logical fallacy youíd like to say, because I am NOT saying that we canít have a conversation about guns because something else that is also preventable kills more people. We can talk about multiple things simultaneously. But itís not deflection to simply state the fact that people on the gun control side do not talk with the fervor about banning alcohol that they do about banning firearms. There arenít news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever. Iím not claiming the high ground here. Iím just saying that itís not as if a person is impartial, looks at the statistics holistically, and then makes a decision to push their congressmen and tell their friends to support gun control or to support gun rights. No, we see a tragedy thatís in the grand scheme of things (even in regards to overall gun homicides) an anomaly and then argue vehemently to restrict guns. On the other side, we hear rumors that Obamaís going to take the guns or whatever and post memes all over Facebook about how you can blame misspelling on pencils if you blame guns for murders. All that to be said, at our core, weíre much more emotionally driven than logically driven.

All that being said, Iím curious as to how people for gun control feel about this from a philosophical standpoint at least. Thereís a lot of blame and guilt laid out in regards to this. Iíve seen it on these posts. Weíve heard it where at the town hall in Florida, people were yelling at the NRA spokesman that they were murderers. Iíve seen it with people saying, gun rights people are at fault because they donít have solutions to prevent killings. Thereís blood on their hands. They bear at least some responsibility in the murders that are committed.

My thought is this. Thereís a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe weíre not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasnít meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, letís change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as theyíre just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, thatís pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense. Plan a hunting trip, gather everything up and go or plan a trip to the range or whatnot. Just donít have it accessible for you to potentially defend yourself. Again, this is based on the examples of requirements people want combined with the arguments that defense isnít or shouldnít be part of the rights to have a gun.
OK, so if thatís the case, let me give you a story. A very intoxicated/high (not sure) person attempted to break into my grandfatherís house. He was older, probably 65-70 or so. The guy was so out of it that he wrecked and thought someone in his car was hurt (no one was in the car). He was so belligerent about it that he smashed through the glass door to get in. My grandfather had a shotgun and was able to get him to leave with it. Iím not sure if he fired a warning shot or the sight of it simply got through to him. The guy fled and was eventually caught. So, would anything have happened if the gun hadnít been there? No one could possibly know. The guy, however, was so out of it and was in his 20ís, so who knows if he would have gotten so angry about my grandfather ďresisting helpingĒ or what not that he seriously hurt or killed him. He certainly could have, as he was much younger and stronger. Again, no one could possibly know, and this story is one of the many examples of guns preventing crime that there are almost certainly no statistics about because no one was shot. All in all, this is an anecdote. I know that, but arenít they all? The Florida shooting is ultimately an anecdote. A very tragic one, but itís a single story thatís captured the publicís thoughts.

Protecting yourself where I live is a fact of life. The police are many minutes away when things happen. If my grandfather would not have had a loaded gun to be able to dissuade the guy from coming in, would he have been hurt or killed? I have no idea. All I know is that I got to spend 25 more years or so with him that I might not have.

My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that? Iím a product of my perspective as much as anyone else, and I do know multiple people who may have gotten hurt or worse if their access to loaded firearms as a deterrent were removed.

Just wanted to jump in and say thank you for this thoughtful, non-insulting post from the pro-gun side. I think it's one of the first I've ever seen that didn't devolve into insults on terminology and "the left". For the record, I'm an Independent who has always favored gun rights, but not when they start harming my rights.

To clarify, I'm going to go with the alcohol example. Most people don't worry about the effects of alcohol because they aren't generally very immediate and are contained to a familial/personal level. Most of the people I know drink responsibly. (Most of the gun owners I know are responsible.)

This breaks down when someone commits a DUI. Then the alcohol users clash horrifically with the non-drinkers/responsible drinkers. People die, or end up with massive property damage or life altering injuries. Then we end up with MADD and highly restrictive laws concerning alcohol use and vehicles.

This is how I view gun control: guns are fine as lo as they remain a personal decision that I don't need to worry about. The more mass shootings, the more incidents with weapons that occur close to home, the more I want regulations (like we did for DUIs) that will bring them back to what I remember. If that means renewing the assault weapon ban that expired, let's please do it.

No, I don't feel guilty about gun control. I have to admit I feel an awful lot of gun owners are pretty irresponsible and get away with it. When kids get ahold of a weapon and accidentally (or on purpose) kill someone or themselves, I pretty much never see the gun owner arrested. The kid bears the burden of guilt. As a parent, that is unconscionable. I don't believe having a weapon makes people safer.

I think your grandfather should be able to keep his shotgun. That doesn't bother me. I don't think teenagers should be allowed to own guns. As someone who didn't grow up with guns or owns one now (but married to someone who did own guns and is trained as an adult to use them), we still decided to not buy one until our kids are much older because it seems risky, not something that makes any of us safer? But, we let our son learn to shoot a gun at scouts. We'd love to find a range where we can go and fire a gun, but leave it there.

Being labeled an extremist or ignorant by pro-gun people makes me despise them and want to swing all the way to the other side.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #425 on: February 25, 2018, 01:38:12 PM »
Good thing Wolfpack's grandpa had an AR-15.  If not, I'm sure the intruder would have just laughed at a hunting rifle pointed at him, and Wolfpack never would have got those 25 years.

Thank you so very much for the snarky, mocking reply, and for making me regret sharing a story after only a few hours of posting it that, believe it or not, was actually very personal for me who, as a 6 or so year old boy was so very thankful that his grandfather didn't get hurt. I truly appreciate your bringing up him having an AR-15 when it was specifically commented that he had a shotgun (I believe that is called a strawman, but who am I to dare to defy such deft logic). I also appreciate you commenting as if my response had anything to do with the type of weapon he had, instead of his access to the weapon with ammunition in it (the very definition of self defense with a gun as an unloaded gun is not very helpful). My discussion was specifically focused on the right to have a loaded weapon (and thus useful weapon), not a type of weapon, but congratulations on scoring your point for the gun control side. Your compassion overtakes me.

Would you be in favor or legislation banning AR-15s and assault rifles -- yes or no?  And why? 

If a grenade launcher were classified as a gun, would you be in favor of legislation banning grenade launchers -- yes or no?  And why?

Let's go with the grenade launcher question first. A grenade launcher due to the virtual inability to use it without collateral damage would seem to me to put it in another category entirely. It's possible to use an actual rifle of whatever designation and hunt with it or shoot a single person if used accurately without automatically guaranteeing destruction to everyone around it. To me, it's in an obviously different category than any rifle.

In regards to "assault rifles," (and I do put it deliberately in quotes because to my knowledge, there has been no concrete definition of what the phrase entails) I would believe you can get much more bang for your buck so to speak if you were going to try to regulate magazine capacities of rifles. When banning "assault rifles," people on the side of gun rights immediately jump to the assault weapons ban which, to my knowledge, was never proven effective and which even gun control rights people realize had parts that were silly. Furthermore, while AR-15's and the like do have a tendency to be used in mass shootings, hand guns are used as well and actually are used in many more deaths than rifles of any type. While it could be argued (and I believe has earlier in this thread, but I may be wrong) that certain aspects of these guns, specifically the pistol grip, I believe was mentioned, could make it easier to wield and use for mass shootings, overall, they are very similar to any semi-auto rifle. If the purpose is to ban all semi-auto rifles or all semi-auto guns period, I feel to be intellectually honest, that should be what it is called, and if not, I fail to see a great deal of difference between semi-auto rifles of a variety of types, although I am not the expert on guns that many are. Again, I think if you're wanting to help work towards reducing the risk of these rifles, reduction in magazine capacity would be a better thing to focus on.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #426 on: February 25, 2018, 01:41:44 PM »
Honestly, most non-Americans find it strange that Americans feel such a need for firearms for self-protection.   We wonder, is violent crime really so bad in the US that people need a sidearm/shotgun/carbine for protection?   and if it is, maybe you should focus on solving the violent crime problem.   Just saying.

Yep.

Hunting, sure.  Target practice at the range?  OK.  Farm use, defending livestock from predators . . . yeah that makes sense.  Carry with you every day because you live in mortal fear of being robbed, murdered, beaten, home-invaded?  That's kinda a strange reason to love guns.



Quote
My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt?

I'll see your grandfather story and raise you this one:  https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5499161/boy-11-shoots-toddler-sister-dead-accidentally-while-playing-with-gun-before-turning-firearm-on-himself-in-despair/.  Given that things have already gone down the path of almost no restrictions or rules for buying/keeping guns, does anyone on the gun advocacy side feel guilt for the toddlers who are shooting people on a weekly (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.c81eafffcc47) basis in the US?

The bulk of the research done on the issue seems to indicate that despite popular opinion, on the balance owning a gun is not protective from violence.  (Good article here:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/.)  So no, I wouldn't feel any guilt if it was a bit harder to get a gun.

Thanks for the response, GuitarStv, and for the interesting article. I think it's a challenge to statistically determine safety in individual cases when there are so many individual components to it. A gun left loaded in a safe that, when it's taken out, is handled in a casual and not respectful fashion is different than one that's handled by someone who respects it, treats it as always loaded, etc. IMO, overall statistics on whether a specific home would be safer or less safe is a little hard pin down. I am not a statistics major, and freely admit this opinion may come off as naive.

Thanks for your forthright response on the fact that you would not feel guilt if it were a bit harder to get a gun. I am not advocating for no rules, changes or further restrictions. If I came across that way in some of my more generic statements, it was in error. I am specifically targeting the line of logic that guns used for defense are in no way a right. I am not a big guilt person. I don't feel guilty that someone else chose to poorly handle something and it got their family hurt. I don't typically tell others they should feel guilty either. It doesn't seem to me that gun rights people propose the feeling of guilt upon people who are for gun control a lot (maybe I am wrong on this, and I stand willing to be corrected if I am). Gun rights people are more on the mockery, righteous indignation, etc. kind of thing to me. However, the reverse, I can attest is not true. Gun control people often propose that gun rights people should feel guilty. My question is, would they be willing to take on some of that guilt themselves if they defeat a person's ability to defend themselves and, as a result, someone who was simply minding their own business at home got hurt when they could have protected themselves if they had a gun (which inevitably would happen if some of the restrictions propose occur).

With regards to guilt . . . the difference I suppose, is that gun advocacy has completely won in the US.  The current gun climate is the result of decades of loose to no restrictions on ownership.  You want a fully automatic weapon?  You can get one without too much difficulty (although greater cost).  You want a grenade launcher?  Same story.  You want a semiautomatic hand gun?  Even easier.  You want a semiautomatic rifle?  Ridiculously easy.  There's no registry.  There's no record of sale if they're not sold from a gun dealer.  You're allowed to openly carry in all but six states.  You're allowed to concealed carry in all states.  There isn't a single issue that gun advocacy has won on.

If all firearms but the ball/powder muskets were banned from private ownership in the US, and it was illegal to carry a weapon openly anywhere, and it was illegal to store a firearm that wasn't kept in a gun safe, and it was illegal to transport firearms without a permit, and all firearms were part of a registry, and an owner was legally held responsible for any illegal accident/action that took place using his firearm . . . that's what it would look like if a similar number of disproportionate wins had been made on the other side.

The reason that guilt is often levied towards gun rights supporters is that gun related problems appear to be directly caused by the policies that you have supported and won on.

Makes sense. I can see how it is difficult to visualize the other side of the coin when, as you have mentioned, gun rights have not effectively been restricted thus far.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #427 on: February 25, 2018, 02:04:21 PM »
Just wanted to weigh in on this issue. I am for gun rights. First of all, this post is based on the premise that this issue is argued on both sides with the arguments rooted in, I donít know if emotion is the right word or at least not based on pure logic or rationality. People that argue for guns, myself included, come at it from the emotional standpoint of liking guns at least in part. Itís not purely logical. On the gun control side, thereís a lot of emotion too. I posted a post awhile back talking about this, but logically alcohol kills much more people than guns. Do not mistake it, this is not deflecting or whatever logical fallacy youíd like to say, because I am NOT saying that we canít have a conversation about guns because something else that is also preventable kills more people. We can talk about multiple things simultaneously. But itís not deflection to simply state the fact that people on the gun control side do not talk with the fervor about banning alcohol that they do about banning firearms. There arenít news stories about the deaths due to alcohol on the news when a drunk driver kills someone or about generational poverty due to alcohol or whatever. Iím not claiming the high ground here. Iím just saying that itís not as if a person is impartial, looks at the statistics holistically, and then makes a decision to push their congressmen and tell their friends to support gun control or to support gun rights. No, we see a tragedy thatís in the grand scheme of things (even in regards to overall gun homicides) an anomaly and then argue vehemently to restrict guns. On the other side, we hear rumors that Obamaís going to take the guns or whatever and post memes all over Facebook about how you can blame misspelling on pencils if you blame guns for murders. All that to be said, at our core, weíre much more emotionally driven than logically driven.

All that being said, Iím curious as to how people for gun control feel about this from a philosophical standpoint at least. Thereís a lot of blame and guilt laid out in regards to this. Iíve seen it on these posts. Weíve heard it where at the town hall in Florida, people were yelling at the NRA spokesman that they were murderers. Iíve seen it with people saying, gun rights people are at fault because they donít have solutions to prevent killings. Thereís blood on their hands. They bear at least some responsibility in the murders that are committed.

My thought is this. Thereís a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe weíre not banning all guns, but there is a push from multiple people that guns as a means of self-defense is not a right. It wasnít meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, letís change it to take it away. This comes out in the specifics where examples are cited that you can have a gun, even a hand gun, but only to take to the range and shoot. Long rifles are fine, as long as theyíre just for hunting. When these things are in the house, they not only need to be locked up, but they need to be locked up, and the ammo needs to be stored separately. To me, thatís pretty squarely in the frame of reference of you can have it, but you should never need to use it for defense. Plan a hunting trip, gather everything up and go or plan a trip to the range or whatnot. Just donít have it accessible for you to potentially defend yourself. Again, this is based on the examples of requirements people want combined with the arguments that defense isnít or shouldnít be part of the rights to have a gun.
OK, so if thatís the case, let me give you a story. A very intoxicated/high (not sure) person attempted to break into my grandfatherís house. He was older, probably 65-70 or so. The guy was so out of it that he wrecked and thought someone in his car was hurt (no one was in the car). He was so belligerent about it that he smashed through the glass door to get in. My grandfather had a shotgun and was able to get him to leave with it. Iím not sure if he fired a warning shot or the sight of it simply got through to him. The guy fled and was eventually caught. So, would anything have happened if the gun hadnít been there? No one could possibly know. The guy, however, was so out of it and was in his 20ís, so who knows if he would have gotten so angry about my grandfather ďresisting helpingĒ or what not that he seriously hurt or killed him. He certainly could have, as he was much younger and stronger. Again, no one could possibly know, and this story is one of the many examples of guns preventing crime that there are almost certainly no statistics about because no one was shot. All in all, this is an anecdote. I know that, but arenít they all? The Florida shooting is ultimately an anecdote. A very tragic one, but itís a single story thatís captured the publicís thoughts.

Protecting yourself where I live is a fact of life. The police are many minutes away when things happen. If my grandfather would not have had a loaded gun to be able to dissuade the guy from coming in, would he have been hurt or killed? I have no idea. All I know is that I got to spend 25 more years or so with him that I might not have.

My question is this, if things go down the path of restricting guns for self-defense Ė and again, this doesnít mean taking up all the guns, just making it where using it for self-defense is harder/impractical, would anyone on the gun control side feel guilt? Does anyone from that side ever think about it like that? Iím a product of my perspective as much as anyone else, and I do know multiple people who may have gotten hurt or worse if their access to loaded firearms as a deterrent were removed.

Just wanted to jump in and say thank you for this thoughtful, non-insulting post from the pro-gun side. I think it's one of the first I've ever seen that didn't devolve into insults on terminology and "the left". For the record, I'm an Independent who has always favored gun rights, but not when they start harming my rights.

To clarify, I'm going to go with the alcohol example. Most people don't worry about the effects of alcohol because they aren't generally very immediate and are contained to a familial/personal level. Most of the people I know drink responsibly. (Most of the gun owners I know are responsible.)

This breaks down when someone commits a DUI. Then the alcohol users clash horrifically with the non-drinkers/responsible drinkers. People die, or end up with massive property damage or life altering injuries. Then we end up with MADD and highly restrictive laws concerning alcohol use and vehicles.

This is how I view gun control: guns are fine as lo as they remain a personal decision that I don't need to worry about. The more mass shootings, the more incidents with weapons that occur close to home, the more I want regulations (like we did for DUIs) that will bring them back to what I remember. If that means renewing the assault weapon ban that expired, let's please do it.

No, I don't feel guilty about gun control. I have to admit I feel an awful lot of gun owners are pretty irresponsible and get away with it. When kids get ahold of a weapon and accidentally (or on purpose) kill someone or themselves, I pretty much never see the gun owner arrested. The kid bears the burden of guilt. As a parent, that is unconscionable. I don't believe having a weapon makes people safer.

I think your grandfather should be able to keep his shotgun. That doesn't bother me. I don't think teenagers should be allowed to own guns. As someone who didn't grow up with guns or owns one now (but married to someone who did own guns and is trained as an adult to use them), we still decided to not buy one until our kids are much older because it seems risky, not something that makes any of us safer? But, we let our son learn to shoot a gun at scouts. We'd love to find a range where we can go and fire a gun, but leave it there.

Being labeled an extremist or ignorant by pro-gun people makes me despise them and want to swing all the way to the other side.

Trudging, thank you for the kind words and for your balanced reply, as well. First of all, from what I'm seeing, I believe my question was probably not that helpful. There were only a few people on here who have said that having guns for self-defense is definitely not a right and proposed restrictions or general thought processes that would lead to someone truly not having one or having access to one in a way that it could actually be used and none of those have responded. As GuitarStv said, he doesn't feel guilty about making it a bit harder to get a gun, and I certainly don't think he should, even if we disagreed on some of the specifics.

Again, your comments were insightful. That makes sense about alcohol's range of impact being more localized thus leading to less general "collateral damage" and thus less outrage contrasting with drunk driving (if I am not putting words into your mouth). I don't have a problem exploring things, trying things, etc. I can completely understand your choice to not own a gun because of young kids. I don't know of any of your posts that struck me as extreme or ignorant in any way (certainly not if this one is an indication), and if people labeled you as such, I can certainly understand the frustration and desire to swing to the other side. I guess that was the root of my thought process in feeling a similar feeling when people say, essentially, you have no right to defend yourself with a gun, and I'm going to support with all that I have the perspective that strips you of such rights as much as I can get accomplished.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #428 on: February 25, 2018, 02:11:13 PM »
Alcohol is an interesting analogy, but note the laws are focused on punishment of offenders after the fact.  This contrasts with preemptive banning alcohol or certain types of of stronger alcohol.  We tried that a hundred years ago and it failed miserably.  Now we are focused on education and responsible alcohol use.

Changing the culture is what works.  It's working with alcohol and it's really the only reasonable way to make it work with guns.  Mass shootings are a tough one to solve culturally due to mental illness, but gang violence (which is much more severe) can be largely resolved with a shift in culture.

I'm with you on the changing culture. I think if we can target things like the mass incarceration rates, it would be helpful overall IMO.

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2314
  • Location: NZ
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #429 on: February 26, 2018, 01:00:36 AM »
Quote
Drunk driving is a very serious and easily highlighted problem. The other stuff isn't as easy to rally behind.

Agreed drink driving is an easy target for an example of alcohol missue. However even our country actively educates against domestic volunteers and excessive alcohol consumption. We also tax the shit out of alcoholic drinks, to ensure there is funding to address the damage.

Focusing simply on gun deaths. If the costs to society is one million dollars per life (what our government estimates as the cost each death on our roads), and there are 37,000 gun deaths per year (22,00 sucides and 15,000 violent deaths), that makes $37,000,000,000 in financial loss per annum due to gun related deaths. Letís say itís acceptable to recover 10% of that back as tax on ammunition. $3,700,000,000 or 3.7 billion. With 12 billion bullets sold per year in the USA, would you be happy to pay an extra 33 cents per bullet?

Quote
You break into someone's house, sheesh, that's on you. The gun doesn't have to be locked into a state of the art 1 ton safe that can't be carted off. You broke into their house. That's on you for stealing it. The owner should report it, but not hold responsibility in that case, IMO. Sorry for the rant. Other than that, I default back to knowing your family and keeping it out of the hands of people in your family who shouldn't have it (underage, unstable, etc.), and if you don't, yea, that's a problem.

I get your point, and I think we agree on the know your family/visitors bit.

I share the same opinion on swimming pools, but swimming pools arenít deadly weapons, guns are, and for me thatís the crux of it. I know, you know and every adult knows they are dangerous and deadly.

If society wants to make it harder for criminals to get guns, then I have no problem enacting laws that will inconvenience some gun owners, and force a level of responsibility that results in less gun theft. Yes the criminal is 100% at fault for stealing the gun and what they do with it. But I feel some consequences need to be levied on the owner if they were irresponsible. This is roughly how I see it, and fully up for debate.

Leave handgun loaded under pillow, your 4 year old toddler finds it while playing with your neighbors kids, and shots the kid dead. Gun owner charged with man slaughter.

Leave handgun loaded under pillow, thief breaks in steals gun. Gun theft not reported stolen. Gun later used in an armed robbery. Gun owner loses firearms license for 10 years.

Leave handgun loaded under pillow, thief breaks in steals gun. Gun theft reported stolen. Gun owner loses firearms license for 1 year.

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #430 on: February 26, 2018, 06:52:21 AM »
I'm with you on the changing culture. I think if we can target things like the mass incarceration rates, it would be helpful overall IMO.

Ugh, yes this is key.  Our incarceration rates are way too high.  46% of our prison population is there on drug offenses.  We should find another way.  Also find a way to reduce drug use - around 50k people die from overdoses every year.  This is WAY more than our fair share (4% of global population, but 27% of OD deaths).  These are tough societal issues unique to the US. 

There are some interesting parallels to the gun debate.

?!? Incarceration rates too high? Those people are in prison for breaking the law, regardless of whether certain crimes should even be crimes. They knew those actions were illegal, chose to do them, and got busted. Feel no pity for them. I live my life following the rules so I don't go to jail. If I drive recklessly, are you going to have pity for me if I crash into a wall? What if I hurt someone in the process? Screw them.

As far as drug use, there is an ongoing war on drugs thats been going on for decades. Not sure what more can be done. I do think opioids are a huge issue, but honestly if it isn't one drug that is popular in the moment, its another. God, remember bath salts? Terrible.

American society loves drugs like it loves guns. When you find some way to alter the desire, you'll go far in lowering their use. Until then, I don't see much changing.

Think about it, when the US government actually found a way to impact pot being smuggled into the country, drug users found a way to legally sell them here.

Only in America.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #431 on: February 26, 2018, 07:30:55 AM »
I'm with you on the changing culture. I think if we can target things like the mass incarceration rates, it would be helpful overall IMO.

Ugh, yes this is key.  Our incarceration rates are way too high.  46% of our prison population is there on drug offenses.  We should find another way.  Also find a way to reduce drug use - around 50k people die from overdoses every year.  This is WAY more than our fair share (4% of global population, but 27% of OD deaths).  These are tough societal issues unique to the US. 

There are some interesting parallels to the gun debate.

?!? Incarceration rates too high? Those people are in prison for breaking the law, regardless of whether certain crimes should even be crimes. They knew those actions were illegal, chose to do them, and got busted. Feel no pity for them. I live my life following the rules so I don't go to jail. If I drive recklessly, are you going to have pity for me if I crash into a wall? What if I hurt someone in the process? Screw them.

Things aren't quite as simplistic as you are making them out to be.  There are a lot of practices that unfairly slant the US legal system against the poor.

For example, there's a shockingly common practice of jailing people who can't afford fines levied at them:

Quote
Samantha Jenkins, 47, lives with her two young grandchildren in nearby Overland, Mo. Last week, she had a milestone day ó her parole with the Missouri state corrections ended. After years of addiction to crack cocaine, she's sober now and has a job interview set up.

But even though her felony charges are over, she can't shake one last problem: She owes unpaid fines to the city of Jennings from getting caught stealing three steaks from a grocery store, about 14 years ago, when she was homeless. She's already spent weeks in jail for not paying those fines ó most recently in 2012 ó but still owes the city around $1,500.

"It just made me feel like I'm never going to get out of this," she says.

Jenkins knows police could stop her and take her back to the city jail at any time. She lives on food stamps and can't afford to pay back the money.


Quote
[Brown] was ticketed ... for not getting a rabies vaccine for his dog, Matrix.

Altogether Brown owed the city $464. But Brown lives on a $488 Social Security check and food stamps, so he didn't pay his fines.

"I went to jail for that," he says.


https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jail-time-for-unpaid-court-fines-and-fees-can-create-cycle-of-poverty
http://time.com/money/4253205/jail-time-too-poor-pay-fines/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/05/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-fines.html




There's also the problem that the poor don't get proper representation in courts, so are much more likely to go to jail:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-public-defender-system-isnt-just-broken--its-unconstitutional/2015/09/03/aadf2b6c-519b-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/public-defenders-are-tightening-belts-because-of-steep-federal-budget-cuts.html

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #432 on: February 26, 2018, 08:48:37 AM »
I'm with you on the changing culture. I think if we can target things like the mass incarceration rates, it would be helpful overall IMO.

Ugh, yes this is key.  Our incarceration rates are way too high.  46% of our prison population is there on drug offenses.  We should find another way.  Also find a way to reduce drug use - around 50k people die from overdoses every year.  This is WAY more than our fair share (4% of global population, but 27% of OD deaths).  These are tough societal issues unique to the US. 

There are some interesting parallels to the gun debate.

?!? Incarceration rates too high? Those people are in prison for breaking the law, regardless of whether certain crimes should even be crimes. They knew those actions were illegal, chose to do them, and got busted. Feel no pity for them. I live my life following the rules so I don't go to jail. If I drive recklessly, are you going to have pity for me if I crash into a wall? What if I hurt someone in the process? Screw them.

As far as drug use, there is an ongoing war on drugs thats been going on for decades. Not sure what more can be done. I do think opioids are a huge issue, but honestly if it isn't one drug that is popular in the moment, its another. God, remember bath salts? Terrible.

American society loves drugs like it loves guns. When you find some way to alter the desire, you'll go far in lowering their use. Until then, I don't see much changing.

Think about it, when the US government actually found a way to impact pot being smuggled into the country, drug users found a way to legally sell them here.

Only in America.
End the war on drugs.

I gather that you and bender are making the argument that making guns illegal will have similar results to making drugs illegal, people will use them anyway. There may be some truth to that but there are also a lot of differences between drugs and guns. Drugs are small and easily concealable. In some cases people seek them out with disregard for the consequences of their actions due to the nature of addiction. Most of the drugs used in this country can be made, extracted, and/or grown at home. If not at home, they are often made by amateurs.

None of these qualities apply to guns the way they do drugs. Banning guns is actually plausible, banning drugs is not.

Interestingly the ban on drugs has a significant impact on the use of guns for violence. Maybe those who are concerned at the level of gun violence should be arguing for decriminalizing drugs? Probably wouldn't impact the gun violence subset of school shootings though.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #433 on: February 26, 2018, 09:38:01 AM »
At any given time there might be a dozen armed people on a military base - much like a small university police force. The rest of the guns are locked up.

It would still be a soft target unless the assault was a long one and people had time to get to the armory and be issued weapons.

There would be more armed people on guard duty if the base was on alert though.

There are a hell of a lot more than 12 MPs or SPs on duty at any given time. You are missing the large "smack you in the face" point. You literally have to pass a security check point manned by armed military police. A random person with no connection to the military is never going to pick a military installation to carry at a mass shooting.

I'm describing stuff I know about. Trust me. The info might be a little dated but its accurate.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 09:54:04 AM by Just Joe »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #434 on: February 26, 2018, 09:38:35 AM »
IF you stopped the war on drugs, the amount of gang related violence would start to drop over time. Gang related shootings are the majority of intential gun homocides, so it would make a huge difference.

It would not impact the 3 K-12 students killed in 2016, or the 4 that died in 2017. of 51 million enrolled during that time period.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27209/how-many-children-died-school-shootings-2016-2017-daily-wire

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #435 on: February 26, 2018, 09:45:23 AM »
Things aren't quite as simplistic as you are making them out to be.  There are a lot of practices that unfairly slant the US legal system against the poor.

For example, there's a shockingly common practice of jailing people who can't afford fines levied at them:

Samantha Jenkins, 47, lives with her two young grandchildren in nearby Overland, Mo. Last week, she had a milestone day ó her parole with the Missouri state corrections ended. After years of addiction to crack cocaine, she's sober now and has a job interview set up.

But even though her felony charges are over, she can't shake one last problem: She owes unpaid fines to the city of Jennings from getting caught stealing three steaks from a grocery store, about 14 years ago, when she was homeless. She's already spent weeks in jail for not paying those fines ó most recently in 2012 ó but still owes the city around $1,500.

"It just made me feel like I'm never going to get out of this," she says.

Jenkins knows police could stop her and take her back to the city jail at any time. She lives on food stamps and can't afford to pay back the money.

? She stole. End of story. Don't steal.

Quote
[Brown] was ticketed ... for not getting a rabies vaccine for his dog, Matrix.

Altogether Brown owed the city $464. But Brown lives on a $488 Social Security check and food stamps, so he didn't pay his fines.

"I went to jail for that," he says.

It costs like $40 to vaccinate your dog. I have one and I vaccinate him every year. If I don't, I get fined. I don't pay the fine, I end up like this guy.

Quote
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jail-time-for-unpaid-court-fines-and-fees-can-create-cycle-of-poverty
http://time.com/money/4253205/jail-time-too-poor-pay-fines/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/05/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-fines.html

There's also the problem that the poor don't get proper representation in courts, so are much more likely to go to jail:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-public-defender-system-isnt-just-broken--its-unconstitutional/2015/09/03/aadf2b6c-519b-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/public-defenders-are-tightening-belts-because-of-steep-federal-budget-cuts.html

Ok its easy to post some links on some of the issues some people face with the system, but what are you proposing? Poor can commit whatever crimes they want without penalty? Give me a break. I have little remorse for those who end up in a crappy system for stealing, dealing, or whatever else they decide to do. I live in the same society they do. I keep my nose clean. I also have common sense on what to do if arrested. I can't believe there is an argument being made that our law is too harsh on those that know better. Some people think, "why buy when I can steal?" and I am supposed to think, "oh well too many people in the system so lets just excuse this guy."

When you have something stolen from you, its a violation. Someone breaks into your home, its a violation. Someone harms you, its a violation. No sympathy for those that break the law, when I follow it and for the most part do fine.

Btw, my war on drugs wasn't a jab at gun ownership. I am just saying you have people in the US who will break the law to use them with the same tenacity as those who defend gun ownership. So I say good luck, that's all.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 09:46:57 AM by KTG »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #436 on: February 26, 2018, 10:06:57 AM »
Ok its easy to post some links on some of the issues some people face with the system, but what are you proposing? Poor can commit whatever crimes they want without penalty? Give me a break. I have little remorse for those who end up in a crappy system for stealing, dealing, or whatever else they decide to do. I live in the same society they do. I keep my nose clean. I also have common sense on what to do if arrested. I can't believe there is an argument being made that our law is too harsh on those that know better. Some people think, "why buy when I can steal?" and I am supposed to think, "oh well too many people in the system so lets just excuse this guy."

No, I'm not arguing that people should be able to commit any crime they want without penalty.  Some crimes carry a disproportionate penalty for the poor though, and I brought up some examples.

Jail time for people failing to pay a fine is a ridiculous idea though.  You end up wasting far more money on the jail time than you would have ever saved by getting the fine paid . . . jail time is very expensive.  This money would often be better used helping the poor rather than incarcerating them.

The actual benefit to society for some of these incarcerations is very questionable.
- The guy who didn't have the money to vaccinate his dog . . . was society protected by sending him to jail?  After he got out of jail, do you think that anything about his circumstances changed?  What's the benefit of that?  It would have been cheaper (and better for society) to simply recognize that he's broke and pay to vaccinate his dog.
- The grandmother who stole some steaks 14 years ago when she was homeless, but has since got her life together . . . is there a benefit from sending her to jail because she can't pay a fine?  It would be cheaper (and better for society) to help her reintegrate into society and forgive the crime of stealing food a decade and a half ago.




When you have something stolen from you, its a violation. Someone breaks into your home, its a violation. Someone harms you, its a violation. No sympathy for those that break the law, when I follow it and for the most part do fine.

I'm guessing that you've never had to steal because you were hungry.

As someone who isn't poor, the system works much better for you.  If you get a small fine, you're able to pay it and stay out of jail.  For someone who is poor, living on a fixed income, 40 - 80$ isn't always so easy to come up with.  If you're charged with a crime that you didn't commit, you have the funds to fight it and don't have to rely on a public defender who is unable to do his job because of overload.  That's a tremendous benefit that you're discounting out of hand with your comments.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 10:16:09 AM by GuitarStv »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #437 on: February 26, 2018, 10:11:33 AM »
Things aren't quite as simplistic as you are making them out to be.  There are a lot of practices that unfairly slant the US legal system against the poor.

For example, there's a shockingly common practice of jailing people who can't afford fines levied at them:

Samantha Jenkins, 47, lives with her two young grandchildren in nearby Overland, Mo. Last week, she had a milestone day ó her parole with the Missouri state corrections ended. After years of addiction to crack cocaine, she's sober now and has a job interview set up.

But even though her felony charges are over, she can't shake one last problem: She owes unpaid fines to the city of Jennings from getting caught stealing three steaks from a grocery store, about 14 years ago, when she was homeless. She's already spent weeks in jail for not paying those fines ó most recently in 2012 ó but still owes the city around $1,500.

"It just made me feel like I'm never going to get out of this," she says.

Jenkins knows police could stop her and take her back to the city jail at any time. She lives on food stamps and can't afford to pay back the money.

? She stole. End of story. Don't steal.

Quote
[Brown] was ticketed ... for not getting a rabies vaccine for his dog, Matrix.

Altogether Brown owed the city $464. But Brown lives on a $488 Social Security check and food stamps, so he didn't pay his fines.

"I went to jail for that," he says.

It costs like $40 to vaccinate your dog. I have one and I vaccinate him every year. If I don't, I get fined. I don't pay the fine, I end up like this guy.

Quote
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jail-time-for-unpaid-court-fines-and-fees-can-create-cycle-of-poverty
http://time.com/money/4253205/jail-time-too-poor-pay-fines/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/05/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-fines.html

There's also the problem that the poor don't get proper representation in courts, so are much more likely to go to jail:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-public-defender-system-isnt-just-broken--its-unconstitutional/2015/09/03/aadf2b6c-519b-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/public-defenders-are-tightening-belts-because-of-steep-federal-budget-cuts.html

Ok its easy to post some links on some of the issues some people face with the system, but what are you proposing? Poor can commit whatever crimes they want without penalty? Give me a break. I have little remorse for those who end up in a crappy system for stealing, dealing, or whatever else they decide to do. I live in the same society they do. I keep my nose clean. I also have common sense on what to do if arrested. I can't believe there is an argument being made that our law is too harsh on those that know better. Some people think, "why buy when I can steal?" and I am supposed to think, "oh well too many people in the system so lets just excuse this guy."

When you have something stolen from you, its a violation. Someone breaks into your home, its a violation. Someone harms you, its a violation. No sympathy for those that break the law, when I follow it and for the most part do fine.

Btw, my war on drugs wasn't a jab at gun ownership. I am just saying you have people in the US who will break the law to use them with the same tenacity as those who defend gun ownership. So I say good luck, that's all.

My ex-husband had this kind of black-and-white attitude, as well. He was a white man who had grown up with all the advantages that an intact, white middl-class family can give to a cherished last-born son.

He also thought, for example, that people in Africa who had AIDS pretty much deserved it because they were being promiscuous and should have known better.

There was a reason our marriage did not last very long.

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 198
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #438 on: February 26, 2018, 10:41:30 AM »
Quote
Jail time for people failing to pay a fine is a ridiculous idea though.  You end up wasting far more money on the jail time than you would have ever saved by getting the fine paid . . . jail time is very expensive.  This money would often be better used helping the poor rather than incarcerating them.

If the penalty is just a slap on the wrist, then what motivation does anyone have NOT committing crimes? We all pay when criminals break the law and do not pay the price.

Quote
I'm guessing that you've never had to steal because you were hungry.

Well, the closest I might have gotten was being around 22 and having $20 for food to last me a week. I bought generic cereal, peanut butter and jelly, bread, and swore I would never go through that again. I didn't steal from the store. I didn't rob anyone. I didn't dump my problems on society. 

There are lots of people who live within this framework and do just fine. Imagine if they didn't. Imagine if they just felt compelled to do whatever they wanted because there was no or little price to pay. It would be anarchy.

Quote
As someone who isn't poor, the system works much better for you.  If you get a small fine, you're able to pay it and stay out of jail.  For someone who is poor, living on a fixed income, 40 - 80$ isn't always so easy to come up with.  If you're charged with a crime that you didn't commit, you have the funds to fight it and don't have to rely on a public defender who is unable to do his job because of overload.  That's a tremendous benefit that you're discounting out of hand with your comments.

I get a fine because I didn't follow the law. You are giving pity to those way after the fact. How about right at the start? You have a 2 options: (1) follows the law and the other (2) breaks it. If you choose, (2), you are going to have some problems. All the jail or fees that come, have to be expected.

You don't have to know the amount of time you will serve in jail for breaking the law, or at least you shouldn't have to. If you are even considering doing something that society as a whole has determined is wrong, you have to assume you are going to pay a penalty. I don't care if you don't know what that penalty is, or how it will affect you in the long term. Don't break the law.

If you are going to argue poor people are too stupid to understand that, then fine, I'll move on. I highly doubt you would open yourself to these people committing crimes against you, so you can't be too harsh on those that expect those that do it to others pay a price for it. And if others don't learn seeing whats happened to other people, then they will just have to learn themselves.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 10:44:58 AM by KTG »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #439 on: February 26, 2018, 10:45:41 AM »
Things aren't quite as simplistic as you are making them out to be.  There are a lot of practices that unfairly slant the US legal system against the poor.

For example, there's a shockingly common practice of jailing people who can't afford fines levied at them:

Samantha Jenkins, 47, lives with her two young grandchildren in nearby Overland, Mo. Last week, she had a milestone day ó her parole with the Missouri state corrections ended. After years of addiction to crack cocaine, she's sober now and has a job interview set up.

But even though her felony charges are over, she can't shake one last problem: She owes unpaid fines to the city of Jennings from getting caught stealing three steaks from a grocery store, about 14 years ago, when she was homeless. She's already spent weeks in jail for not paying those fines ó most recently in 2012 ó but still owes the city around $1,500.

"It just made me feel like I'm never going to get out of this," she says.

Jenkins knows police could stop her and take her back to the city jail at any time. She lives on food stamps and can't afford to pay back the money.

? She stole. End of story. Don't steal.

Quote
[Brown] was ticketed ... for not getting a rabies vaccine for his dog, Matrix.

Altogether Brown owed the city $464. But Brown lives on a $488 Social Security check and food stamps, so he didn't pay his fines.

"I went to jail for that," he says.

It costs like $40 to vaccinate your dog. I have one and I vaccinate him every year. If I don't, I get fined. I don't pay the fine, I end up like this guy.

Quote
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jail-time-for-unpaid-court-fines-and-fees-can-create-cycle-of-poverty
http://time.com/money/4253205/jail-time-too-poor-pay-fines/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/05/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-fines.html

There's also the problem that the poor don't get proper representation in courts, so are much more likely to go to jail:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-public-defender-system-isnt-just-broken--its-unconstitutional/2015/09/03/aadf2b6c-519b-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/public-defenders-are-tightening-belts-because-of-steep-federal-budget-cuts.html

Ok its easy to post some links on some of the issues some people face with the system, but what are you proposing? Poor can commit whatever crimes they want without penalty? Give me a break. I have little remorse for those who end up in a crappy system for stealing, dealing, or whatever else they decide to do. I live in the same society they do. I keep my nose clean. I also have common sense on what to do if arrested. I can't believe there is an argument being made that our law is too harsh on those that know better. Some people think, "why buy when I can steal?" and I am supposed to think, "oh well too many people in the system so lets just excuse this guy."

When you have something stolen from you, its a violation. Someone breaks into your home, its a violation. Someone harms you, its a violation. No sympathy for those that break the law, when I follow it and for the most part do fine.

Btw, my war on drugs wasn't a jab at gun ownership. I am just saying you have people in the US who will break the law to use them with the same tenacity as those who defend gun ownership. So I say good luck, that's all.

My ex-husband had this kind of black-and-white attitude, as well. He was a white man who had grown up with all the advantages that an intact, white middl-class family can give to a cherished last-born son.

He also thought, for example, that people in Africa who had AIDS pretty much deserved it because they were being promiscuous and should have known better.

There was a reason our marriage did not last very long.

Are you saying only white men are to be expected to know what's right and wrong?

I get that the cost to society of incarcerating a particular person over a particular incident of not paying a fine or a small amount of taxes isn't a beneficial situation for anyone, but there do need to be consequences for actions. With no consequences, more and more people will quit vacinating thier dogs because they can thumb thier noses at the fines, and we end up with a rabies epidemic. Even offering free vaciines wouldn't solve this - with no consequences, some people will be lazy/procrastinate and it won't get done. If a blind eye is turned to all of these small things, eventually we'll end up like greece, where noone pays thier taxes, and noone does anything about it.

Some discretion in sentencing would be great, but my understanding is judges are only allowed so much discretion. Maybe we could agree to fix that.

PoutineLover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #440 on: February 26, 2018, 11:18:10 AM »
Some countries have decided to implement fines that are proportionate to income or wealth. I like this idea, because it means that poor people are less likely to be jailed for a crime that a rich person wouldn't be impacted by. A $100 speeding ticket is a deterrent for a poor person, and a rounding error for a wealthy person, so if the purpose of the law is to deter behaviour that we don't condone as a society, it should be an equal hardship for anyone to break the law.
I also believe that prison sentences for drug use is completely wrong and should be abolished. Sure, imprison traffickers and people who commit violent crimes, but the use of drugs is a personal issue and I don't believe it should lead to incarceration. It also disproportionately affects minorities and poor people, since they are more likely to be stopped by the police, even though drug use is pretty similar across all races.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #441 on: February 26, 2018, 11:26:54 AM »
If the penalty is just a slap on the wrist, then what motivation does anyone have NOT committing crimes? We all pay when criminals break the law and do not pay the price.

I'm going to focus on a single point that you've raised three times now.


If you speed while driving a car, you present significant danger to others.  Because of this, we have fines for exceeding the posted limit.  The fines are intended to prevent people from breaking the law.  Many people (particularly those who are well off) break the law regularly by speeding anyway.  They do this because they know what the fine is and are OK with paying it.  This is because the fine (which may be extremely damaging to someone of low income), is just a slap on the wrist to people of high income.

The level of punishment as a deterrent is directly related to your wealth.

Currently, if you make a lot of money therefore, you have less motivation to NOT commit a crime.  What I propose to rectify that problem is that fines are scaled based on level of wealth.  If you make say, 40,000$ a year and the fine to get your dog vaccinated is 40$ then the person who makes 5,856 per year (as the guy in the story did) should have to pay 5.86$.  If you're charging that guy 40$ it impacts him disproportionately. This will maintain the same deterrent level for all, AND will lower the number of poor people in jail.


EDIT - I see that PoutineLover beat me to the suggestion.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3098
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #442 on: February 26, 2018, 11:35:18 AM »
Things aren't quite as simplistic as you are making them out to be.  There are a lot of practices that unfairly slant the US legal system against the poor.

For example, there's a shockingly common practice of jailing people who can't afford fines levied at them:

Samantha Jenkins, 47, lives with her two young grandchildren in nearby Overland, Mo. Last week, she had a milestone day ó her parole with the Missouri state corrections ended. After years of addiction to crack cocaine, she's sober now and has a job interview set up.

But even though her felony charges are over, she can't shake one last problem: She owes unpaid fines to the city of Jennings from getting caught stealing three steaks from a grocery store, about 14 years ago, when she was homeless. She's already spent weeks in jail for not paying those fines ó most recently in 2012 ó but still owes the city around $1,500.

"It just made me feel like I'm never going to get out of this," she says.

Jenkins knows police could stop her and take her back to the city jail at any time. She lives on food stamps and can't afford to pay back the money.

? She stole. End of story. Don't steal.

Quote
[Brown] was ticketed ... for not getting a rabies vaccine for his dog, Matrix.

Altogether Brown owed the city $464. But Brown lives on a $488 Social Security check and food stamps, so he didn't pay his fines.

"I went to jail for that," he says.

It costs like $40 to vaccinate your dog. I have one and I vaccinate him every year. If I don't, I get fined. I don't pay the fine, I end up like this guy.

Quote
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/09/384968360/jail-time-for-unpaid-court-fines-and-fees-can-create-cycle-of-poverty
http://time.com/money/4253205/jail-time-too-poor-pay-fines/
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/05/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-fines.html

There's also the problem that the poor don't get proper representation in courts, so are much more likely to go to jail:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/poor-rely-public-defenders-too-overworked
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-public-defender-system-isnt-just-broken--its-unconstitutional/2015/09/03/aadf2b6c-519b-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/public-defenders-are-tightening-belts-because-of-steep-federal-budget-cuts.html

Ok its easy to post some links on some of the issues some people face with the system, but what are you proposing? Poor can commit whatever crimes they want without penalty? Give me a break. I have little remorse for those who end up in a crappy system for stealing, dealing, or whatever else they decide to do. I live in the same society they do. I keep my nose clean. I also have common sense on what to do if arrested. I can't believe there is an argument being made that our law is too harsh on those that know better. Some people think, "why buy when I can steal?" and I am supposed to think, "oh well too many people in the system so lets just excuse this guy."

When you have something stolen from you, its a violation. Someone breaks into your home, its a violation. Someone harms you, its a violation. No sympathy for those that break the law, when I follow it and for the most part do fine.

Btw, my war on drugs wasn't a jab at gun ownership. I am just saying you have people in the US who will break the law to use them with the same tenacity as those who defend gun ownership. So I say good luck, that's all.

My ex-husband had this kind of black-and-white attitude, as well. He was a white man who had grown up with all the advantages that an intact, white middl-class family can give to a cherished last-born son.

He also thought, for example, that people in Africa who had AIDS pretty much deserved it because they were being promiscuous and should have known better.

There was a reason our marriage did not last very long.

Are you saying only white men are to be expected to know what's right and wrong?


No. I'm saying it's extraordinarily easy for white middle-class American men to have a very black and white view of the world, and little to no reason to question that view.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #443 on: February 26, 2018, 11:38:01 AM »
With no consequences, more and more people will quit vacinating thier dogs because they can thumb thier noses at the fines, and we end up with a rabies epidemic. Even offering free vaciines wouldn't solve this - with no consequences, some people will be lazy/procrastinate and it won't get done.

What is the goal of fining people for not vaccinating their pets?  To increase the number of pets that have been vaccinated.

I am not, and have never advocated for no consequences.  My goal is just consequences.  It doesn't make sense to send a man to jail for not vaccinating his pet . . . if when he gets out of jail he still won't have the money to vaccinate his pet.  That doesn't achieve the purpose of having the fine in the first place.

I strongly suspect that the reason the man didn't vaccinate his pet in the first place was a lack of money.  So take the money you would have spent imprisoning him, and open some free veterinary clinics for the poor.  This way you get the pets vaccinated and you can keep the fine as a deterrent.  It's win-win, much better than what's currently going on . . .

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #444 on: February 26, 2018, 11:47:10 AM »
With no consequences, more and more people will quit vacinating thier dogs because they can thumb thier noses at the fines, and we end up with a rabies epidemic. Even offering free vaciines wouldn't solve this - with no consequences, some people will be lazy/procrastinate and it won't get done.

What is the goal of fining people for not vaccinating their pets?  To increase the number of pets that have been vaccinated.

I am not, and have never advocated for no consequences.  My goal is just consequences.  It doesn't make sense to send a man to jail for not vaccinating his pet . . . if when he gets out of jail he still won't have the money to vaccinate his pet.  That doesn't achieve the purpose of having the fine in the first place.

I strongly suspect that the reason the man didn't vaccinate his pet in the first place was a lack of money.  So take the money you would have spent imprisoning him, and open some free veterinary clinics for the poor.  This way you get the pets vaccinated and you can keep the fine as a deterrent.  It's win-win, much better than what's currently going on . . .
At the very least, can't we all agree that imprisonment is punishment enough? Not only does the fine stand after you serve time, late fees continue to accumulate.


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11348
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #445 on: February 26, 2018, 12:01:56 PM »
With no consequences, more and more people will quit vacinating thier dogs because they can thumb thier noses at the fines, and we end up with a rabies epidemic. Even offering free vaciines wouldn't solve this - with no consequences, some people will be lazy/procrastinate and it won't get done.

What is the goal of fining people for not vaccinating their pets?  To increase the number of pets that have been vaccinated.

I am not, and have never advocated for no consequences.  My goal is just consequences.  It doesn't make sense to send a man to jail for not vaccinating his pet . . . if when he gets out of jail he still won't have the money to vaccinate his pet.  That doesn't achieve the purpose of having the fine in the first place.

I strongly suspect that the reason the man didn't vaccinate his pet in the first place was a lack of money.  So take the money you would have spent imprisoning him, and open some free veterinary clinics for the poor.  This way you get the pets vaccinated and you can keep the fine as a deterrent.  It's win-win, much better than what's currently going on . . .
At the very least, can't we all agree that imprisonment is punishment enough? Not only does the fine stand after you serve time, late fees continue to accumulate.

In many places you are fined for the crime of going to jail.  If you're poor this will likely lead to you not being able to pay the fine . . . which means you go back to jail . . . which means you're charged more money.  That's a pretty fucked up cycle.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #446 on: February 26, 2018, 12:17:54 PM »
Iím a big fan of punishing people for committing crimes.  But punishment should be proportional to the crime committed. If the legal system becomes a black hole from which no person can escape, then fewer convicted people will feel invested in the society it supports.  Especially if it proports to be a ďjustĒ society. Such people will treat that society, property, and its law abiding citizens with indifference if not outright malice.  What do they have to lose?   If youíre going to be hung as a wolf while a sheep, why not be a wolf? 

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 989
  • Age: 29
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #447 on: February 26, 2018, 12:27:28 PM »
I'm with you on the changing culture. I think if we can target things like the mass incarceration rates, it would be helpful overall IMO.

Ugh, yes this is key.  Our incarceration rates are way too high.  46% of our prison population is there on drug offenses.  We should find another way.  Also find a way to reduce drug use - around 50k people die from overdoses every year.  This is WAY more than our fair share (4% of global population, but 27% of OD deaths).  These are tough societal issues unique to the US. 

There are some interesting parallels to the gun debate.

?!? Incarceration rates too high? Those people are in prison for breaking the law, regardless of whether certain crimes should even be crimes. They knew those actions were illegal, chose to do them, and got busted. Feel no pity for them. I live my life following the rules so I don't go to jail. If I drive recklessly, are you going to have pity for me if I crash into a wall? What if I hurt someone in the process? Screw them.

As far as drug use, there is an ongoing war on drugs thats been going on for decades. Not sure what more can be done. I do think opioids are a huge issue, but honestly if it isn't one drug that is popular in the moment, its another. God, remember bath salts? Terrible.

American society loves drugs like it loves guns. When you find some way to alter the desire, you'll go far in lowering their use. Until then, I don't see much changing.

Think about it, when the US government actually found a way to impact pot being smuggled into the country, drug users found a way to legally sell them here.

Only in America.

Going back to your original comment about incarceration rates, another issue is the ridiculous minimum sentences set for some crimes, particularly anything that involves exchanging money for drugs. Even when there is no minimum sentence our prisoners tend to serve longer sentences than they would in other developed countries.

Regardless of the reason for it, can't you just look at the stats and agree that something is out of whack? The US has 4.4% of world population and 22% of the prison population. Only Russia's incarceration rate really compares to ours. I took the original statement of "our incarceration rates are way too high" as more of a statement of fact than an opinion. I almost can't believe this is a debate. almost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries

And right there in the original comment we also have an acknowledgement of the great success the war on drugs has been. 27% of OD deaths worldwide...

ETA: Relevant articles about Portuguese drug laws and the success of decriminalization and treatment for addiction.

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/in-portugal-drug-use-is-treated-as-a-medical-issue-not-a-crime
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight

Not relevant to gun control, but who remembers that conversation anyways?
« Last Edit: February 26, 2018, 12:42:57 PM by Dabnasty »

Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #448 on: February 26, 2018, 01:32:33 PM »
Always funny taking a break from a thread for a few days and coming back to see where the conversation is at.

Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
« Reply #449 on: February 26, 2018, 01:46:54 PM »
A non-Mustachian solution as described by Chris Rock:  raise the price of bullets to $5,000 each.  If only ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017481478

That's a good one....and, honestly, I think it is part of the solution.  Tax the crap out of guns and ammo!

I get that this is fun for some people to think about, but on what basis will you do that according to the Consitution?

Besides that, most murderers are using 15 or less bullets, and even a horrific school shooting doesn't have have a huge number of bullets fired. The people with 1000s of bullets are target shooters and such, as it's not unusual for people like that to run through 500 rounds in a day.

Once again, so many of the gun control solutions are little more than hassles for law abiding citizens and only a minor of inconvenience for criminals, which is why so many gun owners like myself bristle at the prospect of new regulations. For pro gun control types I sense this issue is at best about the "feel good" aspect of ultimately ineffective regulations, and at worst,  gleefully  punishing a group of people (flyover country, rednecks, GOP voters etc).