The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: dycker1978 on January 26, 2018, 07:43:20 AM

Title: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 26, 2018, 07:43:20 AM
I bring this up because it is incredibly sad.  I am not sure if anything will change, but this is just sad.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3986676/us-school-shootings-2018-donald-trump/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 26, 2018, 08:32:47 AM
I don't think that Trump really has the power to do anything about it.  Easy access to guns for all is what the majority of Americans appear to want.  Mass shootings are a sad but completely predictable natural consequence of public support for these policies.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 26, 2018, 12:21:04 PM
I don't think that Trump really has the power to do anything about it.  Easy access to guns for all is what the majority of Americans appear to want.  Mass shootings are a sad but completely predictable natural consequence of public support for these policies.

Actually Trump is sending military weapons to local police/fire departments. Because you know, the best way to keep children safe is with more military weapons.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on January 26, 2018, 01:00:26 PM
So is this a willful ignorance about the cause of shootings or some sort of cultural or logical blind spot for conservatives? More guns won't help anything.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Fractal- on January 26, 2018, 01:03:29 PM
As much of a gun related issue, I would say it is equally, if not more of, a mental health issue.  I feel like this is often lost in the discussion.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 26, 2018, 01:04:39 PM
Don't get me wrong, school shootings are awful, but in total we're looking at 3 homicides, 2 suicides, and 20 injuries according to the article posted. One of the suicides was a guy killing himself in a car in the parking lot of a school.

3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem. Anything can be made to sound like an epidemic when you use absolute numbers among an enormous sample size.

Quote
These are the school-related shootings that have happened so far in 2018:

Jan. 3 — St. John, Mich.: A man shoots himself in the parking lot of East Olive Elementary School.

Jan. 4 — Seattle, Wash.: A bullet is fired into New Start High School, but no one is injured.

Jan. 6 — Forest City, Iowa: A 32-year-old man fires at a school bus, and one window is shattered. No one is injured.

Jan. 10 — San Bernardino, Calif.: No one is injured after a bullet hits a building at California State University.

Jan. 10 — Denison, Texas: A Grayson College student accidentally fires a weapon, no one is injured.

Jan. 10 — Sierra Vista, Ariz.: A 14-year-old boy is found shot dead inside a bathroom at Coronado K-8 Elementary School. It appears to be a self-inflicted wound.

Jan. 15 — Marshall, Texas: A bullet is fired into a dorm room at Wiley College, with three female students inside. No one is injured.

Jan. 20 — Winston-Salem, N.C.: A 21-year-old student is shot dead after an argument at Wake Forest University.

Jan. 22 — Italy, Texas:  A 16-year-old boy shoots a female classmate at Italy High School.

Jan. 22 — New Orleans, La.: Shooting at Net Charter School leaves one male student injured.

Jan. 23 — Benton, Ky: High school shooting leaves two 15-year-old students dead, 18 injured.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 26, 2018, 01:07:14 PM
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*5_0eyjsa9L80xyOg.png)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Travis on January 26, 2018, 01:33:05 PM
I don't think that Trump really has the power to do anything about it.  Easy access to guns for all is what the majority of Americans appear to want.  Mass shootings are a sad but completely predictable natural consequence of public support for these policies.

Actually Trump is sending military weapons to local police/fire departments. Because you know, the best way to keep children safe is with more military weapons.

Police departments have been arming up since the early 1990s. That's nothing new.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Aelias on January 26, 2018, 03:31:28 PM
Don't get me wrong, school shootings are awful, but in total we're looking at 3 homicides, 2 suicides, and 20 injuries according to the article posted. One of the suicides was a guy killing himself in a car in the parking lot of a school.

3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem. Anything can be made to sound like an epidemic when you use absolute numbers among an enormous sample size.

Quote
These are the school-related shootings that have happened so far in 2018:

Jan. 3 — St. John, Mich.: A man shoots himself in the parking lot of East Olive Elementary School.

Jan. 4 — Seattle, Wash.: A bullet is fired into New Start High School, but no one is injured.

Jan. 6 — Forest City, Iowa: A 32-year-old man fires at a school bus, and one window is shattered. No one is injured.

Jan. 10 — San Bernardino, Calif.: No one is injured after a bullet hits a building at California State University.

Jan. 10 — Denison, Texas: A Grayson College student accidentally fires a weapon, no one is injured.

Jan. 10 — Sierra Vista, Ariz.: A 14-year-old boy is found shot dead inside a bathroom at Coronado K-8 Elementary School. It appears to be a self-inflicted wound.

Jan. 15 — Marshall, Texas: A bullet is fired into a dorm room at Wiley College, with three female students inside. No one is injured.

Jan. 20 — Winston-Salem, N.C.: A 21-year-old student is shot dead after an argument at Wake Forest University.

Jan. 22 — Italy, Texas:  A 16-year-old boy shoots a female classmate at Italy High School.

Jan. 22 — New Orleans, La.: Shooting at Net Charter School leaves one male student injured.

Jan. 23 — Benton, Ky: High school shooting leaves two 15-year-old students dead, 18 injured.

This is really important.  I'm a strong supporter of gun control, but facts. always. matter.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on January 26, 2018, 03:49:33 PM
Quote
3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem

Let's do some fuzzy maths.

50 million students divided by 1000 (average school size) makes 50,000 schools.

11 firearms incidents at schools per month makes 132 incidents per year.

Your children will likely spend 17 years at school.

50,000 / 132 / 17 = 22.28

That's right, your child has a one in twenty two chance of being at a school during a firearms incident.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on January 26, 2018, 04:28:47 PM
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*5_0eyjsa9L80xyOg.png)

Haha, this is so how I see the US at this point... I don’t think I will ever understand how people believe any gun law is bad and some kind of affront to their humanity.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on January 26, 2018, 05:05:47 PM
I don't think that Trump really has the power to do anything about it.  Easy access to guns for all is what the majority of Americans appear to want.  Mass shootings are a sad but completely predictable natural consequence of public support for these policies.

False. Easy access to guns for all is NOT what the majority of Americans want. The overwhelming majority of Americans support universal background checks(85-90% depending on the study). Even among NRA members, the majority(75%) support background checks.

source 1: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/
source 2: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control

Congressmen, specifically Republican congressmen, paid off by the gun lobby support easy access to guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: BudgetSlasher on January 26, 2018, 05:11:18 PM
As much of a gun related issue, I would say it is equally, if not more of, a mental health issue.  I feel like this is often lost in the discussion.

I agree; access to guns is part of the problem, but so is mental health, which is driven home by the fact that 2 of the 11 incidents appear to be suicides. (and honestly eduction and employment outlooks).

Quote
3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem

Let's do some fuzzy maths.

50 million students divided by 1000 (average school size) makes 50,000 schools.

11 firearms incidents at schools per month makes 132 incidents per year.

Your children will likely spend 17 years at school.

50,000 / 132 / 17 = 22.28

That's right, your child has a one in twenty two chance of being at a school during a firearms incident.

Those numbers are way off, so let us un-fuzz the math

The average size of a public school was 546.4 and there were 88,182 public schools (for the 2009-2010 year) https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/pesschools09/tables/table_05.asp

CAPE says there are another 33,619 private schools.

But those are only for k-12, some of the incidents took place at colleges and universities; let's use the total degree granting post secondary intuitions for this number as 6,742 for the 2009-2010 year.

So now the math looks like

(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (11*12) / 17

128,543 / 132 / 17 = 57.28...

Now if we use January as a base for the year and say firearm incidents a student would be at risk, then we should take January 4th parking lot suicide out of the equation (also the school was empty at the time) and the January 10th student suicide out of the equation. The math becomes

(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (9*12) / 17 = 70.01...

If we further eliminate the January 9th shooting a school bus as it was neither at school not was it a firearm (pellet gun), not that they cannot be lethal. the math becomes

(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8*12) / 17 = 78.76...

All numbers and odds of being in danger at school aside any shooting injury or death is a tragedy, regardless of where it occurs or the age of the victim. At the very least, we should be able to have the conversation of what reasonable measures to prevent needless deaths are in terms of resources to enforce existing laws and update databases, allowing gun violence to be researched, allowing purchase records to be digital inventoried, even allowing (if not requiring) private sales to use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or addition gun control measure. Alas, we cannot seem to have a civil discussion on even one of those topics (even if we decided in the end to do nothing.)

But the conversation also needs to be truthful, a suicide in the parking lot of a school when school is empty should not be called a "school shooting." The focus on "assault rifles/weapons" is simply put focusing on a very small sub-set, most firearm murders where the weapon is identified are handguns by multi-fold margin (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 26, 2018, 05:31:21 PM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: BlueMR2 on January 26, 2018, 07:30:33 PM
Well, you have to turn it into cold stats.  If you ran a country based on individual anecdotes and emotion it's an unsustainable situation.  Which unfortunately seems to be where we're heading already.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on January 26, 2018, 11:52:16 PM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jan62 on January 27, 2018, 01:49:19 AM
its actually not a mental health problem. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violence. Other western countries have similar rates of mental health disorders and do not have the same level of gun violence. Its a matter of access to lethal means to commit violence on a large scale.  lets not start stigmatising people with mental health problems.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: marty998 on January 27, 2018, 02:53:22 AM
its actually not a mental health problem. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violence. Other western countries have similar rates of mental health disorders and do not have the same level of gun violence. Its a matter of access to lethal means to commit violence on a large scale.  lets not start stigmatising people with mental health problems.

Agree, it's not like Australia doesn't have people with mental illness. Babies simply don't get shot here while trying to learn their A B Cs
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 27, 2018, 06:30:38 AM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.

Look I am not trying to be mean but that is total bullshit. Hell it's a justification for NO gun regulation. Automobiles kill more people so why not focus all efforts and money on that? Of course cancer beats auto deaths, so screw autos! After 9/11 what happened with airports? The government sure as shit focused on airport/airline safety. Hell Trump is still trying to ban Muslims.

And how much money does it take exactly? I mean since innocent, unable to protect themselves, children aren't dying in large enough quantities to worry about?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: iris lily on January 27, 2018, 12:05:43 PM
Quote
3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem

Let's do some fuzzy maths.

50 million students divided by 1000 (average school size) makes 50,000 schools.

11 firearms incidents at schools per month makes 132 incidents per year.

Your children will likely spend 17 years at school.

50,000 / 132 / 17 = 22.28

That's right, your child has a one in twenty two chance of being at a school during a firearms incident.

That is a sobering fuzzy analysis, and all the more reason to homeschool.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on January 27, 2018, 12:35:08 PM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.

Look I am not trying to be mean but that is total bullshit. Hell it's a justification for NO gun regulation. Automobiles kill more people so why not focus all efforts and money on that? Of course cancer beats auto deaths, so screw autos! After 9/11 what happened with airports? The government sure as shit focused on airport/airline safety. Hell Trump is still trying to ban Muslims.

And how much money does it take exactly? I mean since innocent, unable to protect themselves, children aren't dying in large enough quantities to worry about?

Alrighty, not trying to stir something up and I most definitely never said nor meant the bolded.

I have to say, your logic appears faulty. You are going the reductionalist way of thinking here where it isn't required. If you believe sensibly considering statistics means getting rid of gun control-this conversation has come to an end. Enjoy the lifestyle of black and white.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 27, 2018, 02:23:06 PM
Speaking of the need to focus on stats . . . Is this yet another year where toddlers with access to firearms have killed more people in the US than terrorists?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shuffler on January 27, 2018, 02:42:55 PM
Looking solely at the fuzzy-math that was extrapolating from the reports of this month's incidents ...

(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8*12) / 17 = 78.76...
Kids are only in school 9 months out of 12.
(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8 * 12 9) / 17 = 105

Note that 1/105 is just-under a 1% chance of attending a school that has a shooting incident.

But the conversation also needs to be truthful, a suicide in the parking lot of a school when school is empty should not be called a "school shooting."
Agreed.  And though I wouldn't want to have the burden of somehow being the official person to determine what qualifies as a school shooting or not, if we're going to be doing fuzzy-math, then we at least have to make an amateur-hour attempt at that distinction.

Personally, I'd further eliminate the Jan 10 event at Grayson, as it was an accidental discharge at a firearms-related class at a Criminal Justice college.
And the Jan 10 event at San Bernardino, which was a bullet from off-campus striking a building on-campus, and was after-hours, so doesn't seem especially school-related.
And the Jan 15 event at Marshall and the Jan 20 event at Winston-Salem, both of which were post-midnight and (IMO) are more likely representative of a general population of young people living in apartments and going to venues, than they are anything to do with schools.

Quote
These are the school-related shootings that have happened so far in 2018:
Jan. 3 — St. John, Mich.: A man shoots himself in the parking lot of East Olive Elementary School.
Jan. 4 — Seattle, Wash.: A bullet is fired into New Start High School, but no one is injured.
Jan. 6 — Forest City, Iowa: A 32-year-old man fires at a school bus, and one window is shattered. No one is injured.
Jan. 10 — San Bernardino, Calif.: No one is injured after a bullet hits a building at California State University.
Jan. 10 — Denison, Texas: A Grayson College student accidentally fires a weapon, no one is injured.
Jan. 10 — Sierra Vista, Ariz.: A 14-year-old boy is found shot dead inside a bathroom at Coronado K-8 Elementary School. It appears to be a self-inflicted wound.
Jan. 15 — Marshall, Texas: A bullet is fired into a dorm room at Wiley College, with three female students inside. No one is injured.
Jan. 20 — Winston-Salem, N.C.: A 21-year-old student is shot dead after an argument at Wake Forest University.

Jan. 22 — Italy, Texas:  A 16-year-old boy shoots a female classmate at Italy High School.
Jan. 22 — New Orleans, La.: Shooting at Net Charter School leaves one male student injured.
Jan. 23 — Benton, Ky: High school shooting leaves two 15-year-old students dead, 18 injured.

Under those considerations:
(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8 4 * 9) / 17 = 210, which is ~0.47%

It would seem, in my opinion, that the first round of fuzzy-math (1 out of 22) was off by nearly an order of magnitude.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on January 27, 2018, 04:25:38 PM
Under those considerations:
(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8 4 * 9) / 17 = 210, which is ~0.47%

This is an order higher than the chance of being involved in a fatal car accident.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shuffler on January 27, 2018, 06:39:10 PM
Under those considerations:
(88,182 + 33,619+ 6,742) / (8 4 * 9) / 17 = 210, which is ~0.47%

This is an order higher than the chance of being involved in a fatal car accident.
Does "involved in" mean "dying of" a fatal car accident?

It's sort of a strange comparison.  The school-shooting odds that we've been projecting here are the chances of being at school on the day of a shooting.  So the vast majority of students in that ~0.47% would have been in different classes, etc. and not even have seen the shooter directly.  A direct comparison to fatal car accidents might be something more like: the chances of being on the same road or in-the-general-vicinity-of a fatal car accident.  Or do it the other way around and compare against the chances of dying from a school shooting.

Anyhow, of course it's fundamentally unsound to base a projection on a single month's worth of "data".  It's probably not worth comparing the numbers we're coming up with here against actual stats from broader samples, and would be better to use data from an actual study of school shootings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 27, 2018, 09:12:25 PM
political cartoon

But, there have been instances of armed citizens stopping public shootings, or preventing them from getting worse. The most recent example is in Texas, where an armed NRA instructor chased down the shooter and killed him in a firefight. Another one I can think of off the top of my head is the one in the mall in Oregon, where a concealed carrier drew and aimed at a mass shooter who then committed suicide shortly thereafter.

Obviously concealed/open carry policies haven't totally ended mass shootings, but neither has any other proposed policy. (And before someone brings up a total ban on guns, that is clearly off the table, so it's really not worth discussing, especially in the post-Heller v DC US.) There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that concealed or open carry policies are harmful, so I doubt there is much to be gained by rolling back the clock on these policies.

As well, there seems to be this perception that the NRA has "bought off" right wing politicians. This is not true, as the NRA spends very little money lobbying or contributing to political campaigns (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000082), certainly compared to other political organizations. The reason right wing politicians in the US tend to be extremely dogmatic about gun rights is that they have to... if you're a Republican who wants to restrict this gun or that gun, you're simply not going to make it into political office. There are too many single issue voters out there with a lot to personally lose, and let's face it, differences between the GOP and the Democratic Party are often more rhetorical than practical EXCEPT for when it comes to abortion and gun control. If you don't believe me, find a Republican who wants to ban guns and allow abortions or a Democrat who's cool with AR-15s but not Planned Parenthood.

As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on January 27, 2018, 11:42:28 PM
As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

No, no.

There's a direct correlation between higher CPU power and less crime over the past 20 years. As CPU flops have increased, crime has decreased. This is evident in some poorer communities where crime hasn't decreased as much due to older computers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: libertarian4321 on January 28, 2018, 04:23:54 AM
I miss Obama.  That guy could really work up the hysteria every time there was a shooting anywhere.

Nothing sent the prices of guns stocks soaring like an Obama anti-gun rant.

Trump has been terrible for the gun industry.  His lack of hysterics (on this topic, at least), is resulting in rapidly falling gun and ammunition sales.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Teachstache on January 28, 2018, 05:16:22 AM
Quote
3 homicides among over 50 million students in the United states. That's 0.000006%. Again, it's awful, but let's keep in mind the actual magnitude of this problem

Let's do some fuzzy maths.

50 million students divided by 1000 (average school size) makes 50,000 schools.

11 firearms incidents at schools per month makes 132 incidents per year.

Your children will likely spend 17 years at school.

50,000 / 132 / 17 = 22.28

That's right, your child has a one in twenty two chance of being at a school during a firearms incident.

That is a sobering fuzzy analysis, and all the more reason to homeschool.

As a public school teacher who works with a population of students more statistically at risk for these types of incidents, and as a parent myself, I absolutely disagree with this sentiment. You're welcome to homeschool your child(ren) Iris, but I don't see it as any reason at all to homeschool my son, or to stop working with students who have significant mental health needs.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 28, 2018, 05:39:46 AM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.

Look I am not trying to be mean but that is total bullshit. Hell it's a justification for NO gun regulation. Automobiles kill more people so why not focus all efforts and money on that? Of course cancer beats auto deaths, so screw autos! After 9/11 what happened with airports? The government sure as shit focused on airport/airline safety. Hell Trump is still trying to ban Muslims.

And how much money does it take exactly? I mean since innocent, unable to protect themselves, children aren't dying in large enough quantities to worry about?

Alrighty, not trying to stir something up and I most definitely never said nor meant the bolded.

I have to say, your logic appears faulty. You are going the reductionalist way of thinking here where it isn't required. If you believe sensibly considering statistics means getting rid of gun control-this conversation has come to an end. Enjoy the lifestyle of black and white.

No I am referring to the logic in bold that, because not enough kids are dying, that the government isn't going to throw any sort of money at the problem. It wasn't my logic. It was yours. The government doesn't work that way and never has.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 28, 2018, 05:50:42 AM
I miss Obama.  That guy could really work up the hysteria every time there was a shooting anywhere.

Nothing sent the prices of guns stocks soaring like an Obama anti-gun rant.

Trump has been terrible for the gun industry.  His lack of hysterics (on this topic, at least), is resulting in rapidly falling gun and ammunition sales.

True. Even as the number of mass shootings continues to increase, with 2017 being the deadliest so far. 2018 is not looking so good. But hey, gun sales are down ( :
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 10:24:18 AM
As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

No, no.

There's a direct correlation between higher CPU power and less crime over the past 20 years. As CPU flops have increased, crime has decreased. This is evident in some poorer communities where crime hasn't decreased as much due to older computers.

That is a reductio ad absurdum because I didn't say that CCW policies have caused crime to go down. If anything, all the correlation shows for certain is that CCW policies do not cause crime to go up so much that all other anti-crime policies are suppressed.

It is saddening, however, that those who are so skeptical of the possibility that CCW policies may cause crime rates to decrease often take it as axiomatic that fewer guns equals less crime, when there simply is not convincing evidence towards that point.

EDIT: As for the fuzzy analysis, that is a horrendous abuse of probability and statistics.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Will on January 28, 2018, 10:51:18 AM
"Thoughts and prayers" are really working!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on January 28, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

No, no.

There's a direct correlation between higher CPU power and less crime over the past 20 years. As CPU flops have increased, crime has decreased. This is evident in some poorer communities where crime hasn't decreased as much due to older computers.

That is a reductio ad absurdum because I didn't say that CCW policies have caused crime to go down. If anything, all the correlation shows for certain is that CCW policies do not cause crime to go up so much that all other anti-crime policies are suppressed.

That's not actually reductio ad absurdum*. I simply pointed out, sarcastically, your questionable cause fallacy. Granted, I could have just repeated the statistician's mantra but it was more fun this way.

Quote
It is saddening, however, that those who are so skeptical of the possibility that CCW policies may cause crime rates to decrease often take it as axiomatic that fewer guns equals less crime, when there simply is not convincing evidence towards that point.

It is saddening that, if one questions any pro-gun argument, especially as it relates to the belief that more guns=fewer crimes, one is assumed to automatically be skeptical to the original premise.


Quote
EDIT: As for the fuzzy analysis, that is a horrendous abuse of probability and statistics.

Seems to be common around here.



*"Well, then, if EVERYONE were carrying a CCW, there would be 0 crimes!!1!! Is that what you're saying?" <=== ad absurdum
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 28, 2018, 12:16:55 PM
Always amazes me that's it's reduced down to a stat when it's not your child. I bet the folks suffering from the loss of a child could give a shit about stats.

It's the cold stats that determine where the most bad is that needs addressing and what is doing the most good that needs investing. If lack of seatbelt wearing kills 1 in 50,000 children versus school shootings that kill 1 in 100,000 children (made up numbers)-where should the money go? Guns are scary, and seatbelts aren't but cold hard numbers need to be applied, otherwise money and energy are going to be wasted and fewer children are protected.

Look I am not trying to be mean but that is total bullshit. Hell it's a justification for NO gun regulation. Automobiles kill more people so why not focus all efforts and money on that? Of course cancer beats auto deaths, so screw autos! After 9/11 what happened with airports? The government sure as shit focused on airport/airline safety. Hell Trump is still trying to ban Muslims.

And how much money does it take exactly? I mean since innocent, unable to protect themselves, children aren't dying in large enough quantities to worry about?

What it comes down to is people are far more passionate about fixing threats to their safety which are outside of their control vs controlling those that are within their sphere of influence (even if the external threats are orders of magnitude less likely to matter).

For example, for children 10-14, suicide is nearly 1.5x more likely to be a cause of death than all homicides (not just school shootings). Not to mention accidents being massively higher than either.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on January 28, 2018, 12:47:20 PM
I miss Obama.  That guy could really work up the hysteria every time there was a shooting anywhere.

Nothing sent the prices of guns stocks soaring like an Obama anti-gun rant.

Trump has been terrible for the gun industry.  His lack of hysterics (on this topic, at least), is resulting in rapidly falling gun and ammunition sales.

In a roundabout way we've achieved some sort of gun control. Or at least the main objective-less weapons and ammo being sold. Lol!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on January 28, 2018, 03:22:16 PM
As far as me goes... violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

No, no.

There's a direct correlation between higher CPU power and less crime over the past 20 years. As CPU flops have increased, crime has decreased. This is evident in some poorer communities where crime hasn't decreased as much due to older computers.

That is a reductio ad absurdum because I didn't say that CCW policies have caused crime to go down. If anything, all the correlation shows for certain is that CCW policies do not cause crime to go up so much that all other anti-crime policies are suppressed.

It is saddening, however, that those who are so skeptical of the possibility that CCW policies may cause crime rates to decrease often take it as axiomatic that fewer guns equals less crime, when there simply is not convincing evidence towards that point.

EDIT: As for the fuzzy analysis, that is a horrendous abuse of probability and statistics.

Why does the US have such a high rate of "gun crime" compared to Canada and Europe?

(Wikipedia linky for reference:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate))
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 05:19:04 PM
Probably, in no particular order, because of much different rates of poverty, mental illness, multi-generational problems with gangsterism, the drug war, ethnic conflicts and hopelessness or social disconnection.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on January 28, 2018, 05:51:14 PM
School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I don't like it, but I don't get to set policy in this country.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on January 28, 2018, 05:54:19 PM
School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I don't like it, but I don't get to set policy in this country.

I don’t have kids.

So, I guess I don’t give a shit.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on January 28, 2018, 05:54:37 PM
Probably, in no particular order, because of much different rates of poverty, mental illness, multi-generational problems with gangsterism, the drug war, ethnic conflicts and hopelessness or social disconnection.
Agreed, except for the inclusion of "mental illness" in that list.

The mental illness smokescreen is used as an easy way of avoiding the real and multifaceted issues around the high gun crime rate.  There is zero credible evidence that the USA suffers from a statistically significant higher rate of mental illness than any other developed country.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on January 28, 2018, 06:31:21 PM
School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I don't like it, but I don't get to set policy in this country.

I don’t have kids.

So, I guess I don’t give a shit.

Yeah, other people's children can go fuck themselves, amirite?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 06:36:45 PM
Probably, in no particular order, because of much different rates of poverty, mental illness, multi-generational problems with gangsterism, the drug war, ethnic conflicts and hopelessness or social disconnection.
Agreed, except for the inclusion of "mental illness" in that list.

The mental illness smokescreen is used as an easy way of avoiding the real and multifaceted issues around the high gun crime rate.  There is zero credible evidence that the USA suffers from a statistically significant higher rate of mental illness than any other developed country.

You're right. I probably should have said something like, the way we deal with mental illness in this country probably affects things. Back in the day we would lock people up for mental problems, and while that system definitely had its problems and excesses, our current response isn't what I'd call effective.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 28, 2018, 06:40:58 PM
political cartoon

But, there have been instances of armed citizens stopping public shootings, or preventing them from getting worse. The most recent example is in Texas, where an armed NRA instructor chased down the shooter and killed him in a firefight. Another one I can think of off the top of my head is the one in the mall in Oregon, where a concealed carrier drew and aimed at a mass shooter who then committed suicide shortly thereafter.

Mass shootings aren't the only reason that it's unsafe to have easy access to firearms for everyone.  Toddlers shoot people (including themselves) at roughly a weekly basis in the US.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.7c521a6db759 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/29/american-toddlers-are-still-shooting-people-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/?utm_term=.7c521a6db759)

The most recent example was three days ago:  http://kfor.com/2018/01/25/toddler-dies-after-shooting-himself-in-head-with-shotgun-at-fort-worth-home/ (http://kfor.com/2018/01/25/toddler-dies-after-shooting-himself-in-head-with-shotgun-at-fort-worth-home/)



violence has been on the decline for twenty plus years in the US and while carry policies are probably not the number one factor affecting crime rates, the correlation between their implementation and less crime makes it impossible to argue that more guns necessarily equal more crime, regardless of how intuitive it may seem.

I'm not doing this argument again.  The US has already spoken.  Your side won.  Enjoy the safety that easy access to guns for has provided you with.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 08:00:41 PM
Could it be possible to have liberalized concealed/open carry laws, and policies that might prevent children from accessing firearms? For example, if you have children in your house, you must do x/y/z to secure your guns? I don't know anyone who would permit children to have unsupervised access to guns, including hunters and sportsmen who own 15-20+ guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 28, 2018, 08:09:22 PM
Could it be possible to have liberalized concealed/open carry laws, and policies that might prevent children from accessing firearms? For example, if you have children in your house, you must do x/y/z to secure your guns? I don't know anyone who would permit children to have unsupervised access to guns, including hunters and sportsmen who own 15-20+ guns.

Most people I know with guns think it's absurd that people with children keep them loaded and accessible.

Part of the problem is there is a massive dereliction of duty by parents in these cases and you can't really mandate people be responsible.

I'm not sure how to get this data, but I'd be surprised if more than a fraction of gun deaths and injuries inflicted by children were not ultimately the fault of irresponsible parenting.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 08:13:43 PM
There aren't even many accidental gun deaths in the US. It seems shocking to say that it happens every week or what have you, but in a country of 300 million with over 300 million firearms, it's just not that probable. Certainly accidental gun deaths are tragic, but no more so than any other accidental, preventable death.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on January 28, 2018, 08:41:23 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 28, 2018, 08:48:05 PM
I believe the number you've cited is gun homocides per year. If we were to include suicides, the number would be quite a lot higher. But, as high as the number may be, the question is, what laws may affect those numbers and what costs do they have. You don't just get to put the problem in perspective and then presuppose that your preferred solution is therefore correct.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on January 28, 2018, 08:57:46 PM
I haven't proposed any solutions. Just putting the numbers into perspective.

If gun deaths keep inflating at their current rate 3%,  you're looking at nearly six million deaths over an 85 year life time.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on January 28, 2018, 09:07:05 PM
School shootings are normal everyday events in the United States. We don't really even notice them anymore unless a relative gets killed. After Sandy Hook, when absolutely nothing was done about a whole lot of 1st graders who were murdered, the conversation about gun control was over and done with. In the United States, we love our firearms far more than we love our children.

I don't like it, but I don't get to set policy in this country.

I don’t have kids.

So, I guess I don’t give a shit.

Yeah, other people's children can go fuck themselves, amirite?

Yup. Fuck everyone except what I am.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on January 28, 2018, 09:24:36 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls
15K gun homicides sounds too high; FBI says 11K (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 06:45:07 AM
I am not sure why the fact that there is a gun issue is even up for debate. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

According to this, there were 20 mass shootings(4 or more injured or killed including the shooter) in the first 21 days of the year.

That is one a day.  Does it matter if statistically more people get hurt and die in car crashes?  I agree we should try and make them more safe, but saying there is not an issue?  Really?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 06:51:00 AM
I am not sure why the fact that there is a gun issue is even up for debate. 

https://www.massshootingtracker.org/data

According to this, there were 20 mass shootings(4 or more injured or killed including the shooter) in the first 21 days of the year.

That is one a day.  Does it matter if statistically more people get hurt and die in car crashes?  I agree we should try and make them more safe, but saying there is not an issue?  Really?

Maybe if people used meaningful statistics the discussion would be more reasonable.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 06:58:17 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 07:33:35 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.


Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 07:40:10 AM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Wow, that really puts things in perspective. I mean, again it's making the numbers seem really scary by making it over a million, but still.

Granted, in that same time frame over 223,000,000 people will die from other causes. Basically the entire united states will all die! 300,000 people will drown in that same time frame, not including those on boats.

As I said in my original post, using absolute numbers with enormous sample sizes is at best misleading, and at worst emotional manipulation.


I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

4 people a day... first off that's way low, but you didn't know that. In a country of 300,000,000 people we need to be focusing on 4 people a day? If we start talking about everything that kills 4 people a day we're not gonna have time to eat because we'll be so busy. I mean, autoerotic asphyxiation kills about 2 people a day, does that make the cut? Falling out of bed kills 1.5.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 07:41:02 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.


Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 07:42:47 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.


Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

At least making it so you have to take responsibility for your weapons is a start.  If you leave your gun out, loaded and a child grabs it, and discharges it, you are a pad parent.  You should have some consequences to your actions. 

If nearly 2/3of gun related death is suicide, that also points to an issue with guns.  People now will say, well they would try it no matter guns or not.

The thing is, suicidal ideations often pass after a brief crisis moment.  Then that person can get help to avoid or deal with that crisis better in the future.  If a gun is the weapon of choice to end ones life, it will be fatal more often then not, not allowing any second chance.  This, to me, says even more, that at the very least, guns should be kept in a locked and secure location. 

I am not saying guns should be banned, just that a meaningful conversation should take place on how to limit the injury and death that they cause.  Will it ever be 100%?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean we should not try and reduce.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 07:45:34 AM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Wow, that really puts things in perspective. I mean, again it's making the numbers seem really scary by making it over a million, but still.

Granted, in that same time frame over 223,000,000 people will die from other causes. Basically the entire united states will all die! 300,000 people will drown in that same time frame, not including those on boats.

As I said in my original post, using absolute numbers with enormous sample sizes is at best misleading, and at worst emotional manipulation.


I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

4 people a day... first off that's way low, but you didn't know that. In a country of 300,000,000 people we need to be focusing on 4 people a day? If we start talking about everything that kills 4 people a day we're not gonna have time to eat because we'll be so busy. I mean, autoerotic asphyxiation kills about 2 people a day, does that make the cut? Falling out of bed kills 1.5.
[/b]

How many people does terrorism kill in the US? out of 300 million people?  But yet we are trying to ban entire countries from entry.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 07:49:15 AM
How many people does terrorism kill in the US? out of 300 million people?  But yet we are trying to ban entire countries from entry.

Yeah, which is a ridiculously stupid idea. Not gonna find any argument from me here. Don't even get me started on the wall or the TSA.

The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 08:25:22 AM
I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.

I don't actually think this is the case.

The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

I think that given the hyperbolic position that a lot of Democrats take on gun-control that their main obstacle in presenting this sort of legislation would be convincing Republicans they are actually serious.

The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

This is a key problem in the gun debate, too.

Looking at the website dycker1978 linked, while it's hard to add all the data since they don't do summaries (>.>) it looks like 590  total mass shooting deaths in 2017, by their standards for mass shooting. Reducing all non-mass shooting gun deaths by roughly 2% will have more impact on overall gun violence than if every single one of those events didn't happen.

If the goal is reducing overall gun violence it seems focusing on relatively small wins in the very large categories (for example, reducing suicide rate by gun by 2.5% is also roughly 500 fewer gun deaths with the roughly 20000 gun suicides/year) will have as much of an impact as reducing mass shooting deaths by 90%..

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
I disagree.  There is not doubt that there are other societal issues out there that are taking peoples lives.  This is not what this conversation is about.

With an average 4 people being injured or killed every day, would you  not say there needs to be some meaningful discussion on how to fix that.  No distractions on oh cars... oh whatever... it doesn't matter.

Let talk about this issue, not weather or not it is worse then cars.

Did you even look at the link you pasted here?

It's a bit difficult to have any reasonable conversation with someone who takes a link that says something that fits the narrative they want to say and don't even understand the information it is presenting but blindly accept the conclusions they want to see from it and then presenting them as evidence.

The fundamental problem with gun violence in the USA is that it's a multi-generation problem to fix. The only way to fix it is to treat it as a problem with a timespan measured in decades or generations.


Something that would help many cases of gun violence? Make it a felony to possess a weapon that is secured improperly and used in gun violence. If your child shoots themselves because you are a terribad parent and leave a loaded weapon around the house? That's a felony on you as the owner.

A large percentage of gun related deaths are effectively the result of irresponsibility on the part of the gun owner.

Nearly 2/3 of gun related deaths are the result of suicide.

At least making it so you have to take responsibility for your weapons is a start.  If you leave your gun out, loaded and a child grabs it, and discharges it, you are a pad parent.  You should have some consequences to your actions. 

If nearly 2/3of gun related death is suicide, that also points to an issue with guns.  People now will say, well they would try it no matter guns or not.

The thing is, suicidal ideations often pass after a brief crisis moment.  Then that person can get help to avoid or deal with that crisis better in the future.  If a gun is the weapon of choice to end ones life, it will be fatal more often then not, not allowing any second chance.  This, to me, says even more, that at the very least, guns should be kept in a locked and secure location. 

I am not saying guns should be banned, just that a meaningful conversation should take place on how to limit the injury and death that they cause.  Will it ever be 100%?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean we should not try and reduce.

This reminded me of a show I watched some time ago. It was about those who jump off the Golden Gate Bridge to commit suicide. They interviewed a couple jumpers who actually survived the fall. I remember quite distinctly one of them saying that on his way down, all he could think about was how he had just made the dumbest decision of his life and wished he could take it back. Luckily he survived the fall, but was in pretty bad shape physically.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 08:38:31 AM
The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

I disagree.  People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.  It's easy for your average person to buy a gun in Canada and Australia.  Yet these are commonly pointed to 'no gun' type countries with legislation that is railed against by gun advocates.  It's easy to buy a gun in Canada and Australia.  Yet these are the types of authoritarian 'no gun' type countries that are often railed against by gun advocates.

What the other side hears is 'no guns' but that's usually got nothing to do with the actual argument being put forward.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 08:47:23 AM
I disagree.  People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

A large gun related debate in the past years in the USA has been related to "assault weapons" (which expired early 2000s). Nearly every time a non-gang related mass shooting happens, this subject again becomes subject of the media/politicians (well, Democrats generally).

Perhaps the media is at fault for this, if it's not actually what they want, but the media sure makes it look like Democrats want bans on various types of guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 08:50:35 AM
I disagree.  People who want gun control are almost never arguing for "no guns".

A large gun related debate in the past years in the USA has been related to "assault weapons" (which expired early 2000s). Nearly every time a non-gang related mass shooting happens, this subject again becomes subject of the media/politicians (well, Democrats generally).

Perhaps the media is at fault for this, if it's not actually what they want, but the media sure makes it look like Democrats want bans on various types of guns.

This is exactly what I was talking about.

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted.  That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US.  Yet, you equate the two.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 09:01:25 AM
This is exactly what I was talking about.

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted.  That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US.  Yet, you equate the two.

Nah, the disagreement we have here is exactly the problem that exists in the entire gun debate.

The problem is the primary publicized gun policies that Democrats have effectively boil down to, "we want to make it much harder to get a very small set of guns that are a tiny percentage of the overall gun violence problem."

Rather than, "we want to make people take increased responsibility for their actions."

Another option for more reasonable legislation: make it so that anyone selling a gun to someone on the "no fly" list is responsible for actions that person takes within X days of them buying the gun.

In other words? Stop making sensationalistic legislation aimed at a relatively small percentage of the overall gun violence problem and start suggesting reasonable legislation that will make Republicans look foolish to not adopt. Because contrary to popular belief, most gun owners are reasonable.

The Republican party would burn a large amount of its political capital on the gun-control issue if they fight legislation aimed at simply increasing the personal responsibility of gun owners for their guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 09:01:47 AM
I think that is a fantastic ideal and one my wife even brought up exactly as you describe it. BUT, it's a bad time to talk about more sensible gun laws now and always, so it doesn't matter what you or I think. I say go even further and hold the parents accountable for murder.

I don't actually think this is the case.

Except it's the exact case happening now. Immediately after Vegas it was a "bad time" to talk about sensible laws. Sense then, you know, in-between mass shootings, there was no discussion either. Feel free to browse back through Sander's press conferences after the Vegas shooting and most recently when asked about what's been done/discussed since. 

Quote
The problem with the "anti-gun" debate is that it is presented as an extreme. The arguments are never presented as "we want people to take more personal responsibility for their Constitutional rights" but rather "no guns."

No, the problem is your straw-man fallacy

Quote
I think that given the hyperbolic position that a lot of Democrats take on gun-control that their main obstacle in presenting this sort of legislation would be convincing Republicans they are actually serious.

Again, no! Poll after poll shows most Republicans do not want stricter gun laws and most Dems do. Notice the word "anti-gun" appears nowhere. Occasionally they find some common ground. But the whole "ahhhh Dems want to take away your guns" is an extreme position based on a straw-man fallacy.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 09:18:11 AM
Except it's the exact case happening now. Immediately after Vegas it was a "bad time" to talk about sensible laws. Sense then, you know, in-between mass shootings, there was no discussion either. Feel free to browse back through Sander's press conferences after the Vegas shooting and most recently when asked about what's been done/discussed since. 

Ehhh.

Just look at what actually is proposed in most legislation around gun control. How many of the bills are even remotely related to increased personal responsibility for gun owners (vs making it harder to buy guns)?

Nearly all legislation and debate centers around making increased regulation for buying guns.


Quote
No, the problem is your straw-man fallacy

Then why is the entire debate often called "gun control" and not "gun responsibility?"

Is this skillful manipulation by the NRA to change the topic to be "control" and such associate the entire gun debate with governmental regulation?

I'm increasingly thinking the media (either solely or via NRA influence) are at fault for presenting the entire argument in this framework.


Quote
Again, no! Poll after poll shows most Republicans do not want stricter gun laws and most Dems do. Notice the word "anti-gun" appears nowhere. Occasionally they find some common ground. But the whole "ahhhh Dems want to take away your guns" is an extreme position based on a straw-man fallacy.

See, the problem is exactly what I've been saying - the legislation focuses around "control" rather than responsibility.

I would be shocked if a sizable percentage of Republicans would be opposed to increased personal responsibility for gun owners. For that matter, Democrats either (except I suspect they'd likely oppose legislation on this front as "not far enough" if Republicans proposed it).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 09:18:34 AM
We literally have people in this very thread saying that the statistics and numbers don't matter "because children."

What do you think happens when we put the "reasonable restrictions" on guns and then a kid gets shot again? Do they say "well, we put reasonable restrictions so sometimes these things just happen"? Or "well it looks like that restriction didn't work very well, let's get rid of it and try something else"? Or do you think they'll go farther with the restrictions while not removing old ones? Again of course using very emotionally targeted ads of happy kids in a classroom with a masked man right outside about to burst in. 

You can look at the restrictions in a few states to see they are more concerned with making guns more difficult and inconvenient to get than they are with making sensible laws. Having a foregrip or a collapsible stock does not make a gun more deadly, but putting onerous restrictions on gun owners and manufacturers does make people less likely to buy them. California requires new technology implemented into pistols which hasn't ever been used successfully, thus defacto banning any new pistol designs. That regulation actually makes people less safe, as they can't get newly updated designs of pistols and are stuck with grandfathered versions.

The only way to completely stop any gun violence is to have no guns. If people have an "any gun violence is too much and action has to be taken" attitude, the end result is banning guns. Of course, when people still get shot I don't know what they'll go after next, but it doesn't really matter.

We live in the safest time we've ever had in the United States, and we've got people talking about making new legislation affecting millions of citizens based on 4 deaths a day (although the number is low, that's what they're basing it on). 4. Out of 300,000,000. We could reduce gun deaths by 90% and get it down to where it's actually 4 deaths a day, and people would still say it's too much as evidenced in this very conversation.

Are most democrats pushing for gun bans? No, not yet. I do find it hard to believe that once we get universal background checks and ban assault rifles they'll stop pushing for more regulations though, because people will still be killed using guns. They'll spin the story the exact same as the article that spawned this thread. 11 shootings in 26 days!

So maybe those of you in this thread can enlighten me. Let's say we implement every restriction you want, universal background checks, waiting periods, bans on semi autos, the works (not sure who wants what but those are common themes). Say we do all of that, and a year later a school is shot up and 5 kindergarteners are killed. Will you be satisfied with current restrictions, or will you push for more because kids getting killed is not ever acceptable?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 09:20:46 AM
This is exactly what I was talking about.

What you appear to not like is the argument that some weapons should be restricted.  That's a far cry from arguing for 'no guns' in the US.  Yet, you equate the two.

Nah, the disagreement we have here is exactly the problem that exists in the entire gun debate.

The problem is the primary publicized gun policies that Democrats have effectively boil down to, "we want to make it much harder to get a very small set of guns that are a tiny percentage of the overall gun violence problem."

Rather than, "we want to make people take increased responsibility for their actions."

Another option for more reasonable legislation: make it so that anyone selling a gun to someone on the "no fly" list is responsible for actions that person takes within X days of them buying the gun.

In other words? Stop making sensationalistic legislation aimed at a relatively small percentage of the overall gun violence problem and start suggesting reasonable legislation that will make Republicans look foolish to not adopt. Because contrary to popular belief, most gun owners are reasonable.

The Republican party would burn a large amount of its political capital on the gun-control issue if they fight legislation aimed at simply increasing the personal responsibility of gun owners for their guns.

That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have.  It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though.  At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US.  This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 09:24:22 AM
Another option for more reasonable legislation: make it so that anyone selling a gun to someone on the "no fly" list is responsible for actions that person takes within X days of them buying the gun.

I don't think removing constitutional rights based on a list with no due process or oversight and an almost certain racial bias is a good idea. Very far from reasonable.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 29, 2018, 09:25:51 AM
The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

I tend to agree, and the emotions are very much related to your background and upbringing. Hundreds of thousands of children sustain serious (and sometimes fatal) injuries from extracurricular sports, but if anyone tried to ban high school football I suspect the backlash of jock parents would rival NRA pro-gun activism. Similarly, if urban areas tried to make private vehicle ownership illegal and forced residents to rely on safer public transportation instead citizens would riot!

I grew up in a rural area where everyone had guns and learning to shoot was just a normal part of growing up. I currently live in an area without a police department, we must rely on the county sheriff for protection. Response time can be 30 minutes or more, so carrying a handgun is considered by many to be a civic duty. You are more likely to need protection from a rabid raccoon than a criminal, but a firearm is handy in either case.  Women in remote areas feel especially vulnerable, so ladies night at the gun range becomes an empowering experience. Banning gun ownership here sounds just as ridiculous as banning high school sports or private vehicle ownership would sound in the city.

People are much more willing to live with familiar dangers than they are willing to accept unfamiliar safety constraints.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 09:33:27 AM
The common theme with all of those things is they are based on emotion (specifically fear) and a manipulation of statistics using absolute numbers in a huge sample size and graphic images to sound scary.

I tend to agree, and the emotions are very much related to your background and upbringing. Hundreds of thousands of children sustain serious (and sometimes fatal) injuries from extracurricular sports, but if anyone tried to ban high school football I suspect the backlash of jock parents would rival NRA pro-gun activism. Similarly, if urban areas tried to make private vehicle ownership illegal and forced residents to rely on safer public transportation instead citizens would riot!

So, to make the same point . . . again . . . Nobody has attempted to ban all guns.  They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

Much the same way that there are rules regarding helmet use when playing high-school football.  Much the same way that private vehicle use is heavily regulated.


I grew up in a rural area where everyone had guns and learning to shoot was just a normal part of growing up.

So did I.  But I grew up in Canada, where a normal part of learning to shoot was getting your license and learning how to safely store a firearm.


I currently live in an area without a police department, we must rely on the county sheriff for protection. Response time can be 30 minutes or more, so carrying a handgun is considered by many to be a civic duty. You are more likely to need protection from a rabid raccoon than a criminal, but a firearm is handy in either case.  Women in remote areas feel especially vulnerable, so ladies night at the gun range becomes an empowering experience. Banning gun ownership here sounds just as ridiculous as banning high school sports or private vehicle ownership would sound in the city.

Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns.  They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 09:36:32 AM
That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have.  It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though.  At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US.  This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 09:40:21 AM

See, the problem is exactly what I've been saying - the legislation focuses around "control" rather than responsibility.


It appears you keep focusing on the wrong things:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/word-choice-and-gun-culture/423108/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/word-choice-and-gun-culture/423108/) 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 09:41:05 AM
That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have.  It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though.  At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US.  This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.

Selling to a prohibited person is already punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and the person doesn't even have to do anything with it. It's already in their interest to not sell to prohibited persons.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 09:48:42 AM
That's a perfectly reasonable stance to have.  It has nothing to do with anyone wanting 'no guns' though.  At any rate, I suspect that your proposition is doomed to failure due to the fact that it's illegal to keep digitized, easily searchable records of who owns what gun in the US.  This is a big roadblock to the tracing of who sells what guns to whom, and one reason that straw-man purchases are so common.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time) were legally liable for any acts committed with that gun within a period of time after the sale if the person they sold to was not supposed to have purchased a gun because of available information.

Because then it'd be in their interest to actually have that sort of information meaningfully available. Right now, the only interest is coming from an external source (ie proposed legislation).

That's again why I think focusing on personal responsibility for both gun owners and sellers, particularly vendors, is the key to actually making change happen.

Private sales are an intentional free-for-all in most states.  Attempting to change those rules will be met with tremendous resistance because gun owners don't want to take personal responsibility for what happens with their guns.  That's why I don't share your optimism that this proposition would have any real support from gun advocates.



Selling to a prohibited person is already punishable by up to 10 years in prison, and the person doesn't even have to do anything with it. It's already in their interest to not sell to prohibited persons.

This is intentionally dishonest.  Background checks are not required in the vast majority of states for private sales.  It is virtually impossible to prosecute or punish someone for a private sale in a state that doesn't require a background check or even ID before making a sale.  It is a good example of how gun advocates will fight tooth and nail (starting with disinformation) to avoid anything that would increase their personal responsibility though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ender on January 29, 2018, 09:49:26 AM

See, the problem is exactly what I've been saying - the legislation focuses around "control" rather than responsibility.


It appears you keep focusing on the wrong things:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/word-choice-and-gun-culture/423108/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/word-choice-and-gun-culture/423108/)

yawn.

Quote
Is this skillful manipulation by the NRA to change the topic to be "control" and such associate the entire gun debate with governmental regulation?

I'm increasingly thinking the media (either solely or via NRA influence) are at fault for presenting the entire argument in this framework.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 09:53:30 AM
This is intentionally dishonest.  Background checks are not required in the vast majority of states for private sales.  It is virtually impossible to prosecute or punish someone for a private sale in a state that doesn't require a background check or even ID before making a sale.  It is a good example of how gun advocates will fight tooth and nail (starting with disinformation) to avoid anything that would increase their personal responsibility though.

Look at the quote I was responding to.

I think it'd be far more likely to see that changed if those selling guns (at least "real" sellers via gun shows, etc, not sure how to handle private sales, but one step at a time)

Private sales are a whole other ballgame, and that problem comes down to logistics of actually doing it. Simply changing a law isn't going to help that at all.

It requires registration and home inspections at a minimum to enforce, both of which have their own issues and debates. In any case, the quote I responded to specifically called out "real" sellers, so that's what I was talking about as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 29, 2018, 11:01:14 AM
Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns.  They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

There are plenty of  gun control laws currently on the books, so many that police can't possibly enforce them all. I'm skeptical that passing more laws will have any affect. I would focus more on helping police enforce the most pertinent existing laws. For example, ensuring that people convicted of domestic violence don't possess firearms. Enforcing this law alone would have prevented a number of mass shootings
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 11:14:41 AM
Yet again, nobody has attempted to ban all guns.  They're arguing for controls on who buys guns, restrictions on some types of guns, registration for gun owners, rules regarding safe storage of weapons, etc.

There are plenty of  gun control laws currently on the books, so many that police can't possibly enforce them all. I'm skeptical that passing more laws will have any affect. I would focus more on helping police enforce the most pertinent existing laws. For example, ensuring that people convicted of domestic violence don't possess firearms. Enforcing this law alone would have prevented a number of mass shootings
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shooters-domestic-violence_us_5a0376e7e4b0937b510f5fdd)

How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale?  How do you effectively prosecute people who sell to criminals when hamstrung by laws that prevent quickly checking via digital means who has sold what gun to whom?

I'm all for enforcing laws that currently exist.  Unfortunately, there are structural roadblocks in the way when you attempt to do that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 29, 2018, 11:23:44 AM
How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale? 

My point exactly. If we can't figure out how to enforce one simple gun control law that pretty much everyone agrees on how can we enforce new laws? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 29, 2018, 11:31:35 AM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 11:51:05 AM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on January 29, 2018, 11:56:17 AM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

The is one of two arguments I see most... I might not like the end, so I am not going to start.

How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale? 

My point exactly. If we can't figure out how to enforce one simple gun control law that pretty much everyone agrees on how can we enforce new laws? 

This is the other one... we can enforce the laws we have... 

We need to start enforcing the laws on the books, and making new/better ones if we need to.

As far as not liking the laws, they are to better society as a whole, not one person.  Unfortunately they wont be liked by everyone.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 12:03:25 PM
How do you prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from buying a gun via private sale? 

My point exactly. If we can't figure out how to enforce one simple gun control law that pretty much everyone agrees on how can we enforce new laws? 

This is the other one... we can enforce the laws we have... 

We need to start enforcing the laws on the books, and making new/better ones if we need to.

As far as not liking the laws, they are to better society as a whole, not one person.  Unfortunately they wont be liked by everyone.

It is a great argument for having precisely no laws though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 29, 2018, 12:06:58 PM
The is one of two arguments I see most... I might not like the end, so I am not going to start.

I'm not sure if you've seen the various other gun control threads, but this is brought up all the time. The reason many pro-gun folks are hesitant to "compromise" on current laws is because the compromise goes in only one direction, more regulation.

When we have numerous laws about the cosmetics of firearms, or how many parts on it are made in what country, that shows us the lawmakers are more concerned with making firearms a pain in the ass to get than they are with public safety. Somehow the laws on what sort of foregrip you can have never get repealed despite them being ridiculous to anyone who thinks about it for more than 30 seconds. Get rid of some of the silly laws to show you're actually concerned about safety and we can talk about laws that may actually help.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 29, 2018, 12:15:34 PM
We need to start enforcing the laws on the books

I agree completely. If we could enforce the current federal laws gun violence would drop dramatically

Quote
SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW
Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922, generally prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:

Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Is underage;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is unlawfully in the United States or has been admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.

(quote from Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/categories-of-prohibited-people/ (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/who-can-have-a-gun/categories-of-prohibited-people/)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 12:29:20 PM
This isn't a matter of give and take.  Gun advocates have won - wholesale.  Anyone can buy a gun without hassle in most states, without a background check or even a valid form of ID.  It's extremely difficult to look up the sales history of a weapon . . . and even if you manage to jump through all the loopholes, that history ends the moment there's a private sale.  The idea of registering or needing a license for a gun is an anathema.  As ooeei has pointed out, even very minimal attempts to control firearms has been a total failure.  Every part of this is a total win for gun advocates.

It is a mistake to expect that gun advocates will ever support any form of compromise (even for common sense reasons - assuming you could get anybody to agree on what those are).  They've never had to in the past, they will continue to refuse to in the future . . . and this mindset gave them the win.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 29, 2018, 12:36:13 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Another reason the gun control window is closed for the foreseeable future is that the issue became a left wing dog whistle for hate of heartland Americans.

I'm simply saying gun control advocate bungled the issue badly 2-3 decades ago, and the issue is a loser for liberals outside of their own constituency.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 12:57:19 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on January 29, 2018, 01:59:14 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

There have been localities that have tried to ban firearms and states that seem to be pretty open to it.  I suspect it wouldn't be hard to find some senators and definitely some representatives that were open about their hopes of actually abolishing the 2nd amendment and/or prohibiting firearm ownership by private citizens.  Not that this isn't a straw man argument you are throwing at the previous poster, but depending on your definition of US politician, it's pretty easily rebutted. 

The real problem with getting gun control passed is that most measures are either explicitly nonsensical (such as banning guns based on cosmetic appearances) or they burden legal owners without presenting much of an obstacle to criminals, or they are using gun control to feel like they are "doing something" while avoiding a much more difficult question (i.e., how to stop mass killings by mentally ill and/or extremely troubled individuals without greatly curtailing the liberty of the mentally ill and/or just odd people who would never hurt anybody). 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 29, 2018, 03:30:24 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 29, 2018, 03:44:22 PM
Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

Here is what she said not that long ago.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI)

As others have pointed out, politicians in favor of "common sense gun safety" or whatever the branding is, while they typically pay lip service to the idea of the right to use guns, often praise gun confiscation and strict local measures, not to mention piecemeal encroachments of the right to use guns. Simply put, if you want to ban black synthetic rifles, "large" magazines, concealed carry and others, you don't support gun rights and there's no point in saying that you do. (Note that I have not attacked the generalized idea of background checks or licensing.)

And then you have things like Massachussets' impending ban on bump stocks. (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/turn_in_bump_stocks_before_ban.html) Dozens or hundreds of people have a device which is explicitly legal (per ATF letters) and are threatened with life imprisonment if they do not turn them in within the next week or so. This is a device which has been used in only a handful of crimes and which only exists because there is no legal process for a citizen to buy an actual select fire rifle, and in one week, the punishment for owning one will be more severe than the punishment for rape.

So of course people don't want gun registration... they're concerned about eventually being criminalized and imprisoned. I'm not even a gun owner and this concerns me. Imagine if we were to do the same thing on marijuana. People would, and rightly so, flip out.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 29, 2018, 04:12:20 PM
Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

Here is what she said not that long ago.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI)

You must have missed the bolded part.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/08/chris-cox/nras-chris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/ (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/08/chris-cox/nras-chris-cox-falsely-says-dianne-feinstein-wante/)

This thread itself, like may other "gun" threads before it, is ripe with irony. Everyone has their own version of why we shouldn't/can't have any discussions about common sense gun laws.  People will come up with any excuse to defer the discussion. "Now is not the time," "Dems want to take away all the guns," "The stats don't warrant a discussion," "I want some laws revoked before I concede to more laws," "Stop using the phrase "gun control"," we can't enforce existing laws." All of these excuses are quite frankly bullshit and all the real reasons why there is no logical, sensible discussion.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should have an asterisk next to it with a footnote that reads "Unless infringing on my right to own a gun," because obviously it's more important.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 29, 2018, 04:30:33 PM
I stand corrected!

With that said, anyone who wants to ban or restrict "assault weapons" is almost certainly not well informed about firearms. I used to not be a fan of assault weapons until I had a look at this video in particular. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0)

And as far as specific gun control measures go, branding them common sense does not exempt them from analysis and debate. Some gun control measures, like universal background checks or licensing, do merit debate and should be seriously considered. Other ideas, like national concealed carry, also merit debate. Extremist or useless positions, such as banning assault weapons, are non-starters and not worth debating.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 29, 2018, 05:36:18 PM
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.
There may have been a window when gun control legislation could be passed, probably sometime before the 90s. That window has been closed since the Clinton era and I don't expect it will open again for quite a while.

Are some gun control measures reasonable? Absolutely. But like most gun owners, I know that where we start isn't where we'll finish with the legislation.

Just to confirm . . . you oppose reasonable gun control measures due to the fear that someone could eventually legislate something that you might not agree with?

Yes, and I believe most gun owners think the same way. The window for gun control closed precisely because there were pro-gun control types gleefully and publicly anticipating total bans.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

I'm not aware of any politicians explicitly calling for a ban, but Hillary, BHO, and Schumer have all praised system of gun control like Australia has. Those are just the politicians who have to be a little careful about what they say. There's plenty of antigun activist who have been much more pointed.

Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban.  It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Dianne Feinstein is currently serving as a US Senator for the state of California. She opened the inaugural ceremony for Pres Obama and sits on several Senate committees. Needless to say, she is an immensely powerful and important politician in the US.

Here is what she said not that long ago.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI)

As others have pointed out, politicians in favor of "common sense gun safety" or whatever the branding is, while they typically pay lip service to the idea of the right to use guns, often praise gun confiscation and strict local measures, not to mention piecemeal encroachments of the right to use guns. Simply put, if you want to ban black synthetic rifles, "large" magazines, concealed carry and others, you don't support gun rights and there's no point in saying that you do. (Note that I have not attacked the generalized idea of background checks or licensing.)

And then you have things like Massachussets' impending ban on bump stocks. (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/turn_in_bump_stocks_before_ban.html) Dozens or hundreds of people have a device which is explicitly legal (per ATF letters) and are threatened with life imprisonment if they do not turn them in within the next week or so. This is a device which has been used in only a handful of crimes and which only exists because there is no legal process for a citizen to buy an actual select fire rifle, and in one week, the punishment for owning one will be more severe than the punishment for rape.

So of course people don't want gun registration... they're concerned about eventually being criminalized and imprisoned. I'm not even a gun owner and this concerns me. Imagine if we were to do the same thing on marijuana. People would, and rightly so, flip out.

Yep, an NRA talking point misquote and a regulation.  Neither of which are remotely close to a ban on all firearms. . . Because nobody is now, nor ever has been coming for your guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on January 29, 2018, 06:02:15 PM
GuitarStv, these are the sorts of semantic games that will make gun owners oppose new legislation for all time.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on January 29, 2018, 06:09:23 PM
I think what all you bleeding heart liberals fail to realize is that it's hella fun to shoot stuff and pretend that we're gonna get us some bad guys. So what if a few thousand children have to die. Bang bang! In my dreams, I got you bad guy! Bang bang bang! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

In all seriousness, I talked about this a little bit in my journal, but White Trash love guns because we really hope that someday we'll have an excuse to kill someone and get away with it. It's always on our minds. Some guys are just too impatient to wait for a legal excuse. Sad, but truth.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on January 29, 2018, 06:30:40 PM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?


For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 29, 2018, 07:21:35 PM
Yep, an NRA talking point misquote and a regulation.  Neither of which are remotely close to a ban on all firearms. . . Because nobody is now, nor ever has been coming for your guns.

Would like to emphasize, I'm not a gun owner and I never have been. I don't even like shooting most guns.

Anyway, I admitted that I was mistaken about the Feinstein quote. But it does seem very, very strange to say that no one is coming for your guns when an extremely powerful serving Democratic Senator admitted that she wanted to come for some of your guns and Massachusetts is days away from coming for some of your gun accessories. I mean technically Feinstein didn't want to come for all of your guns, but she did want to come for some of them.

Why would a gun owner take it simply as a matter of faith that all of his/her guns and accessories, to include AR-15s with 30 round magazines, are not in any kind of jeopardy? To be frank, the only thing that keeps such weapons legally untouchable is persistent political activism.

I think what all you bleeding heart liberals fail to realize is that it's hella fun to shoot stuff and pretend that we're gonna get us some bad guys. So what if a few thousand children have to die. Bang bang! In my dreams, I got you bad guy! Bang bang bang! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

In all seriousness, I talked about this a little bit in my journal, but White Trash love guns because we really hope that someday we'll have an excuse to kill someone and get away with it. It's always on our minds. Some guys are just too impatient to wait for a legal excuse. Sad, but truth.

Assuming that's directed in any way at me... I'm not white, or from a lower socio-economic class. I also think racism and classism are very wrong.

Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?


For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

That's a good question... I would have said frustration and deep-seated political polarization and mistrust, but it looks like the Air Force (and by extension, probably the whole of the DoD) is reviewing why they don't report military justice convictions to the FBI. This maneuver has gotten the blessing of the Vice President and has not been opposed by any gun rights group that I am aware of.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems that it does come back to frustration. Why should you want to negotiate and compromise with people who don't have any patience for your concerns?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on January 29, 2018, 08:49:14 PM
Would like to emphasize, I'm not a gun owner and I never have been. I don't even like shooting most guns.

Anyway, I admitted that I was mistaken about the Feinstein quote. But it does seem very, very strange to say that no one is coming for your guns when an extremely powerful serving Democratic Senator admitted that she wanted to come for some of your guns and Massachusetts is days away from coming for some of your gun accessories. I mean technically Feinstein didn't want to come for all of your guns, but she did want to come for some of them.

Why would a gun owner take it simply as a matter of faith that all of his/her guns and accessories, to include AR-15s with 30 round magazines, are not in any kind of jeopardy? To be frank, the only thing that keeps such weapons legally untouchable is persistent political activism.

Gray, I agree with you on several points, but please drop the argument that Mass. banning bump stocks equates to them coming for our guns.

Bump stocks aren't some minor accessory like a flashlight or a grip. They increase the rate of fire well beyond the rate at which you could pull the trigger. It's a gun accessory specifically designed to skirt the intention of the law while not technically breaking the law. Fully automatic weapons are illegal. Modifying a weapon to fire fully automatic is illegal. The ATF initially allowed bump stocks because they don't mechanically meet the definition of a fully automatic weapon. Full auto means 1 trigger pull, multiple bullets. Bump stocks mechanically move the trigger against your finger so the trigger is being pulled multiple times even though you aren't moving your finger. The ATF is reviewing bump stocks with the intention of classifying them as a fully automatic modification, which would ban them in all 50 states. By the way, other states have banned bump stocks and are ordering their surrender. Even Chris Christie, a Republican, signed a bill banning them in New Jersey. I feel siding with bump stocks actually hurts the rest of your argument.

Going back to banning assault weapons; I'll agree that they were banned based on cosmetics and that is stupid. A semi automatic rifle chambered in .762 that looks like an AK-47 isn't a machine gun just because it looks like one. It still fires one round when you pull the trigger. However, if someone used a bump stock to convert a .762 semi-automatic rifle to fire 600 rounds per minute how would that be different than a fully automatic AK-47 which also fires 600 rounds per minute? If the full auto is illegal then shouldn't a similar gun converted to fire at the same rate of fire also be illegal?


Source for rate of fire stats for bump stocks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

Quote
That's a good question... I would have said frustration and deep-seated political polarization and mistrust, but it looks like the Air Force (and by extension, probably the whole of the DoD) is reviewing why they don't report military justice convictions to the FBI. This maneuver has gotten the blessing of the Vice President and has not been opposed by any gun rights group that I am aware of.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems that it does come back to frustration. Why should you want to negotiate and compromise with people who don't have any patience for your concerns?

There are a lot of disagreements. However, there are a few items, specifically background checks, that most people agree on. People are dying and 80-90% of the country agrees on background checks. Seems pretty simple to enact. To do that people have to drop the arguments that get in the way.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 29, 2018, 09:01:34 PM
I agree that it's surprising that bump stocks don't meet the definition of a machinegun. With that said, the ATF has specifically said that they don't meet the definition of a machinegun (http://www.slidefire.com/files/BATFE.pdf) so for them to reverse that decision now would be extraordinary. (Not to mention you can bump fire with a belt loop, or simply your shoulder with some practice.)

Imagine that there was some other device out there that was legally iffy, and you asked the government if it's legal and they said yes, and then they later changed their minds about it and threatened you with decades in prison or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines if you don't give yours up. This sort of arbitrary decision making by the state, with life changing ramifications for the population, is tyrannical. It would be as bad as if the federal government, after years of turning a blind eye to states that legalize marijuana, were to suddenly and aggressively prosecute marijuana vendors/owners--except the federal government has never legalized marijuana.

And the only reason bump stocks exist is because there is practically no legal process to buy a full auto or select fire gun. To be clear, I think that people should be allowed to buy full auto guns at market prices, with sufficient licensing and training. The right to bear arms does not exist if you can't buy the military/militia standard style of small arms.

I agree that universal background checks should be the law of the land.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 30, 2018, 06:16:34 AM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 30, 2018, 06:20:40 AM
Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban.  It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Well now we're just balls deep in semantics. Australia has a ban on numerous types of guns, but yeah you're technically right not all of them. You're allowed to have pump shotguns or a semi-auto 22 if you're a farmer or a clay target shooter. As far as America is concerned Australia has a gun ban, because well over half of the guns in the US would become illegal overnight if we instituted their laws.

"Nobody is calling for a gun ban, just a ban on the most popular types of guns while allowing a select few .22s and shotguns. Why are you people who own guns that will become illegal and be confiscated if we take on their rules so reluctant to take on their rules? Again, not a ban on all guns, just the ones you guys like, very mild and common sense."

It's like saying my house doesn't have a cake ban. Sure you aren't allowed to have 99% of cakes, but you can have one small piece of spongecake once a year if you give me a written essay explaining why you deserve it and I approve it. No cake ban here though, nobody is talking about a cake ban. Your right to have cake is still very much intact.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 30, 2018, 07:41:43 AM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.

Hmm, it's as if most if not all those records are already kept in various databases. Weird! You might also find it strange that well over 85% of folks support expanding background checks as well as 72% of NRA members.

BTW, there is no such thing as a marksmanship badge. It was discontinued in 1966 and replace by the Rifle and Shotgun Shooting which itself was discontinued in 1987. Now it's simply called Rifle Shooting merit badge which can be accomplished with an Air BB or Pellet Rifle. Sure you can use a 22 as well but it's not necessary. Also these are Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts. Cub Scouts are elementary school age. My son's troop visits the shooting rang every year at Summer Camp to work on their Merit Badge and not a single one of them owns a 22. I enjoy watching and helping them.

But yes it would be a pain in the butt to sell a gun to your teenage Boy Scout neighbor. Much like it's a pain in the butt to sell a car to your teenage neighbor. Filling out paperwork, registering it, paying taxes on it, standing in line at the BMV, etc. A gun purchase between 2 people should be just as painful to transact and it doesn't make any sense why it isn't. I am all for it!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on January 30, 2018, 07:56:16 AM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Enforcing current federal law would also require that database to contain enough information to verify citizenship. That opens a whole other can of worms around human rights for illegal aliens and "dreamers"

Then there's drug addiction, military background, domestic violence, and criminal history. You have to get that information on every single citizen in the USA, store it, verify it's accuracy, ensure it gets updated regularly, etc.

Then there's private sales, so anyone who wants to sell the little 22 they used as a cub scout to their neighbor whose son is working on a marksmanship badge has to be able to access that database too. The database that has all of your personal information in it.

This is no simple task, it won't be cheap, and it is fraught with opportunities for abuse.

Finally, the laws that make such a database possible must be voted in. Can you imagine any elected official who would agree to have all their own personal information in that database? I can't.

Oregon requires background checks... had to do one check to buy two handguns one time. Took about 15 minutes to get approved, in the meantime I found the ammunition I needed, a holster. No problem. Oregon goes too far in criminalizing some aspects of private transfers and defining the law vaguely, but I think the premise is reasonable.

Now, if we go the route of a nation wide background check, I'd like to see some verbiage about timely approval. That way, no future politicians can gut the staffing of the background check agency and effectively outlaw guns by making it take 120 days to get an approval.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 30, 2018, 08:13:24 AM
GuitarStv, these are the sorts of semantic games that will make gun owners oppose new legislation for all time.

You've already said that as a gun advocate you oppose all new legislation related to guns regardless of whether it makes sense.  This new statement isn't much of a threat then, is it?



Australia doesn't have a gun ban, and has never had a gun ban.  It's not terribly hard to buy a gun there.

Well now we're just balls deep in semantics. Australia has a ban on numerous types of guns, but yeah you're technically right not all of them. You're allowed to have pump shotguns or a semi-auto 22 if you're a farmer or a clay target shooter. As far as America is concerned Australia has a gun ban, because well over half of the guns in the US would become illegal overnight if we instituted their laws.

"Nobody is calling for a gun ban, just a ban on the most popular types of guns while allowing a select few .22s and shotguns. Why are you people who own guns that will become illegal and be confiscated if we take on their rules so reluctant to take on their rules? Again, not a ban on all guns, just the ones you guys like, very mild and common sense."

It's like saying my house doesn't have a cake ban. Sure you aren't allowed to have 99% of cakes, but you can have one small piece of spongecake once a year if you give me a written essay explaining why you deserve it and I approve it. No cake ban here though, nobody is talking about a cake ban. Your right to have cake is still very much intact.


The semantics are important in this case, where one side of the debate is deliberately being dishonest.  Despite the many times it has been claimed in this thread, there has never been a push to ban all guns in the US.  Near as I've been able to find, there hasn't even been a single politician who said that he or she wanted to ban all guns in the US.  Despite this, the claim is regularly made by gun advocates.  It is false.  Please stop making it.

I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview)).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 30, 2018, 08:45:21 AM
The semantics are important in this case, where one side of the debate is deliberately being dishonest.  Despite the many times it has been claimed in this thread, there has never been a push to ban all guns in the US.  Near as I've been able to find, there hasn't even been a single politician who said that he or she wanted to ban all guns in the US.  Despite this, the claim is regularly made by gun advocates.  It is false.  Please stop making it.

You're correct, there hasn't been a push for banning all guns.

Then again, pushing to ban a giant class of firearms which are some of the most used and most applicable for both self defense and sporting is not even close to uncommon.

To give another fictional example, we're not pushing to ban soft drinks, and never have. We simply want to restrict all coke and pepsi products from regular sale, and allow only generic lemon lime or orange soda to be sold in specialized stores that require a written application and an approved reason to purchase them. Note that "enjoying the taste" is not an approved reason. Nobody's talking about a ban here, just common sense restrictions. Is the "we aren't calling for a ban" a lie in this case? I guess not technically, but it's damn sure misleading, especially if you only say the first sentence without further explanation as a response to someone arguing against the policies.

While I agree it's dishonest to say people advocate for a total gun ban, I think it is accurate to say people advocate for a gun ban, as they want to ban guns that are commonly used and purchased. Is it the clearest way of saying it? Not really, and it can be twisted around the same way the "nobody is pushing for a gun ban" can be even though it could be argued as well.

TLDR: Whether people are or aren't pushing for a gun ban can be considered accurate or not based on your interpretation, and in both cases can be used to mislead people. I think saying Australia doesn't have a gun ban and never has is at least as misleading as saying many Americans are pushing for gun bans. Neither one is particularly clear.

Quote
I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview)).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.

Okay, I'll elaborate. Australia has restricted (and by restricted I mean nobody can buy or own them) a lot of guns that we commonly own and use in the United States, but not all of them. Definitely not a ban though, because they're just "restricted" with no chance of getting them, and you can still buy a .22 or a shotgun with a limited capacity if you have an appropriate reason for owning them, and self defense does not constitute an appropriate reason.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 30, 2018, 09:17:39 AM
Quote
I agree with you ooeei that when gun specific restrictions are implemented they do restrict certain types of guns.  Australia restricted usage of semi-automatic rifles for example, and these make up 20% of the guns owned in the US (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130215/assault-weapons-overview)).  I'm not saying that Australia's solution is the best one for the US.  You can certainly argue about what measures are more sensible in your country.  What you can't do is lie about what happened in Australia.  If you do, I'm going to point it out.

Okay, I'll elaborate. Australia has restricted (and by restricted I mean nobody can buy or own them) a lot of guns that we commonly own and use in the United States, but not all of them. Definitely not a ban though, because they're just "restricted" with no chance of getting them, and you can still buy a .22 or a shotgun with a limited capacity if you have an appropriate reason for owning them, and self defense does not constitute an appropriate reason.

You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on January 30, 2018, 09:57:30 AM
You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.

I do realize that. I'd ask you to realize that when talking about what we in the US should do about our gun laws, we will discuss them from our perspective. Here's what the typical gun owner has as an experience with "gun ban" discussions.

Gun Owner (GO): Yeah I'm not at all supportive of a gun ban. There are plenty of other ways to go about fixing our problems.

Gun control advocate (GCA): We're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax guys.

GO: Oh, I was worried. So I can keep my AR-15?

GCA: Well not if our legislation passes, we don't want people to have assault rifles because they're dangerous.

GO: Hmm, well what about my glock and sig 9mm?

GCA: Well semi auto pistols are the most used in crimes, so our proposal restricts those from regular ownership as well.

GO: So you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: Whoa whoa whoa, let's be very clear, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax. You guys always freak out and exaggerate thinking we're trying to take everyone's guns. We just want common sense legislation with some restrictions on certain types of particularly dangerous guns.

GO: So, you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: For the last time please stay on the issue, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, never have and never will. Gosh you guys are always so worried about people taking your guns you don't even care about little Suzie dying every day.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 30, 2018, 10:24:15 AM
You have to realize . . . as an American, you are coming from a pretty strange situation.  Most of the rest of the world has more pervasive gun regulation.  The arguments and ideas put forth as common sense/common place aren't.  I live in Canada (similar rules to Australia).  We have lots of regulations regarding guns.  We also have high gun ownership, and many people who use guns pretty regularly.  While there are gun restrictions, there are plenty of legal firearms available to buy . . . and while it's more hassle than in the US it is not a particularly onerous task to obtain a firearm.  This is seen as common sense / common place in most of the rest of the world.

I do realize that. I'd ask you to realize that when talking about what we in the US should do about our gun laws, we will discuss them from our perspective. Here's what the typical gun owner has as an experience with "gun ban" discussions.

Gun control advocate (GCA): We're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax guys.

Gun owner (GO): Oh, I was worried. So I can keep my AR-15?

GCA: Well not if our legislation passes, we don't want people to have assault rifles because they're dangerous.

GO: Hmm, well what about my glock and sig 9mm?

GCA: Well semi auto pistols are the most used in crimes, so our proposal restricts those from regular ownership as well.

GO: So you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: Whoa whoa whoa, let's be very clear, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, relax. You guys always freak out and exaggerate thinking we're trying to take everyone's guns. We just want common sense legislation with some restrictions on certain types of particularly dangerous guns.

GO: So, you're trying to take my guns?

GCA: For the last time please stay on the issue, we're not trying to take anyone's guns, never have and never will. Gosh you guys are always so worried about people taking your guns you don't even care about little Suzie dying every day.

Here's what it sounds like from the other side:


GCA: We want to restrict further sale of certain classes of weapons - the ones most commonly used in crimes.

GO: So you're taking away all of our guns!

GCA: No, there are still plenty of other guns that you can buy, and anything we do with a popular class of weapon will have to include grandfathering in.  The best we're really hoping for is that a century or two from now most of these guns will be difficult to get in the US.

GO: No, I want the deadliest guns, and I want them all the time.  They're the most fun.  Restricting any gun sale is expressly forbidden by the almighty 2nd amendment.

GCA: There are already restrictions on weapons (like fully automatic pistols/rifles).  Anyways, nobody's taking away your guns, just preventing sale of new weapons of this type.

GO: No, you can't restrict any guns.  That's the same as taking every gun.  2nd amendment!

GCA: . . .

GO: I am perturbed and so will now buy three guns:

- One to leave at home fully loaded and unsecured in a place that my toddler might get to . . . because a home invasion could happen at any moment, and I'll need to take them out one after the other with my incredible shooting skills.

- One to carry with me on tactical wal-mart/church/bar excursions . . . gotta be safe.  You never know when you'll end up meeting a nut with a gun.

- One to privately sell to someone who tells me his name is Dave.  Dave is a good guy, he told me so - and he's willing to pay more than what a new gun in a shop costs!  What a great deal for both of us.

Hmm?  No, I don't think any of that is ridiculous.  Can you believe the temerity of that gun control guy thinking that exercising my legal right to anything just listed might be wrong?  I need to go complain online about how restrictions on bump stocks are an infringement of my rights as a gun owner, and how any form of gun control is the exact same as taking all guns.  We sure have it tough in this virtually unregulated environment.  Good thing we don't live in a country that bans every gun ever, like Australia or Canada.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Parizade on January 30, 2018, 02:24:10 PM
Hmm, it's as if most if not all those records are already kept in various databases. Weird!
Have you ever been part of a project to combine large databases of protected health information on individual people.  I have, it can be a nightmare.

BTW, there is no such thing as a marksmanship badge. It was discontinued in 1966 and replace by the Rifle and Shotgun Shooting which itself was discontinued in 1987. Now it's simply called Rifle Shooting merit badge which can be accomplished with an Air BB or Pellet Rifle. Sure you can use a 22 as well but it's not necessary. Also these are Boy Scouts, not Cub Scouts. Cub Scouts are elementary school age. My son's troop visits the shooting rang every year at Summer Camp to work on their Merit Badge and not a single one of them owns a 22. I enjoy watching and helping them.

But yes it would be a pain in the butt to sell a gun to your teenage Boy Scout neighbor. Much like it's a pain in the butt to sell a car to your teenage neighbor. Filling out paperwork, registering it, paying taxes on it, standing in line at the BMV, etc. A gun purchase between 2 people should be just as painful to transact and it doesn't make any sense why it isn't. I am all for it!

In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on January 30, 2018, 03:49:12 PM
In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.

Right, I should have just went with the "sell a gun to an elementary school kid" analogy. <- Now that was condescending.

Actually I very politely corrected you because I happen to be heavily involved in Boy Scouts as a merit badge counselor, and even acknowledged the difficulty of selling guns to your neighbor. My apologies for offending your sensibilities.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on January 30, 2018, 05:11:47 PM
In your quest to be condescending you've managed to focus on the irrelevant and completely ignore the my points about the challenge of protecting private information.

Right, I should have just went with the "sell a gun to an elementary school kid" analogy. <- Now that was condescending.

Actually I very politely corrected you because I happen to be heavily involved in Boy Scouts as a merit badge counselor, and even acknowledged the difficulty of selling guns to your neighbor. My apologies for offending your sensibilities.

It's fascinating how we keep arguing the same points over and over again in different threads.

Much of the United States culturally thinks gun ownership is a fundamental right.   Price of freedom.   Enables personal responsibility and independence.   Gun crime not related to gun ownership.

Rest of the first world doesn't.   

I find it really interesting how groups of people develop views about things like gun ownership, health care, Muslims, #metoo, democracy.  People quickly identify strongly with the group and it becomes like a tribe ready to defend their beliefs against all others.

Sometimes I catch myself doing this & I have to stop and reset my thought process.     
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on January 30, 2018, 05:12:49 PM
Jumping in a bit late here.

It sounds like both sides, for the most part, agree that universal background checks make sense. Which aligns with 80-90% of the American people. Why can't we have a healthy conversation about that, and as a country actually implement it?

For context: I am a responsible gun owner. Most responsible gun owners I know want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Establishing the kind of database necessary for background checks is just as frightening to liberals as it is to gun owners, and with good reason.

Effective background checks require a massive database that includes very sensitive mental health information on every citizen of the USA. This information is considered Protected Health Information (PHI) so putting it into a database that can be accessed by any cashier that might sell guns or ammo is problematic.

Why does the cashier need access to the data in the database? That isn't how it works now. Background checks already happen. In my state you go to the sheriff's office to file the paperwork for a background check, and then they give you a permit to take to the gun shop showing you passed the background check. If getting this done each time you want to buy a gun is too much of a hassle you can get a concealed carry permit, which requires a class and a more rigorous background check, and then you can buy guns whenever you want.

Requiring universal background checks is as simple as requiring private sellers to require the same permit that the gun shop currently has to ask for.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on January 30, 2018, 09:42:24 PM
GCA: We want to restrict further sale of certain classes of weapons - the ones most commonly used in crimes.

The types of weapons the modern gun control effort focuses on are "assault weapons" which are arbitrarily defined and absolutely not the most commonly used in crimes.

GCA: No, there are still plenty of other guns that you can buy, and anything we do with a popular class of weapon will have to include grandfathering in.

But, I pointed out a gun control effort earlier in this thread that contains no grandfathering exemption.

GCA: There are already restrictions on weapons (like fully automatic pistols/rifles).  Anyways, nobody's taking away your guns, just preventing sale of new weapons of this type.

GO: No, you can't restrict any guns.  That's the same as taking every gun.  2nd amendment!

There is an absolutionist response to gun control efforts because there have been no compromises on the issue virtually since 1934 until very recently... until the gun rights movement really got energized, it had been a constant encroachment of gun control. First it was onerous restrictions on full autos, then it was a needless and non-value added prohibition on full autos, then it was "assault weapons" and then finally gun rights folks were able to fight back and achieve concealed carry in many states. And I have never, ever seen convincing evidence that concealed carry causes crime to increase. (I am not certain that it causes crime to decrease either.)

Personally, I am willing to compromise and I'm quite happy to discuss with others who are too. I think most people agree that universal background checks are an achievable political victory, one more desired by the gun control crowd than the gun rights crowd. So, gun control folks want universal background checks, very well, fair enough. What are you going to give in return?

GO: I am perturbed and so will now buy three guns:

Yes, when affronted, Americans often react aggressively. It's like how MMM himself flaunts federal law with a smirk and a sneer when he uses marijuana or advocates drinking in public so long as you are polite about it. You do what you want and if others try to stop you from doing it, you're prone to doing it that much more just to spite them. It's kind of like a gay pride parade... an aggressive, shameless reaction to silly and pointless standards imposed by people who rarely understand or care to understand the issue from any perspective but their own.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on January 31, 2018, 01:36:28 AM
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on January 31, 2018, 07:36:37 AM
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

What a tedious and irrelevant line of logic you're trying to trap people in.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on January 31, 2018, 07:48:52 AM
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

No.

The "absolutionist [sic]" gun lobby strikes again with it's lack of compromise and unfair restrictions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on January 31, 2018, 08:45:13 AM
No, even our choice in fireworks are regulated. You can have a gun but you can't buy really big firecrackers. ;)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 01, 2018, 12:35:17 AM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 01, 2018, 11:51:12 AM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 01, 2018, 12:24:00 PM
First it was onerous restrictions on full autos, then it was a needless and non-value added prohibition on full autos

It would appear that they're not happy about the full auto decision.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 01, 2018, 12:30:04 PM
I actually expect a push for legalizing full auto during the Trump administration.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 01, 2018, 03:19:01 PM
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days! 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on February 01, 2018, 04:24:57 PM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 01, 2018, 05:34:24 PM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.

Neato.  So, we have a situation where vetting and greater difficulty at getting a weapon prevents the weapon from being commonly used in crimes.  I mean, the tommy gun was the weapon of choice for criminals in the 30s before being banned.  The solution to this problem?  Loosening restrictions of course!  Think of all the fully automatic weapons unfairly denied their chance to shine.

(Kinda blows the whole argument that if you make certain types of guns illegal only criminals will have 'em right out of the water too . . . but I guess we're not supposed to think of that.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 01, 2018, 05:44:43 PM
You will note that he said no LEGALLY acquired fully automatic gun has been used in a crime. 

I am trying to find stats on how many illegally owned automatic weapons have been used, but the reporting is opaque and seems to lump them with other types of weapons, but it looks like the use of illegal fully automatic guns is right there with the use of  semi-auto guns.

also, there weren't that many fully automatic machine guns to start with. It isn't a reasonable comparison to extrapolate the results of fully automatic weapon restrictions to banning most other guns, as they are so much more prevelant.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on February 03, 2018, 07:15:37 PM
I was curious to see where the right to bear arms ends.

Basically at fully automatic machine guns.

That probably should have been done through an actual amendment rather than a court decision, but it's pretty politically stable.  A fully automatic machine gun just doesn't offer enough extra utility over a semi-automatic for anybody to go to bat for and I suspect but don't know that if 2nd amendment supporters tried to roll back that decision, it would backfire politically.

Plus, you can still own a chain gun, a cannon, grenade launcher, and a tank, although the actual grenade and munitions for the tank are either expensive and burdensome to get (grenade) or possibly unavailable (tank; I don't think you can own modern artillery rounds where the propulsion is contained, whereas a black powder cannon is legal).  No clue what, if any, limitations there are on say missiles for aircraft.

The problem with the machinegun ban is that it is more restrictive than the laws to buy a cannon, grenade launcher, or grenades. There is a legal process to buy those kinds of things if you really want them, however there is no legal way to buy an actual AK-47 or M16, you can only buy a watered-down clone, or you can spend literally tens of thousands of dollars on one that was made before 1986.

The legal process to buy a machinegun is very strict and involves rather extreme vetting, and legal full auto guns have virtually never been used in crime. I highly doubt that we'd see gun deaths rise if we rolled restrictions back just a hair and made it such that the process to buy full auto guns is the same as the process to buy grenade launchers.

Neato.  So, we have a situation where vetting and greater difficulty at getting a weapon prevents the weapon from being commonly used in crimes.  I mean, the tommy gun was the weapon of choice for criminals in the 30s before being banned.  The solution to this problem?  Loosening restrictions of course!  Think of all the fully automatic weapons unfairly denied their chance to shine.

(Kinda blows the whole argument that if you make certain types of guns illegal only criminals will have 'em right out of the water too . . . but I guess we're not supposed to think of that.)

There is no legal way for a person to own a full auto gun made after 1986.

I am saying, revert full auto restrictions to where they were between 1934 and 1986, when we had (virtually) no crimes with legal full autos, and to the point that the legal status of full autos is the same as the legal status for grenade launchers. It is an absurdity that you can buy grenade launchers in the US with the appropriate vetting, but not new full auto guns no matter how much you want to. There is also no significant risk of a spike in crimes involving legal new full autos, since there were virtually no crimes involving new full autos when there was a legal process to buy them, and the legal full autos that still exist are also virtually never used in crimes.

EDIT: I went to the shooting range today with a friend... almost every single gun I saw would be of great concern to the gun control crowd. Pistols with high capacity magazines, compact pistols designed for concealed carry, all but two of the ten or so rifles were AR-15s, and most frightening of all was a working class black gentleman who had a folding high capacity carbine (Kel-Tec Sub 2000). Even if someone did manage to muster up the political will to ban the "wrong" kind of guns, good luck enforcing the law... nearly half of all Americans have used marijuana and there is a very real possibility of offering citizenship to some illegal immigrants in the near future. We are not a people who are given to kowtowing to bizarre edicts from distant and disconnected bureaucrats.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on February 03, 2018, 08:05:58 PM
Are American citizens allowed to own nuclear weapons?

American citizens should have nuclear weapons because what if the King of England tries to mess with us. We could pop out from behind a tree and nuke him.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 04, 2018, 03:10:22 PM
At this point, I don't care what you legalize.  What's the difference?  I've mentioned it several times, but your side has totally won on pretty much every front.  Start selling fully automatic weapons in corner stores.  Get a free grenade with every third order of fries at McDonald's.  Whatevs.

All I ask is that you own your choices.  Loudly proclaim that you don't give a shit who dies in gun related incidents - being able to get a hold of a weapon with no fuss is much more important.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GrayGhost on February 04, 2018, 03:39:53 PM
It's fine if you don't want to respond to my points, but just because someone has a different opinion on how to solve a problem, or has different concerns that they want addressed, does not mean that they are wrong or evil or malicious or their hearts are smaller than yours. It also doesn't justify nationalist snark, either.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 05, 2018, 07:36:55 AM
You offered no opinion of any kind regarding how to solve the problem (which is pretty typical of gun advocates - other than the occasional "it's just the crazy people", "guns save more lives than they take", "it's mostly black men" there's never any concern or interest in this part of the conversation.)  I did respond to your single point though.  Your main concern is easy access to firearms for all.  I don't think you're evil, malicious, or have a heart smaller than mine.  I do think that you're quick to dismiss the societal problems of gun violence, and absolutely refuse to take ownership of what supporting the position that you support means.

As to nationalism . . . you kinda kicked it off with your ridiculous "We are not a people who are given to kowtowing to bizarre edicts from distant and disconnected bureaucrats".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 05, 2018, 10:02:37 AM
At this point, I don't care what you legalize.  What's the difference?  I've mentioned it several times, but your side has totally won on pretty much every front.  Start selling fully automatic weapons in corner stores.  Get a free grenade with every third order of fries at McDonald's.  Whatevs.

All I ask is that you own your choices.  Loudly proclaim that you don't give a shit who dies in gun related incidents - being able to get a hold of a weapon with no fuss is much more important.

By that logic, you would have to proclaim that poor people don't deserve to be able to protect themselves and women in poor people should just have to live with being raped.  If you want to enjoy protection, you need to be sure to be rich enough to live, work, and play in a safe neighborhood(s). 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 05, 2018, 10:17:15 AM
The idea that you're all OK with policing that sucks so hard every person in the country needs to arm themselves is a bit weird to me.  My understanding is also that justifiable homicide use is about 30 times lower than criminal homicide every year (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf)).  But all that aside . . . You believe that being able to more easily buy a legal fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?  Why?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 05, 2018, 01:27:23 PM
The idea that you're all OK with policing that sucks so hard every person in the country needs to arm themselves is a bit weird to me.  My understanding is also that justifiable homicide use is about 30 times lower than criminal homicide every year (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable17.pdf)).  But all that aside . . . You believe that being able to more easily buy a legal fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?  Why?

You point out that the number of criminal homicides are 30 times higher than justifiable homicide as an argument against allowing people the means to defend themselves?   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 05, 2018, 02:00:20 PM
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.  It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?

I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 05, 2018, 03:03:24 PM
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent. 

It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.   

I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 05, 2018, 05:07:09 PM
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent.

Sure.  And you don't have to kill a man to commit a crime with a gun.  You're a smart guy, you already know that stats for gun use for defensive purposes in the US are rather hand-wavy estimates.

Quote
It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.

It's an argument I'll stick by.

We have gun advocates in this thread saying that they'll oppose legislation they believe reasonable that will increase everyone's safety because it might be a gateway to imaginary 'steal all the guns' legislation.  Whether they like to admit it or not, that means that they don't give a shit if someone dies in a gun incident . . . The important thing is that they can buy guns.

Supporting the same argument we have the suggestion that it's important to reduce regulation on one of the (incredibly few) types of firearm that is restricted in the US.  No argument made as to why this is sonehow necessary for sporting, hunting, or self defence purposes.  Simply a willingness to risk lives to get more of that sweet, sweet trigger action.

I'm glad that you don't believe that fully automatic weapons serve any purpose for self defence though.  At least we've got one point of agreement.

Quote
I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.

Not downplaying anything.  Protecting yourself is certainly important.  Preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun from happening in the first place is more so, and has greater societal benefit though.  The 30+ times more people killed by criminals would probably disagree with the justifiable homicide crowd about the utility of easy access to firearms for all.



Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 05, 2018, 05:48:44 PM
Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?

As my dad always said, "I trust myself with a gun but I don't trust anyone else with one."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 06, 2018, 09:10:21 AM
I'm pointing out that easy and effectively universal access to a staggering array of weapons doesn't result in people justifiably defending themselves all that often from criminals.
  Actually, you pointed out that it doesn't result in people justifiably killing people very often.  You don't have to kill people for a gun to be an effective defensive weapon or an effective deterrent.

Sure.  And you don't have to kill a man to commit a crime with a gun.  You're a smart guy, you already know that stats for gun use for defensive purposes in the US are rather hand-wavy estimates.

Quote
It does mean that criminals have easier access to firearms though.  It was just proposed to relax regulation of a class of gun (fully automatic weapons) that few have ever argues serves a defensive purpose.  So, again . . . I'm asking why do you believe  that being able to more easily buy a fully automatic weapon will protect the poor and reduce rapes?
  I never made that argument.  You were the one that made a general argument regarding supporting people being able to by a firearm with "no fuss" means you don't give a shit as to who dies in a gun incident.

It's an argument I'll stick by.

We have gun advocates in this thread saying that they'll oppose legislation they believe reasonable that will increase everyone's safety because it might be a gateway to imaginary 'steal all the guns' legislation.  Whether they like to admit it or not, that means that they don't give a shit if someone dies in a gun incident . . . The important thing is that they can buy guns.

Supporting the same argument we have the suggestion that it's important to reduce regulation on one of the (incredibly few) types of firearm that is restricted in the US.  No argument made as to why this is sonehow necessary for sporting, hunting, or self defence purposes.  Simply a willingness to risk lives to get more of that sweet, sweet trigger action.

I'm glad that you don't believe that fully automatic weapons serve any purpose for self defence though.  At least we've got one point of agreement.

Quote
I've never, ever argued that people shouldn't defend themselves.  Hell, I haven't even argued that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.  Even with various levels of gun control, people somehow manage to defend themselves in Canada, Japan, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
  But you seem pretty flippant in downplaying the importance of the lives of people who have committed a justifiable homicide in self defense (not to mention the much greater number of people who were protected without a death being involved).  I suspect they would have a different opinion than you as to whether the number of instances of self defense justify not restricting access to guns.

Not downplaying anything.  Protecting yourself is certainly important.  Preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun from happening in the first place is more so, and has greater societal benefit though.  The 30+ times more people killed by criminals would probably disagree with the justifiable homicide crowd about the utility of easy access to firearms for all.



Look, your side won.  You're living in one of the least restrictive countries in the world for guns.  If all the bullshit about guns being a net benefit for society was true, why are they such a giant problem for your country?

You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.  At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 06, 2018, 09:26:57 AM
Quote
You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.

Not true at all.  Mandatory background checks for every firearm sale, and a nation-wide registration of who owns what guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns without significantly impacting the ability of any law abiding citizen to acquire a firearm.

Typically gun advocates are against both of these items . . . because they don't really care about self defense or criminals with guns, just ease of gun ownership.



Quote
At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense.

You're a smart guy.  You already know the answers to the questions you're asking.  Law enforcement isn't stupid.  If what you're proposing was possible, it already would have been implemented.

It's extremely hard to prosecute straw man purchases when there's no searchable database of who owns what.  Even assuming that they manage to do this herculean task perfectly, it probably wouldn't lead to any significant reduction in gun crime . . . not when someone can head to the neighboring red state and then do their straw man purchase.  Of course, we're ignoring the fact that it's a big waste of time when anyone who buys a gun can then turn around and perfectly legally sell it the next day to anyone at all without asking for a background check, home address, or even a name.

As you well know, the tools at hand are insufficient to the task.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 06, 2018, 11:21:31 AM
Quote
You say you're not downplaying self defense and that preventing the kind of situation that requires a gun is more important, but the first thing gun control advocates want to do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to have or obtain guns, not do things to impact criminals.

Not true at all.  Mandatory background checks for every firearm sale, and a nation-wide registration of who owns what guns will make it harder for criminals to get guns without significantly impacting the ability of any law abiding citizen to acquire a firearm.

Typically gun advocates are against both of these items . . . because they don't really care about self defense or criminals with guns, just ease of gun ownership.



Quote
At the very least, heavily blue cities could start taking straw man purchases seriously and prosecuting people who buy guns for people who would otherwise have to steal them.  Start actually using the tools at hand to stop violent criminals from getting guns, and then maybe start talking about what restrictions on law abiding citizens make sense.

You're a smart guy.  You already know the answers to the questions you're asking.  Law enforcement isn't stupid.  If what you're proposing was possible, it already would have been implemented.

It's extremely hard to prosecute straw man purchases when there's no searchable database of who owns what. 
  It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.  The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

Even assuming that they manage to do this herculean task perfectly, it probably wouldn't lead to any significant reduction in gun crime . . . not when someone can head to the neighboring red state and then do their straw man purchase.  Of course, we're ignoring the fact that it's a big waste of time when anyone who buys a gun can then turn around and perfectly legally sell it the next day to anyone at all without asking for a background check, home address, or even a name.

As you well know, the tools at hand are insufficient to the task.
  If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns? 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 06, 2018, 11:39:27 AM
It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.

Wow.  So, you think that the entire legal branch of the US government has the tools to prevent gun violence right now, but they just choose not to?  Can you expound a bit on that and give some specific examples?




The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns?

It's easy to find guns on the used market.  It's even easier to tell your girlfriend to go buy a new one for you.  Especially when you know that if questioned by police she can say that she sold the gun privately to someone else and there is no real way to prosecute her in most states.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 06, 2018, 01:46:07 PM
It's not a problem with law enforcement (mostly).  It's a problem with prosecutors and politicians who don't really care about stopping gun violence.

Wow.  So, you think that the entire legal branch of the US government has the tools to prevent gun violence right now, but they just choose not to?  Can you expound a bit on that and give some specific examples?
  Look at every jurisdiction that makes straw purchasing a minor crime rather than a serious one (such as Maryland) and jurisdictions where prosecutors basically refuse to go after straw purchasers even though lawmakers have gone through the trouble of making it a serious felony (such as Illinois).   




The straw man purchases largely aren't commercial transactions.  It's cousins, girlfriends, little brothers, and even grandmothers who buy guns for their gang member relatives who can't get past a background check.  They're generally not just going and buying guns from random people off of craigslist. 

If it's so easy to find the guns they need on the used market, why do gang members get their relatives and/or girlfriends to buy them guns?

It's easy to find guns on the used market.  It's even easier to tell your girlfriend to go buy a new one for you.  Especially when you know that if questioned by police she can say that she sold the gun privately to someone else and there is no real way to prosecute her in most states.
[/quote]  I'm not sure it's a real great defense to claim that you bought a gun and sold it, and then it happened to be repurchased by your boyfriend.  That would just get you an obstruction charge on top of the firearm related charges, assuming lawmakers care enough about gun violence to make being a straw purchases a serious felony and assuming prosecutors care enough about gun violence that they are willing to put people with otherwise clean records away for serious time for providing a gun to a violent criminal. 

But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 06, 2018, 03:19:14 PM
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 06, 2018, 04:28:35 PM
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity

You can already run a gun trace to find out who purchased the gun from a licensed dealer.  That's my point.  There will be some guns that change hands on the secondary market in legitimate secondary sales, but many of them go directly from the straw purchaser to the person that can't pass a background check who then use them in a crime.  But those straw purchases are neither prosecuted consistently nor for the most part subject to stiff penalties when they are prosecuted.  If you're not willing to prosecute straw purchasers and impose heavy penalties (and the bluest areas that are nominally most in favor of gun control usually are not), then you don't really care enough about gun control to justify putting additional burdens on law abiding people. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on February 06, 2018, 05:53:34 PM
But even if it were a good defense, your argument basically boils down to it's hard to stop criminals from getting guns because they will lie if we ask where we got it, so we're going to focus on policing the law abiding.

Nope, not at all.  The current 'honor system' that the US is employing around gun purchases is ridiculous.  It assumes that everyone will tell the truth . . . and as you just mentioned, that's not always the case.

If you care at all about straw purchasers, you should want a nation wide gun registry searchable by law enforcement.  It would be trivial to write a computer program that cross-references guns used in crime with the person who purchased the gun.  This should check all of your boxes:
- Makes straw purchases incredibly easy to catch
- Doesn't make it any harder to get guns for law abiding people
- No longer relies on people to report their own criminal activity

Trivial?   I think Canada's experience with the long gun registry would argue otherwise.

Of course, these are the same bureaucrats that decided to roll their own payroll system instead of hiring ADP.   Maybe they aren't very good at IT projects.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on February 06, 2018, 06:29:40 PM
How about a gun bounty?   Turn in your guns and receive $$$.   The government destroys firearms as they are turned in.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on February 07, 2018, 03:35:09 PM
You've got me then.   I can't see what else you can do.   I wonder if gun crime is high because there are so many firearms in the United States?  Or are there just a higher proportion of violent people?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 07, 2018, 08:38:11 PM
ETA after binge reading this thread my understanding is that while Canada, Aus and several other countries allow long guns (non semi or full auto) they have banned handguns for most average citizens. Is that correct?
With respect to Aus - no, that is not correct.  Handguns are subject to slightly different rules to long arms though.

In Aus you need a "genuine reason" for owning the type of firearm you are applying for.  "Self defence" is not a genuine reason for owning any class of firearm.  So if your average citizen wants to own a handgun because against all evidence to the contrary they mistakenly believe they will be safer with a handgun nearby at all times, they are out of luck.

However, a perfectly legitimate genuine reason is "target shooting".  To prove you want a handgun for target shooting all you have to do is become a member of a handgun target shooting club and shoot there at least 4 times a year.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 07, 2018, 10:26:25 PM
If you carry that hand gun on your person in public in Australia you are looking at jail time.

Most of those rules in Cali are sensible. I'm all for mandatory training and certificatation/licensing. The problem with Cali is you can simply go to another state and bypass your restrictions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on February 07, 2018, 10:35:14 PM
^Thats pretty interesting. Do you get to take a gun home with you (properly secured and transported of course) or do you have to leave it at the range? If you can take it home I imagine some people would do target shooting but really wanted it for self protection.

As I understand it, you can take it home, but it must be stored in a gun safe.  Police will check initially for a gun safe to be installed correctly, and can and do make occasional checks thereafter for continuing compliance.  This is the same for all guns in Australia.

I would suggest that the question points to an idea of using a gun for self defence.  This is an idea that the vast majority of Australians would reject on the basis of the statistics that come out of the US regarding children killed by accident or killed by each other.  For the average Australian, you make your home safer by not owning a gun. 

At a fundamental level, this entire debate is problematic, as the US appears from the outside to have a different attitude towards guns from the rest of the western world.  Guns, and gun violence are somehow normalised.  The use of a gun to solve a problem other than the destruction of an animal would be abhorrent to most outside the US.  US TV and movies make it clear to us that guns solve problems in the US, either for self defence, or for aggressive reasons.

* Note - as a farm owner I own and use a rifle.  Currently a .22, but it may be upgraded later as I have goats, and the .22 is not very effective at humane destruction of a goat.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 07, 2018, 10:37:25 PM
I would definitely put a law on the books that prosecutes people who do not secure their weapons. That 12 year old did not buy that gun any more than a toddler who kills a playmate or himself is buying guns. Yet I can't think of one case I've read where a parent was jailed for allowing that situation to happen. I do recall a news story of a four year old who got a hold of a gun his grandfather left lying around the house and accidentally killed his older sister. No one was charged and the family seems to be ostracizing the poor kid because of it. I lost a whole lot of respect for gun owners reading that.

We aren't against guns, and have talked about buying one. My husband is military and weapons trained. However, we have three kids and are not willing to risk the consequences of what might happen if we aren't diligent enough. When they are older, maybe we will.

Also, could we not talk about "criminals" as if everyone who commits crimes are slotted into this "bad guy" mold? Everyone is a good person until they do something stupid. Think of any number of road rage cases where someone grabs a nearby gun and kills someone, then everyone wrings their hands and can't believe the shooter would ever do such a thing because he's never shown any signs of it. People make bad choices. I'd prefer we really stiffen consequences when guns are involved. Make people afraid to fuck up with them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 08, 2018, 12:23:37 AM
That's was kinda of my point. In Cali it's harder for a law abiding citizen to purchase a gun. But very easy for criminals who don't give a fuck about the laws.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 08, 2018, 03:23:47 AM
^Thats pretty interesting. Do you get to take a gun home with you (properly secured and transported of course) or do you have to leave it at the range? If you can take it home I imagine some people would do target shooting but really wanted it for self protection
As mentioned by others, yes you can store your firearms at home.  However, they must be properly stored in an approved and properly installed safe with the ammunition stored separately.  The police will check to see if the safe is installed prior to issuing a "permit to acquire" any firearm.  They can then do checks to ensure all firearms are stored correctly for however long you hold a firearms licence.  The checks can be unannounced however you have the right to refuse entry unless the Police prearrange a suitable time for the check.

As for the rest of it, I actually agree that it is not a gun law problem in the USA.  It is a cultural problem.  Unfortunately the beliefs that "guns are fun" and that a gun is a suitable instrument for solving problems seem to both be deeply held in the psyche of the USA.  It is highly unlikely that enacting more restrictive gun laws will change that or reduce gun fatalities whether by accident, a single loss of control when there is a fire arm within easy reach or dedicated criminal behaviour.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 08, 2018, 07:43:03 AM
ETA after binge reading this thread my understanding is that while Canada, Aus and several other countries allow long guns (non semi or full auto) they have banned handguns for most average citizens. Is that correct?

No, you can buy a handgun here (I had a friend in high school who was part of a shooting club who had a handgun) but the rules around it are more restrictive than for rifles/shotguns.  The gun needs to be registered.  You need to prove that you are a member of a gun club that uses handguns for target practice and you need to get authorization to transport the weapon.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 08, 2018, 10:41:27 AM
You've got me then.   I can't see what else you can do.   I wonder if gun crime is high because there are so many firearms in the United States?  Or are there just a higher proportion of violent people?
e

Gun crime and the number of guns are very weakly correlated.  Switzerland has tons of guns and low gun crime, the U.S. has tons of guns and high gun crime.  The U.S. is more violent in general than most developed countries.  A lot of the difference is driven by extremely high crime rates per capita in certain areas (e.g., the bad parts of Chicago, Baltimore, St. Louis, most of your small cities south of the mason dixon line, etc).  But I think even relatively rural areas also tend to be more violent than their counterparts in other developed countries. 

Don't know how to address it in the U.S.  Even if you could do a gun confiscation program, you'd still have problems stopping the flow of guns from Mexico.  And even if you could do that, you'd just be shifting violence from gun violence to other forms of violence.  Maybe there's some benefit to that because other forms are less deadly, but there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves. 

The problem comes back to having violente people.  Some of the mass shootings you could stop through mental health treatment, but that would probably require treating a lot of weird but otherwise harmless men pretty poorly.  Some of the mass shootings you could stop through targeting populations particularly likely to produce terrorists, but that would result in particularly terrible treatment of Muslim populations.  Have no clue how to even start addressing the everyday violence from the "underclass".  At one point, stopping the drug war would have probably reduced it a lot.  Not sure how much impact that would have now.  THe gangs are still there and will still be fighting over some revenue source, or maybe just fighting over territory. 

Just a tough nut to crack. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 08, 2018, 10:57:57 AM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 08, 2018, 01:33:03 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 08, 2018, 01:36:01 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.

Eventually everyone will die.  Therefore, there's no point in having laws.  Yeah, kinda a weird way of looking at it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on February 08, 2018, 01:46:23 PM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.

Eventually everyone will die.  Therefore, there's no point in having laws.  Yeah, kinda a weird way of looking at it.

This is the what it always seems to come back to... more people die other ways, so why try?

Cause people are shooting 100's at a time  or killing kids in the schools.  we can do better, we should do better. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 08, 2018, 02:58:10 PM
If left unaddressed the problem will solve itself. Gun deaths in the USA are increasing by 6% per year. If it continues at this rate, within 165 years 300,000,000 people will die annually from gun violence in America.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 09, 2018, 08:27:00 AM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.

Eventually everyone will die.  Therefore, there's no point in having laws.  Yeah, kinda a weird way of looking at it.

This is the what it always seems to come back to... more people die other ways, so why try?

Cause people are shooting 100's at a time  or killing kids in the schools.  we can do better, we should do better.

So because we are all going to die eventually, its okay to die violently? For children to die violently? To be denied a chance at a peaceful lifetime with our families and friends?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on February 09, 2018, 11:30:39 AM
Do we have to do this maths again?

15,586 gun deaths per year
x
85 years (your average age)
=
1,324,810 gun related deaths during your life time.

Yip you read that right, over a million fellow citizens will die due to gun related incidents, on US soil during your life time.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Yea, but, like 300-600 million will die because of other things?  This is a weird way to look at it?  But you go, get down with your bad self.

Eventually everyone will die.  Therefore, there's no point in having laws.  Yeah, kinda a weird way of looking at it.

This is the what it always seems to come back to... more people die other ways, so why try?

Cause people are shooting 100's at a time  or killing kids in the schools.  we can do better, we should do better.

So because we are all going to die eventually, its okay to die violently? For children to die violently? To be denied a chance at a peaceful lifetime with our families and friends?

I may not have been as clear as you, but this is exactly my point. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: palerider1858 on February 09, 2018, 12:00:09 PM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.
Your assumption is incorrect according to the Supreme Court.
 I have many friends in law enforcement. It's a very common and sometimes fatal misconception to assume law enforcement is there to protect you. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html (ftp://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 09, 2018, 12:20:06 PM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.
Your assumption is incorrect according to the Supreme Court.
 I have many friends in law enforcement. It's a very common and sometimes fatal misconception to assume law enforcement is there to protect you. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html (ftp://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)

The Supreme Court massively failed the American people when making that decision.  Protection of citizens should be the primary purpose of any police force in a country.  There is no better purpose that they can be put to.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 09, 2018, 01:17:36 PM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.

I'm guessing most victims of violent crime would prefer access to self defense rather than the platitude that they shouldn't have to defend themselves. I certainly don't think the fact that they shouldn't have to protect themselves makes it less immoral to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. If anything, it makes it worse.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 09, 2018, 01:39:51 PM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.

I'm guessing most victims of violent crime would prefer access to self defense rather than the platitude that they shouldn't have to defend themselves. I certainly don't think the fact that they shouldn't have to protect themselves makes it less immoral to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. If anything, it makes it worse.

I'm guessing that most victims of violent crimes would prefer not to be victims of violent crimes rather than to have to live the rest of their lives armed and terrified.  The best way to bring about that situation is not greater access to firearms for all, but for better policing and crime prevention strategies.

As was mentioned previously, there are a lot of people for whom guns cannot be used for self defense.  If you're relying on folks to arm themselves rather to correct the safety problem, what is your suggestion to these people?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 09, 2018, 02:32:27 PM
Sentry guns, personal drones with semi automatic firearms attached. Technology to the rescue again.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 14, 2018, 01:12:09 PM
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days!

Awesome!  ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING--This time at Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 14, 2018, 02:10:29 PM
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days!

Awesome!  ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING--This time at Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida!
    * Let's KEEP DOING NOTHING--It makes America GREAT
        * Let's endlessly debate the nuances of the 2nd Amendment--Keep protecting those gun rights
        * Let's keep electing pro-gun politicians--That way I can keep my guns!
        * Let's keep donating to the NRA--so they can buy off politicians!
        * Let's make more weapons available for more people

    Let's not get angry for god's sake--after all guns don't kill people....God bless America!

    EDITED TO ADD:  MAKE SURE WE SEND "THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS" (BUT DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE)

* Arm teachers and children so that they can protect themselves when a bad guy shows up. Self defense FTW!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2018, 02:52:46 PM
Tweeted two hours ago.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on February 14, 2018, 02:58:36 PM
I think the Title needs to be edited:  14 SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IN 32 DAYS

WHOOO HOOO!!! So much winning.  Let's keep doing nothing.  We are sooooo awesome at that.... Just think what we can achieve after 365 days!

Awesome!  ANOTHER SCHOOL SHOOTING--This time at Douglass High School in Parkland, Florida!
    * Let's KEEP DOING NOTHING--It makes America GREAT
        * Let's endlessly debate the nuances of the 2nd Amendment--Keep protecting those gun rights
        * Let's keep electing pro-gun politicians--That way I can keep my guns!
        * Let's keep donating to the NRA--so they can buy off politicians!
        * Let's make more weapons available for more people

    Let's not get angry for god's sake--after all guns don't kill people....God bless America!

    EDITED TO ADD:  MAKE SURE WE SEND "THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS" (BUT DON'T DO ANYTHING ELSE)

You forgot:

talk about addressing mental health concerns--simultaneously vote to cut healthcare


Do you think that gun storage laws would do any good?  The shooter is supposedly a student, so he likely got the gun from home.  If gun owners are responsible for the damage done by an unsecured gun, maybe they'd spend some resources locking them up and keeping them out of the hands of their kids.  I'm sure our resident 2nd amendment people have all kinds of reasons why storing their guns properly is a massive imposition on their freedom, and I can't wait to hear them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 14, 2018, 03:09:03 PM
Just another day in America sadly. In the meantime nothing will be done and we'll just wait for the next one. But hey at least we are banning Muslims!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 14, 2018, 06:08:00 PM
Do you think that gun storage laws would do any good?  The shooter is supposedly a student, so he likely got the gun from home.  If gun owners are responsible for the damage done by an unsecured gun, maybe they'd spend some resources locking them up and keeping them out of the hands of their kids.  I'm sure our resident 2nd amendment people have all kinds of reasons why storing their guns properly is a massive imposition on their freedom, and I can't wait to hear them.

The usual argument is that if a group of ninjas assaulted your home you might be caught without a gun while trying to open your safe up.  Ease of access for kids who want to shoot up their school is a small price to pay for defense from a coordinated assault on your home.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 14, 2018, 07:14:33 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 14, 2018, 08:29:40 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

Exactly. Only bad guys shoot people so we just need to arm the good guys and let them open carry.

Problem solved!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on February 14, 2018, 08:33:17 PM
Ho-hum, just another day. Thoughts and prayers and yadda yadda yadda. Nothing is ever going to change about mass shootings in the USA, so there's no point even discussing it anymore. America LIKES mass shootings. That's why we refuse to prevent them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 14, 2018, 08:35:06 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.

Looks like he was high on guns and MAGA.

https://www.truthexam.com/2018/02/breaking-the-shooter-in-the-florida-shooting-has-been-identified-and-its-not-good/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on February 14, 2018, 08:35:20 PM
Ho-hum, just another day. Thoughts and prayers and yadda yadda yadda. Nothing is ever going to change about mass shootings in the USA, so there's no point even discussing it anymore. America LIKES mass shootings. That's why we refuse to prevent them.

Agreed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 14, 2018, 08:59:04 PM
its actually not a mental health problem. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violence. Other western countries have similar rates of mental health disorders and do not have the same level of gun violence. Its a matter of access to lethal means to commit violence on a large scale.  lets not start stigmatising people with mental health problems.
I don't think that access to means is the whole story. Basically the US has 4 homicides per 100,000 people annually, and most of the Western world has under 1 per 100,000. But if you take all the firearms homicides out, it's still 1.5 or so - which is to say, even without firearms (let's assume 0 of the firearms homicides would become homicides by other means), the US has about 50% more homicides than other Western countries.

The US also has twice as many lethal car accidents as the rest of the Western world.

Quite simply, the US is the most violent and aggressive culture in the Western world. Yes, access to firearms matters, and yes, mental healthcare matters. But culture matters, too.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jrhampt on February 15, 2018, 05:47:46 AM
its actually not a mental health problem. People suffering mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than to commit violence. Other western countries have similar rates of mental health disorders and do not have the same level of gun violence. Its a matter of access to lethal means to commit violence on a large scale.  lets not start stigmatising people with mental health problems.
I don't think that access to means is the whole story. Basically the US has 4 homicides per 100,000 people annually, and most of the Western world has under 1 per 100,000. But if you take all the firearms homicides out, it's still 1.5 or so - which is to say, even without firearms (let's assume 0 of the firearms homicides would become homicides by other means), the US has about 50% more homicides than other Western countries.

The US also has twice as many lethal car accidents as the rest of the Western world.

Quite simply, the US is the most violent and aggressive culture in the Western world. Yes, access to firearms matters, and yes, mental healthcare matters. But culture matters, too.

To paraphrase a verse in the NT: Where your treasure is, there will your heart be, also.  We as a society value violence.  We spend a lot of money on guns and on our military. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on February 15, 2018, 07:02:08 AM
To paraphrase a verse in the NT: Where your treasure is, there will your heart be, also.  We as a society value violence.  We spend a lot of money on guns and on our military.

We also have drastic income inequality, a horrible healthcare system, for profit prisons, a war on drugs that essentially funnels money to criminals (and the prisons mentioned above), a reality-show caliber media, and a giant population with virtually unlimited demographics. Let's not pretend guns are the only difference between the US and other countries.

We have cities bigger than some of the European countries we're so often compared to, and have roughly 10x the population of Canada, the UK, or Australia.  We're also nextdoor neighbors to a country with a 17/100k homicide rate, roughly 4x our own.

Last year the UK had a bombing which killed 23 people and injured 400. If you scale that up by population that is the equivalent to roughly 200 people in the US being killed with over 3000 injured. You could have a bombing/vehicle terrorist attack that kills nearly 20 people and injures 350 once a month in the US, and it would be the equivalent to the one event in Britain as far as population goes, but would make the US feel much more dangerous just because of our enormous sample size. That is the kind of misleading that I'm talking about when we use absolute numbers instead of rates or proportions. While the US is roughly 5x more violent than Australia or a similar country, you can expect to see 50x as many news stories and grandiose events due to our population difference, exaggerating the problem by a factor of 10. Even if the US were exactly as peaceful as Australia, you would still expect to see roughly 10x as many reports of crime and murder occurring in the US as you did in Australia, which would make the US feel much more dangerous.

Additionally, as I've pointed out numerous times before, the ratio between Australia and the US's murder rate has remained roughly consistent since the 90's, when Australia's harsher gun laws were enacted. Yes, Australia's rate decreased, but so did the US at roughly the same rate. There's something other than gun laws that accounts for the difference between us, otherwise you would've expected Australia to drastically widen the gap in that time.

As for the "well police should be doing their job better," no shit. That doesn't really make me feel any safer though. It's like telling a girl after she's been raped she shouldn't carry anything for defense because men shouldn't do that and police should help her. Yeah that's true, but we live in the real world, and what "should" happen doesn't mean a whole lot when shit goes down. Nobody cares more about your safety than you, similar to your money or your happiness.

edit: And I'm not saying the US doesn't have a problem with violence, I'm trying to put into perspective the constant media bombardment that uses absolute numbers and exaggerates the issues.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 15, 2018, 07:44:15 AM
Last year the UK had a bombing which killed 23 people and injured 400. If you scale that up by population that is the equivalent to roughly 200 people in the US being killed with over 3000 injured. You could have a bombing/vehicle terrorist attack that kills nearly 20 people and injures 350 once a month in the US, and it would be the equivalent to the one event in Britain as far as population goes, but would make the US feel much more dangerous just because of our enormous sample size. That is the kind of misleading that I'm talking about when we use absolute numbers instead of rates or proportions. While the US is roughly 5x more violent than Australia or a similar country, you can expect to see 50x as many news stories and grandiose events due to our population difference, exaggerating the problem by a factor of 10. Even if the US were exactly as peaceful as Australia, you would still expect to see roughly 10x as many reports of crime and murder occurring in the US as you did in Australia, which would make the US feel much more dangerous.

Firstly, I want to be very clear that I don't disagree with what you're saying. We have a violence problem. We have a media problem. (Problems?)

I do, however, have a slight qualm with your UK bombing example. Bombs don't scale the way population does. You can only fit so many bodies into the effective radius of a given device, the size of the country doesn't matter much, only local density. Short of attacking a stadium or large urban building--which are substantially similar in most developed nations regardless of geography or population--you just aren't going to see 200/3000 range numbers in a bomb attack.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2018, 08:11:50 AM
As for the "well police should be doing their job better," no shit. That doesn't really make me feel any safer though.

Given that the supreme court has rules that police officers that don't need to protect anyone as part of their job, it shouldn't make you feel any better.  That decision is a giant roadblock for anyone who wants to live in a safer country.  You can thank the appointment of conservative judges for it.


It's like telling a girl after she's been raped she shouldn't carry anything for defense because men shouldn't do that and police should help her. Yeah that's true, but we live in the real world, and what "should" happen doesn't mean a whole lot when shit goes down. Nobody cares more about your safety than you, similar to your money or your happiness.

This is not an argument (or even like an argument) put forth in this thread, but keep raging against that straw man.  He won't hit back.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 15, 2018, 08:31:42 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWCI9PwVAAUUHNN.jpg)

Congress won't enact a single one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2018, 09:43:32 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWCI9PwVAAUUHNN.jpg)

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 15, 2018, 10:50:47 AM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.

I'm guessing most victims of violent crime would prefer access to self defense rather than the platitude that they shouldn't have to defend themselves. I certainly don't think the fact that they shouldn't have to protect themselves makes it less immoral to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. If anything, it makes it worse.

I'm guessing that most victims of violent crimes would prefer not to be victims of violent crimes rather than to have to live the rest of their lives armed and terrified.  The best way to bring about that situation is not greater access to firearms for all, but for better policing and crime prevention strategies.
  And you won't them defenseless while we also don't do anything particularly different?  That's pretty callous. 

As was mentioned previously, there are a lot of people for whom guns cannot be used for self defense.  If you're relying on folks to arm themselves rather to correct the safety problem, what is your suggestion to these people?

I think you are projecting your callousness on them.  You think those vulnerable people would really feel better if they made other people more vulnerable?  I mean I guess that would make them stick out as potential victims a little less, but I doubt that's really what they're looking for. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2018, 10:58:55 AM
there's also a huge negative because those who are less strong and physical no longer have a way to defend themselves.

This isn't really an individual's responsibility though.  It's the job of the police, public planners, and government in a country to provide a safe place for it's people to live.  Relying on guns as some kind of universal protection is silly in a lot of cases.  Guns are not too useful for a lot of vulnerable people  . . those with certain physical disabilities and diseases (Parkinson's, MS, GB syndrome, etc.), the elderly who have trouble with their joints/shaky hands/any form of dementia/Alzheimer's, anyone with mental problems, people with a previous criminal record, etc.  Nobody in a society should tolerate such a poorly run a state of affairs that it is necessary to arm yourself to be safe.

I'm guessing most victims of violent crime would prefer access to self defense rather than the platitude that they shouldn't have to defend themselves. I certainly don't think the fact that they shouldn't have to protect themselves makes it less immoral to deprive them of the ability to defend themselves. If anything, it makes it worse.

I'm guessing that most victims of violent crimes would prefer not to be victims of violent crimes rather than to have to live the rest of their lives armed and terrified.  The best way to bring about that situation is not greater access to firearms for all, but for better policing and crime prevention strategies.
  And you won't them defenseless while we also don't do anything particularly different?  That's pretty callous. 

As was mentioned previously, there are a lot of people for whom guns cannot be used for self defense.  If you're relying on folks to arm themselves rather to correct the safety problem, what is your suggestion to these people?

I think you are projecting your callousness on them.  You think those vulnerable people would really feel better if they made other people more vulnerable?  I mean I guess that would make them stick out as potential victims a little less, but I doubt that's really what they're looking for.

I think you have misread my posts.  I don't advocate making anyone more vulnerable.  Quite the opposite.

Rather than 'The police suck, we should all arm ourselves to the teeth to go get some milk' it's 'The police suck, we should change things for the better.'  In the former (assuming you believe that a more heavily armed society is going to be safer - which is dubious to begin with) you're admitting failure for a whole class of people (the ones who can't, won't, or are unable to own firearms).  In the latter you're working on a nation wide problem - an environment where the need to own a gun out of fear is radically reduced is better for everyone.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 15, 2018, 11:11:48 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2018, 11:23:03 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.

Thank you!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 15, 2018, 11:36:58 AM
This article also had some good charts/data: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/15/17016396/trump-parkland-florida-school-shooting
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 11:52:59 AM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.

Looks like he was high on guns and MAGA.

https://www.truthexam.com/2018/02/breaking-the-shooter-in-the-florida-shooting-has-been-identified-and-its-not-good/

What a sensational echo chamber that site is, Jesus. They even quote fucking 4chan in another article, the height of journalistic integrity!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 15, 2018, 01:31:47 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.

Looks like he was high on guns and MAGA.

https://www.truthexam.com/2018/02/breaking-the-shooter-in-the-florida-shooting-has-been-identified-and-its-not-good/

What a sensational echo chamber that site is, Jesus. They even quote fucking 4chan in another article, the height of journalistic integrity!

Vox for FiveThirtyEight (can't remember which) did cite the leader of a white supremacist group ("Republic of Florida" IIRC?) as saying he was a member.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 01:54:28 PM
If only it was illegal to bring a gun on school property, this wouldn't happen.

I wonder what mentally ill meds this murderer was on.

Looks like he was high on guns and MAGA.

https://www.truthexam.com/2018/02/breaking-the-shooter-in-the-florida-shooting-has-been-identified-and-its-not-good/

What a sensational echo chamber that site is, Jesus. They even quote fucking 4chan in another article, the height of journalistic integrity!

Vox for FiveThirtyEight (can't remember which) did cite the leader of a white supremacist group ("Republic of Florida" IIRC?) as saying he was a member.

He also said he had "trouble with a girl" and he believed the timing of the attack, carried out on Valentine's Day, wasn't a coincidence.

For a white supremacist he sure did shoot a lot of white people.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2018, 02:00:44 PM
Nice 'no true scotsman' fallacy there.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 02:04:28 PM
Nice 'no true scotsman' fallacy there.

Thanks buddy!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2018, 02:22:46 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on February 15, 2018, 04:16:54 PM
After reading more about this shooting and the shooter in particular, I'm taking the position that guns / gun laws / access to guns did not cause this tragedy.

This person was mentally unstable and not capable of fitting into our society.  This person was determined to cause great harm to a lot of people.  If he didn't have access to guns I expect he would have used another means.  We would be reading about a bombing or a case of mass vehicular homicide like we have seen in places where guns are harder to get. 

This person was already identified as a threat, investigated by the FBI, and treated for mental health issues.  Then he 'slipped through the cracks' and ended up doing just what everyone feared he would do. 

So what does this have to do with the instrument he used to kill?  Not much I think.  We can debate if the numbers would be different if he used a bomb, car or samurai sword, but it's hard to tell.  What we may agree on is this person wanted to kill people, and he would have done it regardless of laws or access to a particular weapon.

I don't know all the details, this is only my opinion.  I'm wondering what could have been done?  People have freedoms in this country and it's hard to get help for someone that refuses it.  There are many others like him that we have identified as potential threats.  Do we take away certain rights from these people, and would it matter if they are determined?  Do we take away the persons freedom altogether? 

There is no easy solution.

Samurai sword?  Are you kidding me?

There are solutions.  It's just that a vocal minority of people who like guns as a hobby because it makes them feel powerful in a changing world are standing in the way of implementing them.  We could start with insurance liability.  Do you think the family that took this kid in would have been like "oh-it's fine-have an arsenal" if their homeowner's insurance were priced to account for the risk of a 19 year old with mental health problems and his guns?  Hell no. What if any of the white supremacists who likely straw sold him some of those guns were hauled into jail?  I think that people would be a lot less likely to sell guns to their Nazi-curious friends if they suddenly had liability on the table.

And those are just a couple of solutions.  None of the mainstream proposal on the table involve grabbing all guns.  Universal background checks, liability, storage and registration requirements, stricter monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators, etc.  We are awash in solutions.  What we lack is political will.

If you want to change political will, start voting for democrats. Up and down the ballot.  Grab a nonvoting friend and get them to vote for democrats.  When politicians fear the political will of engaged democrats as much as they fear pissing off racist old people, then we'll see change.



Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 05:19:19 PM
Nice 'no true scotsman' fallacy there.

Oops!

“We are still doing some work, but we have no known ties between the ROF, Jordan Jereb or the Broward shooter,” a Leon County Sheriff’s Office spokesman told the Tallahassee Democrat. The sheriff’s office has arrested Jereb at least four times since January 2014 and has been monitoring ROF’s membership, The Associated Press reported."

"On Thursday afternoon, members of The Right Stuff, a white supremacist forum, claimed that the story of Cruz being tied to ROF was false. “Started out as an inside joke until Jordan Jereb literally told the media that it was true and that he was affiliated with a school shooter,” a TRS user posting under the name “Jordan Fash” wrote. 

Fash posted screenshots of an ABC reporter messaging a user named “Ethan” on Instagram asking for information about Cruz. Ethan told the reporter that Cruz was an ROF member. “It was common knowledge he did rallies with ROF, I frequently saw him conversing with Jordan Jereb in person,” the user said.

The ABC reporter declined to comment. ABC didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on how it reported its story."

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 15, 2018, 05:50:21 PM
I didn't suggest that he was or wasn't a white supremacist.  You were saying that he couldn't be a white supremacist from what appeared to be the argument that no true white supremacists would kill a white person . . . which is the fallacy that I was pointing out.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on February 15, 2018, 06:16:05 PM
I didn't suggest that he was or wasn't a white supremacist.  You were saying that he couldn't be a white supremacist from what appeared to be the argument that no true white supremacists would kill a white person . . . which is the fallacy that I was pointing out.

I did not say he couldn't be. I was pointing out that the story is fishy because there is no evidence that the attack was racially motivated at all, especially when you consider most victims were white. I'm looking at the facts and making my own conclusions. You're welcome to buy whatever narrative is pushed without thought though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 15, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
This is something the US will never address, because the questions it must ask of itself are like the questions Japan would have if it talked about Unit 731, or Turkey about the Armenian genocide. There are systemic cultural issues here, which nobody will address.


Instead, firearms in the US are like the Maltese Falcon: not really the story, just something to move other stories forward, like Rep vs Dem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 15, 2018, 10:05:03 PM
There are systemic cultural issues here, which nobody will address.



Just look at violent crime rate and murder rate among certain subcultures. Add that these same acts often occur in the most regulated areas for firearms. And then there is the political side of these areas too, which is mainly liberal.

On the other side, there is the mental illness. In the 80's, the funding for mental illness treatment was severely cut. Mentally ill were gradually left out of treatment and you now see the results of decades of mental illness neglect. Couple that with certain prescriptions being frequently involved in these types of events, and you have a pretty good road map of issues.

Just like this recent Florida case. Mental illness. FBI was told about his issues and threats. Still nothing was done. Recent posts about prepping for the act went unnoticed too.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 16, 2018, 06:18:02 AM
For a white supremacist he sure did shoot a lot of white people.

I don't think it's so much about the victims' ethnic backgrounds as it is the general propensity for violence among extreme ideologues. Whether or not he actually had ties to Republic of Florida remains an open question, but there were also other accounts of him saying things that align with the far right. It's still early in the investigation, and it sounds like there will be a fair amount of social media and photo evidence to go on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on February 16, 2018, 07:20:26 AM
Firstly, I want to be very clear that I don't disagree with what you're saying. We have a violence problem. We have a media problem. (Problems?)

I do, however, have a slight qualm with your UK bombing example. Bombs don't scale the way population does. You can only fit so many bodies into the effective radius of a given device, the size of the country doesn't matter much, only local density. Short of attacking a stadium or large urban building--which are substantially similar in most developed nations regardless of geography or population--you just aren't going to see 200/3000 range numbers in a bomb attack.

My example wasn't meant to say it's the equivalent of a giant bomb. I'm saying it's the equivalent of seeing the exact same event happen every 5 weeks for the entire year in the US. It could happen 10x as many times in a given time frame, and still be equal at a per capita level. If the US saw 9 of those bombings in a year, it would actually be SAFER in the US, despite having 9x as many bombings plastered on the media nearly monthly.

Which country seems more dangerous, one that has 1 bombing killing 20 people in a year, or one that has 9 bombings killing 20 people in a year? In the UK it would be considered a tragedy, in the US it would be considered an epidemic (despite it actually being safer in the US in this example) because people think about these things in absolute numbers and how often it's on the news rather than based on the size of the country.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 16, 2018, 07:28:52 AM
Firstly, I want to be very clear that I don't disagree with what you're saying. We have a violence problem. We have a media problem. (Problems?)

I do, however, have a slight qualm with your UK bombing example. Bombs don't scale the way population does. You can only fit so many bodies into the effective radius of a given device, the size of the country doesn't matter much, only local density. Short of attacking a stadium or large urban building--which are substantially similar in most developed nations regardless of geography or population--you just aren't going to see 200/3000 range numbers in a bomb attack.

My example wasn't meant to say it's the equivalent of a giant bomb. I'm saying it's the equivalent of seeing the exact same event happen every 5 weeks for the entire year in the US. It could happen 10x as many times in a given time frame, and still be equal at a per capita level. If the US saw 9 of those bombings in a year, it would actually be SAFER in the US, despite having 9x as many bombings plastered on the media nearly monthly.

Which country seems more dangerous, one that has 1 bombing killing 20 people in a year, or one that has 9 bombings killing 20 people in a year? In the UK it would be considered a tragedy, in the US it would be considered an epidemic because people think about these things in absolute numbers and how often it's on the news rather than based on the size of the country.

I guess I just disagree that you can judge it on a per capita basis. Part of it is if individuals or groups (whether coordinated or not) were able to plan and carry out that many attacks, it would be a huge policing failure. I just don't think it scales with population in a linear fashion, if that makes sense?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on February 16, 2018, 07:45:59 AM
I guess I just disagree that you can judge it on a per capita basis. Part of it is if individuals or groups (whether coordinated or not) were able to plan and carry out that many attacks, it would be a huge policing failure. I just don't think it scales with population in a linear fashion, if that makes sense?

How can you not judge it on a per capita basis? There are 10x as many people, so 10x as many crazy people who want to kill a bunch of people (assuming similar populations).

To take it to an extreme, are you saying we should expect a country with 1,000,000,000 people to experience the same quantity of mass violence incidents as a country of 10,000? If the country of 1 billion has 200 incidents and the country with 10,000 has 100 incidents, which do you think is safer to live in?

edit: If you just looked at news headlines for the two countries, the 10k population one would certainly seem safer due to the lower number of incidents, assuming all of them made national news both places.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 16, 2018, 08:08:18 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

Shoot! I mean go for it! It can be a problem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ooeei on February 16, 2018, 08:49:22 AM
I keep coming back to the individual.  0.0001% of our population has the mental state and capability to plan and execute these terrible attacks.  How can we better identify, monitor and prevent them from following through with their plans?  This particular person raised every red flag in the book and we were unwilling/unable to stop him.

The problem is any demographic he belonged to most likely has 1000's of similar people who never do anything wrong. Innocent until proven guilty is a pretty big deal in the US, I think for good reason, but the weakness it does have is sometimes it lets guilty/dangerous people roam free.

If we want total safety, we need total security and total control, and to be okay with locking up shitloads of people who never would've done anything wrong in order to catch the few who would. We already imprison the most people per capita of anywhere in the world by a hefty portion, so I'm not sure more liberal imprisonment requirements are really the way to go.

The TSA was our last attempt at a similar problem, and currently costs $7 billion a year not including the time wasted by millions of people every year at it, not to mention the breaching of privacy we're becoming scarily accustomed to.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on February 16, 2018, 10:28:45 AM
After reading more about this shooting and the shooter in particular, I'm taking the position that guns / gun laws / access to guns did not cause this tragedy.

This person was mentally unstable and not capable of fitting into our society.  This person was determined to cause great harm to a lot of people.  If he didn't have access to guns I expect he would have used another means.  We would be reading about a bombing or a case of mass vehicular homicide like we have seen in places where guns are harder to get. 

This person was already identified as a threat, investigated by the FBI, and treated for mental health issues.  Then he 'slipped through the cracks' and ended up doing just what everyone feared he would do. 

So what does this have to do with the instrument he used to kill?  Not much I think.  We can debate if the numbers would be different if he used a bomb, car or samurai sword, but it's hard to tell.  What we may agree on is this person wanted to kill people, and he would have done it regardless of laws or access to a particular weapon.

I don't know all the details, this is only my opinion.  I'm wondering what could have been done?  People have freedoms in this country and it's hard to get help for someone that refuses it.  There are many others like him that we have identified as potential threats.  Do we take away certain rights from these people, and would it matter if they are determined?  Do we take away the persons freedom altogether? 

There is no easy solution.

Samurai sword?  Are you kidding me?

There are solutions.  It's just that a vocal minority of people who like guns as a hobby because it makes them feel powerful in a changing world are standing in the way of implementing them.  We could start with insurance liability.  Do you think the family that took this kid in would have been like "oh-it's fine-have an arsenal" if their homeowner's insurance were priced to account for the risk of a 19 year old with mental health problems and his guns?  Hell no. What if any of the white supremacists who likely straw sold him some of those guns were hauled into jail?  I think that people would be a lot less likely to sell guns to their Nazi-curious friends if they suddenly had liability on the table.

And those are just a couple of solutions.  None of the mainstream proposal on the table involve grabbing all guns.  Universal background checks, liability, storage and registration requirements, stricter monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators, etc.  We are awash in solutions.  What we lack is political will.

If you want to change political will, start voting for democrats. Up and down the ballot.  Grab a nonvoting friend and get them to vote for democrats.  When politicians fear the political will of engaged democrats as much as they fear pissing off racist old people, then we'll see change.

Many of the laws you're proposing make sense, though some like liability/storage may be difficult to enforce in all but extremely negligent cases.  The insurance aspect would probably not work as I'm not sure insurers would want to take this risk and it's unlikely people would pay for the insurance.  Remember that most people don't have much to lose in the first place.

Let's say we implement all of them anyways, will it really help stop nutcases from getting their hands on weapons and following through with their plans?  I don't think these measures are strong enough to be effective.

I think reduced magazine capacities could help, provided there are brave individuals ready to take action during reloads.  Beyond that, we would need significant, second amendment defying restrictions on ownership.  This country isn't ready for that yet.

I keep coming back to the individual.  0.0001% of our population has the mental state and capability to plan and execute these terrible attacks.  How can we better identify, monitor and prevent them from following through with their plans?  This particular person raised every red flag in the book and we were unwilling/unable to stop him.

Actually, many mass shooters come from upper middle class backgrounds.  Their families would have a great deal to lose under liability laws.  Just having to pay an extra $1000/year in insurance would probably be enough financial incentive for regional manager Steve to rethink having a gun safe.  And if a registration to his 18 year old unemployed son tied to his address comes through, then the insurance company can adjust his rates to compensate.

In Florida, the governor signed a law barring physicians from asking about guns in the home.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/17/515764335/court-strikes-down-florida-law-barring-doctors-from-discussing-guns-with-patient
That law was just struck down in 2017, and went into effect in 2014.  So, during many of the years that the Florida shooter was being treated for mental health issues, his providers were barred from asking his family about guns and educating them about potential risks.  One solution is to stop fucking voting for Republicans who sign legislation like this and who let it fester before the court has to step in.  What if Adam Lanza's doctors, as part of their mental health assessment for him prior to him being committed (a possible trigger for the Sandy Hook shooting), required his mother to take immediate action with regard to the arsenal of firearms in the home?  What if there were a law that stated that involuntary commission required doctors to ask about guns in the home?  Conservatives are stoked to require doctors to provide factually incorrect information about links between breast cancer and abortion, so they can't possibly object to laws that require doctors to provide education as a matter of principle.

The Florida shooter raised flags, those flags WERE REPORTED (take note, Trump), but because of the laxity of our gun laws, those reports withered and died.  For a report to have teeth, there has to be a law that can be applied.  Our current laws are "meh."  The gag law signed by Rick Scott should be an affront to reasonable gun owners.  However, because Republicans are NEVER punished for their actions by their voters,politicians continue to kiss NRA ass, and the NRA keeps one-clicking to buy their legislative wish lists.  Start punishing politicians at the polls.  Vote. Don't let your friends get away with not voting.  Bug your family.  Shame the nonvoters around you.  Get people registered.



 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 16, 2018, 11:16:49 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2018, 11:20:05 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

straw man
ˌstrτ ˈman/
noun
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 16, 2018, 11:31:56 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 16, 2018, 11:34:34 AM
After reading more about this shooting and the shooter in particular, I'm taking the position that guns / gun laws / access to guns did not cause this tragedy.

This person was mentally unstable and not capable of fitting into our society. ...

There is no easy solution.


 We could start with insurance liability. ....

And those are just a couple of solutions.  None of the mainstream proposal on the table involve grabbing all guns.  Universal background checks, liability, storage and registration requirements, stricter monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators, etc.  We are awash in solutions.  What we lack is political will.



I excised some of your post to get to the relevant part for me, and many pro2nd Amendment types.

You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 16, 2018, 11:39:30 AM
You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

We can keep the 2nd Amendment.  You're welcome to join a "well regulated militia" as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 16, 2018, 11:45:42 AM
You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

We can keep the 2nd Amendment.  You're welcome to join a "well regulated militia" as well.

Are you familiar with how courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 16, 2018, 12:12:20 PM
You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

We can keep the 2nd Amendment.  You're welcome to join a "well regulated militia" as well.

Are you familiar with how courts have interpreted the 2nd Amendment?
Or more importantly, what Militia actually means? (the collective group of all fighting aged individuals)   The second amend's protection of a individuals right to bear arms is more solid than a court interpration... even if it was the right one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2018, 12:16:35 PM
Quote
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller)



Modern court interpretations have been quite different, but there was a time when the supreme court figured that a well regulated militia actually meant what it said.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on February 16, 2018, 01:01:15 PM
After reading more about this shooting and the shooter in particular, I'm taking the position that guns / gun laws / access to guns did not cause this tragedy.

This person was mentally unstable and not capable of fitting into our society. ...

There is no easy solution.



 We could start with insurance liability. ....

And those are just a couple of solutions.  None of the mainstream proposal on the table involve grabbing all guns.  Universal background checks, liability, storage and registration requirements, stricter monitoring of domestic violence perpetrators, etc.  We are awash in solutions.  What we lack is political will.



I excised some of your post to get to the relevant part for me, and many pro2nd Amendment types.

You'll "start" there? Where will you finish? Once the 2nd Amendment is abolished?

I never said that.  Do pro 2nd amendment types see invisible words?  I offered concrete examples, one of which was insurance liability.  Let's start taking action there.  There is no invisible "and stop when we overturn the 2nd"  Put your gun down-I'm not grabbing it.

If you can't discuss specific examples and get on board with specific legislation, there's no hope.  I mean, legislation according to any of these ideas will have words that bind and limit it.  That's how laws work. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 16, 2018, 01:25:49 PM

I never said that.  Do pro 2nd amendment types see invisible words?  I offered concrete examples, one of which was insurance liability.  Let's start taking action there.  There is no invisible "and stop when we overturn the 2nd"  Put your gun down-I'm not grabbing it.

If you can't discuss specific examples and get on board with specific legislation, there's no hope.  I mean, legislation according to any of these ideas will have words that bind and limit it.  That's how laws work.

The insurance thing is interesting.  Most insurance the actual rate isn't set, the requirement to have it is, and then the liability is determined by the carriers.  In some specific instances the government steps in to essentially subsidize the rate, or maybe be the issuer (like flood insurance), but I'm curious what you think would be a sufficient number to achieve your outcome.

For instance, in this recent Florida shooting, the $1000 number you cited, I see two problems with that.  The first is that for a 19 year old, $1,000 isn't an insurmountable amount of cash, it's less than the total all-in cost of a vehicle at this point, which would still make the gun preferable to the van as an instrument of mass destruction.  Likewise, based on a rough calculation, I don't think the liability for gun violence would end up causing the premium for gun insurance to be $1,000/yr.  It's going to be closer to $50.00.

You could set the insured amount higher, require 1mil in insurance per round capacity, but that's really easy to get around and would only boost sales of one round clips and kill sales of revolvers.

There's also the problem of when it gets paid.  There's a ton of things that require insurance now where you essentially get billed for it, so the problem of someone going to the store, signing up for the insurance, walking out with the guns and ammo, committing the crime, and suicide before paying the insurance bill, that's still there.

If you mean more like a bonding type thing, where you have to be bonded to own a gun, and it's a very expensive bond, on the order of fifty thousand or so, that would probably work.  You'd certainly stop most kids from being able to pull it off, and most adults too would end up trading the gun in for the return of the bond, using the cash to get their life back in order before they needed to go postal.  I like the bond idea, maybe grandfather it so we deal with this for another couple decades before the problem goes away.

But that's what he meant Wexler.  He meant that your solutions have problems that won't prevent alot of this in the near term, and so he doesn't believe you when you say you won't come take his guns.  Because while I'm on board with trying something, this isn't an irrational fear:

Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!

This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S.  It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop.  So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this.  You can point out, and it is totally fair to do it:

To the second amendment advocates:  Get your shit together, work this out, keep this stuff from happening, or we will call a constitutional convention and you will lose this right.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2018, 01:42:56 PM
Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!

This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S.  It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop.  So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this.

This must be why gun ownership in the US is so difficult.  An endless cycle of gun restriction.  Like . . . uh . . . fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns!  And . . . pretty much nothing else.  And you can still own fully automatic weapons . . . it's just more difficult.

So damned restrictive.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dycker1978 on February 16, 2018, 01:48:22 PM
Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!

This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S.  It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop.  So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this.

This must be why gun ownership in the US is so difficult.  An endless cycle of gun restriction.  Like . . . uh . . . fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns!  And . . . pretty much nothing else.  And you can still own fully automatic weapons . . . it's just more difficult.

So damned restrictive.

Not to mention bump stocks, those basically make a full auto weapon out of a semi auto.  From everything I have found on google they are still legal, no changes since Vegas
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 16, 2018, 02:09:20 PM
Shooting happens > We have to do something! > New legislation > Shooting happens > We have to do something!

This is the history of gun restrictions in the U.S.  It rarely ever goes the other way, that a piece of gun ownership restricting legislation is repealed once it's found not to stop the thing we wanted to stop.  So if you did intend to have the conversation, you can't be dismissive of this.

This must be why gun ownership in the US is so difficult.  An endless cycle of gun restriction.  Like . . . uh . . . fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns!  And . . . pretty much nothing else.  And you can still own fully automatic weapons . . . it's just more difficult.

So damned restrictive.

*rubs temple*  It's how progressivism works.  Literally the blueprint.  Once again I'm on your side pleading with you to stop trolling.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 16, 2018, 03:13:07 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 16, 2018, 03:16:37 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

Here, Jrr85, I think you might need some help with this.

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

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: blackknight89 on February 16, 2018, 07:00:27 PM
How is it that we expect a "gun-free zone" sign to protect our schools? The shooter yesterday killed 17 people in 3 minutes. https://www.apnews.com/a6fd450470d4464ab423b8b3a911b42d . I don't know what the police response time is to the schools in your area, but given the size of the high school where the shooting happened yesterday they could have been down the street and still be unable to respond in time.

So if the police won't be there in time, how can you stop someone who goes to a school with a gun and the intent to kill? The only way to stop a psychopath with a gun is with another gun. If people are serious about stopping tragedies like this from happen, then harden the target. Our society has no problem with firearms protecting our government, our banks, our corporations, and many other places. Why are we so against such protections at our schools. Nearly every mass shooting occurs in a "gun-free" zone, where signs advertise the absence of resistance. Many of these killers commit suicide when confronted by law enforcement or someone with a gun.

The most effective deterrent to someone who obtains a gun and wants to kill innocent people is the threat of being confronted by someone with a firearm and the training to use it. If some teachers don't want to have to carry a gun at school, that's fine. Armed security and controlling access to schools needs money and time to implement. But those "gun-free" signs could be gone tomorrow. Over 15 million Americans have concealed carry permits.

If you believe that it is possible to keep people with murderous intentions from obtaining firearms, you need a lesson in math. I live in a state where nearly every regulation that I have seen proposed as a way of stopping mass shootings has been passed into law over the past 30 years or so. "Assault weapon" bans, magazine limits, universal background checks, etc. Yet in the past 5 years I found over a half dozen instances where unarmed people were shot and killed in a "gun-free" zone.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 17, 2018, 02:43:27 AM
The most effective deterrent to someone who obtains a gun and wants to kill innocent people is the threat of being confronted by someone with a firearm and the training to use it. If some teachers don't want to have to carry a gun at school, that's fine. Armed security and controlling access to schools needs money and time to implement. But those "gun-free" signs could be gone tomorrow. Over 15 million Americans have concealed carry permits.

I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?

Turning schools into prisons isn't a solution I'd want for my children. Sounds like a fucking horrible place to go to learn and spend the majority of ones youth.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 17, 2018, 02:55:51 AM
When everyone is armed, there is no violence.

Like in Afghanistan!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 17, 2018, 11:39:32 AM
When everyone is armed, there is no violence.

Like in Afghanistan!

So, they arm themselves to protect from the violence. Or is the Taliban Utopia the ideal living environment?

Tell us why security in the school should not be armed? Or are firearms the only weapon you can think of? Let's go the UK way and start banning steak knives :)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 17, 2018, 12:05:26 PM
Worth noting that the armed police officer at the school wasn't able to stop the shooting. He never encountered the gunman.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 17, 2018, 12:29:48 PM
The most effective deterrent to someone who obtains a gun and wants to kill innocent people is the threat of being confronted by someone with a firearm and the training to use it. If some teachers don't want to have to carry a gun at school, that's fine. Armed security and controlling access to schools needs money and time to implement. But those "gun-free" signs could be gone tomorrow. Over 15 million Americans have concealed carry permits.

I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?

Turning schools into prisons isn't a solution I'd want for my children. Sounds like a fucking horrible place to go to learn and spend the majority of ones youth.

I feel like this sums up nicely one of the biggest disconnects between gun supporters and the rest of us. We don't believe that more weapons equals more safety. I remember reading about the Wild West as a kid and thinking how glad I am life isn't like that anymore. It seems like gun supporters want that lifestyle back.

I don't want my kids' teachers to have guns in school. I don't want there to be cops in school. I'm positive both only make this problem worse. I am baffled why anyone thinks more guns is a solution to the wrong people having and using guns. Crossfire, anyone? And really, how are police supposed to know who to take down if everyone is pulling a gun in school?

I'm happy to listen to any other solutions from gun owners that does not involve "arm more people".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 17, 2018, 01:10:03 PM
A school shooting resulting in injury is happening every week.

Our Congress will do nothing.  Change Congress.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: blackknight89 on February 17, 2018, 02:10:47 PM

I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?

Turning schools into prisons isn't a solution I'd want for my children. Sounds like a fucking horrible place to go to learn and spend the majority of ones youth.

If you do not believe that escalation is the answer, then what do you believe that the answer is? So far I have seen many suggestions for legislation. Can we agree that criminals or those with criminal intent do not care if they break laws in the process? Murder has been against the law and punishable by death for centuries, yet they still happen.

I said nothing about lowering the age to buy a handgun to 14 and issuing concealed carry permits to teenagers. Generally speaking, you have to be 21 to purchase a handgun legally and I have never heard of civilians trying to concealed carry a rifle (worth noting that any rifle with a barrel under 16 inches is a "SBR" and requires ATF approval to possess).

I also support requiring a concealed carry permit to carry at a school, and would suggest that such a permit process require training that addresses how to respond in a school shooting situation. I also believe that this should be standardized across all 50 states. While we are at it, make it so that permit is legal anywhere that does not have controlled access and armed security (courthouses, airports, etc).

When everyone is armed, there is no violence.

Like in Afghanistan!

I would be willing to bet you have never set foot in Afghanistan. Please explain your comparison further.


I feel like this sums up nicely one of the biggest disconnects between gun supporters and the rest of us. We don't believe that more weapons equals more safety. I remember reading about the Wild West as a kid and thinking how glad I am life isn't like that anymore. It seems like gun supporters want that lifestyle back.

I don't want my kids' teachers to have guns in school. I don't want there to be cops in school. I'm positive both only make this problem worse. I am baffled why anyone thinks more guns is a solution to the wrong people having and using guns. Crossfire, anyone? And really, how are police supposed to know who to take down if everyone is pulling a gun in school?

I'm happy to listen to any other solutions from gun owners that does not involve "arm more people".


I don't think that your comparison between the wild west and any of what I suggested is valid. The extensive combination of alcohol and firearms has nothing in common with trained individuals with firearms that are hidden (concealed carry permit). Worth noting that such a permit does not allow to just take out your gun and wave it around whenever you want (brandishing). If you draw, it had better be to use it.

Can you detail the solutions that you believe would be more effective?

Worth noting that the armed police officer at the school wasn't able to stop the shooting. He never encountered the gunman.

1 armed officer for a school with 3000 students and uncontrolled access. Can't say I'm surprised. The school knew he was dangerous and all they chose to do was tell teachers to not allow him on campus. Perhaps if there was controlled access to the school they might have even had a clue that he was there.

A school shooting resulting in injury is happening every week.

Our Congress will do nothing.  Change Congress.

Congress excels at accomplishing nothing in practically every aspect.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 17, 2018, 08:22:39 PM
I'm pretty sure I asked gun owners for solutions because I have no idea where a compromise would be. I'm completely okay with banning guns, but realize that won't be happening. So, if gun owners want their access unchanged, they need to FIX. THIS. I have three kids I send to school every day with the thought passion through my mind that maybe they aren't coming home again. I no longer have faith in all these supposedly "responsible gun owners" to be responsible. If they actually were, why don't we see idiot parents put in jail when they leave their weapons unsecured and EUR toddler accidentally kills someone or themselves? Gun owners need to police their own if they want my respect back.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 17, 2018, 10:11:42 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 17, 2018, 11:42:16 PM
I think this begins to explain the reason most mass shooters are male.  It has nothing to do with masculinity, it's about being a outcast with no emotional support.

Plenty of girls are outcasts with no emotional support. They don't go out and buy automatic weapons and murder people.

We can start addressing this by changing the culture; improving support and removing unreasonable expectations for young males.  Fix the issue that's disproportionately causing males to commit suicide and the mass shootings will also decline.

Oh right. There are no unreasonable expectations for young female people. No expectations that they will be eternally sexy and sexually available.

What are your thoughts on the fact that most shooters are male?

A disappointed sense of entitlement.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 17, 2018, 11:57:56 PM
I get the feeling you aren't open to discussion, your remarks are dismissive without analysis.

No dude. I'm pointing out that female people experience the same difficulties that you say male people experience. Your argument (that male people are victimized by society and that's why they commit violent acts) falls down in the face of my evidence.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 18, 2018, 12:14:24 AM
If you do not believe that escalation is the answer, then what do you believe that the answer is? So far I have seen many suggestions for legislation. Can we agree that criminals or those with criminal intent do not care if they break laws in the process? Murder has been against the law and punishable by death for centuries, yet they still happen.

Agreed criminals do not care. But it's not just criminals killing people with guns. Avoidable accidents also contribute to the death toll.

The issue with guns is, as soon as one is drawn there is a 50% chance of injury. If you are injured you have a 50% chance of dying.

The way I see it is escalation leads to more incidents and more deaths. So what's the alternative? Nation wide mass removal of guns, without infriging your rights.

1. Nation wide gun registry. Any gun not registered is confiscated and destroyed.

2. Firearms license. Similar to drivers license. If you fire or are in possession of a gun and do not have a license it is confiscated and destroyed.

3. Higher grade licenses required for semi automatic weapons, assult rifles (pretty much any gun that isn't built for recreational hunting)

4. Secure storage requirements. You can argue the details but at the minimum guns and ammo separately secured when owner not at home, or transported in public.

5. The registered gun owner is liable for the damage caused by their guns. We can argue the extent. This is to ensure all transactions go through the registry, security requirements are followed, and thefys are reported.

6. Mandatory background checks, with right of appeal, and maxum decision time.

7. Generous buy back of guns purchased prior to change in laws coming into effect. All buy back guns are destroyed.

8. Statistical gathering of all gun related incidents focused on improving background check markers and training requirements.

9. Mass education on responsible gun ownership.

The kicker is this has to be nation wide. A single state will be ineffective as criminals will simply source from another state.

As a gun owner, what do you get out of it?

1. No one taking your guns.

2. Knowledge that all other owners are moving towards greater responsibility.

3. Knowledge that police can effectively remove guns from the criminal population.

If you want to put a time limit on these laws, go for it. 50 years (2 generations) should be sufficient to see if it's effective.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 18, 2018, 12:19:10 AM
Contrary to what the media would have us believe, violent crime has been trending significantly downward for the last quarter century.  We are on the right track.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/30/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/)

Yet gun related deaths continue to increase at 6% per year.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 18, 2018, 01:11:54 AM
The two studies ate measuring different things, so the results will be different.

Your link is tracking crime.

My link is tracking gun related incidents, injury and deaths.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rimu05 on February 18, 2018, 07:09:21 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.

You purposely lead off with a false statement, what do you hope to accomplish?  Most, but not ALL mass shooters are male.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/amp/wife-san-bernardino-shooting-joins-small-list-women-mass-killers-n473536 (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/amp/wife-san-bernardino-shooting-joins-small-list-women-mass-killers-n473536)

If you want to talk about black male gang members, Muslim terrorists, go ahead as well.  Just don't start with 'all Terrorists are Muslim' bullshit.

You're welcome to discuss the fact that most are men.  Skip the one liners that say nothing.  If you have something meaningful to say then say it.  Here are my thoughts:

Our culture expects males to be tough.  As a general example, if a female cries in school for whatever reason, others will support and comfort her.  If a male cries, he is more likely to be chastised, bullied or beat up.  I know females can be nasty in other ways too, but let's agree that there is a difference, and emotional support is generally less available to males.  I think if we treated females the same way maybe they would wind up as mass shooters as well. 

Male teens are also 4x more likely than females to commit suicide.  No one seems to care about this stat, but it seems quite relevant if you want to discuss male vs female mass shooters.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm)

Once again it could be our culture doesn't give males enough emotional support.  It can suck to be a teenager, and it seems males feel they are on their own.  I think lack of emotional support for young males during a critical time of mental development contributes to the higher suicide rates among males.  A few of these may go on to become mass shooters instead.

I think this begins to explain a possible reason most mass shooters are male.  It has nothing to do with masculinity, it's more about being a outcast with no emotional support.  We can start addressing this by changing the culture; improving support and removing unreasonable expectations for young males.  Fix the issue that's disproportionately causing males to commit suicide and the mass shootings will also decline.

What are your thoughts on the fact that most shooters are male?

I agree with the emotional support and removing unreasonable expectations for young males aspect but I also want to point out there are a lot of crimes committed by males, that go beyond this. Take child molesters for example. A huge portion are male and while many also come from backgrounds where they were abused, there are many who really don't.

I am just hoping if there is a God, he's keen on burning us all.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 18, 2018, 10:01:29 PM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.

So borderline personality disorder is feminine?  I don't think that's how most people use masculine and feminine.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 19, 2018, 12:14:33 AM
So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.

So borderline personality disorder is feminine?  I don't think that's how most people use masculine and feminine.

I gather you think that the fact that more women than men are diagnosed with a completely unrelated psychological disorder*, one that doesn't usually lead to violence, is somehow relevant here. I disagree.


*one that is arguably overdiagnosed in general
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bugbaby on February 19, 2018, 01:48:14 AM


So... maybe if we can't talk about guns, or gun legislation, or anything like that...

We could talk about toxic masculinity?

(Guessing that's a no, too, huh?)

If you really want to slander the three men who gave their lives trying to shield the students from bullets and how toxic their masculinity was, jump right ahead.

I think Kris was referring to "toxic masculinity" as a personality feature, not that masculinity, in general, is toxic.

I don't think any reasonable person would file protecting others from violent attack as toxic, masculine or otherwise.

I don't think any reasonable person would file taking a gun and shooting unarmed children as masculine.

All mass shooters are men.

Responding that not all men are mass shooters (a true statement) is just stating that it's not OK to talk about the problem of male mass shooters. Which is to say that we can't talk about the problem of mass shooters. That's pretty unhelpful, in my opinion.

If you are a man and you're not a mass shooter, relax. We're not talking about you.

You purposely lead off with a false statement, what do you hope to accomplish?  Most, but not ALL mass shooters are male.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/amp/wife-san-bernardino-shooting-joins-small-list-women-mass-killers-n473536 (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/amp/wife-san-bernardino-shooting-joins-small-list-women-mass-killers-n473536)

If you want to talk about black male gang members, Muslim terrorists, go ahead as well.  Just don't start with 'all Terrorists are Muslim' bullshit.

You're welcome to discuss the fact that most are men.  Skip the one liners that say nothing.  If you have something meaningful to say then say it.  Here are my thoughts:

Our culture expects males to be tough.  As a general example, if a female cries in school for whatever reason, others will support and comfort her.  If a male cries, he is more likely to be chastised, bullied or beat up.  I know females can be nasty in other ways too, but let's agree that there is a difference, and emotional support is generally less available to males.  I think if we treated females the same way maybe they would wind up as mass shooters as well. 

Male teens are also 4x more likely than females to commit suicide.  No one seems to care about this stat, but it seems quite relevant if you want to discuss male vs female mass shooters.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm)

Once again it could be our culture doesn't give males enough emotional support.  It can suck to be a teenager, and it seems males feel they are on their own.  I think lack of emotional support for young males during a critical time of mental development contributes to the higher suicide rates among males.  A few of these may go on to become mass shooters instead.

I think this begins to explain a possible reason most mass shooters are male.  It has nothing to do with masculinity, it's more about being a outcast with no emotional support.  We can start addressing this by changing the culture; improving support and removing unreasonable expectations for young males.  Fix the issue that's disproportionately causing males to commit suicide and the mass shootings will also decline.

What are your thoughts on the fact that most shooters are male?

Ha! This is funny.

You're quibbling with the statement 'all mass shooters are male' rather than the fact, 'almost all mass shooters are male' ...

Then you follow up with the claims that mass shooters are mostly male because they lack emotional support and that females would be just as violent as males are if they were treated as men are treated?

Nothing to do with innate nature i.e, hello tesstosterone, Y chromosome...


Gender issues asides, how about dealing with the obvious that armed violent criminals tend to commit violent crimes? And address the ideologies and policies that allow this to happen.

 hint: Disarming all law abiding citizens (a la Mexico) is not the way, despite the widespread emotional pleas.

Taking out the criminals however,  might help. (For instance in Chicago almost all gun murders are by previously convicted felons.)

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 19, 2018, 08:22:32 AM
I get the feeling you aren't open to discussion, your remarks are dismissive without analysis.

What do you think about the disparity in suicide rates?  I don't understand why that is being ignored.  Do you think it's relevant?

Cressida has a history of not being open to discussion of these types of things. Numerous articles discuss the EXACT thing you brought up - that young males have a set of cultural expectations that, if they can't match, might lead them to commit these acts of violence.

Cressida isn't wrong that there are cultural expectations of women too, but for the sake of a discussion on school shootings, the expectations on them don't set of a mental chain of events that might culminate in something like this. 

I suspect that any effort to point on that men need some societal attention as well seems to infuriate the likes of cressida because it might distract from, and counter the narrative of, Nth wave feminism's goals.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 19, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
Suicide is a bit OT, but  . . . . My understanding about suicide rates is that men are more likely to use guns (and hanging!) and women are more likely to use pills, which means more men are successful and more women are unsuccessful.  What would be more useful in suicide discussions is the rate of attempted suicides, and how survivors look back on their suicide attempts.  It is hard to be relieved you didn't commit suicide after all since your life has improved, if you were successful.

This is an interesting article
http://statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm (http://statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-624-x/2012001/article/11696-eng.htm)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cressida on February 19, 2018, 03:25:01 PM
I suspect that any effort to point on that men need some societal attention as well seems to infuriate the likes of cressida because it might distract from, and counter the narrative of, Nth wave feminism's goals.

This is where you guys are going wrong in this conversation. Your statement implies that women get "societal attention" and men don't. That's vague and unsupported.

And it's 2nd wave. 2nd wavers are the ones who *don't* think men are predisposed to be violent, by the way.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 19, 2018, 05:44:04 PM
...
...
...
Can you provide a quote from any US politician who gleefully and publicly anticipated a total ban of firearms sold in the United States?  To the best of my knowledge, this never happened.

Here ya go:

Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY)

Quote
"I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'Sorry.' it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison."
- Rosie O'Donnell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjxmitU9JI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjxmitU9JI)

Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html (https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html)

Quote
The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns.  We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
-William L. Clay

Quote
"[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn't count!"
-John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

Quote
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-Joe Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

Quote
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.”
-ACLU #47


BUT SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST
Quote
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

-H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text)
...  FYI that means the below posted gun would be illegal:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcpZySPI9FtQkldpIsUMPVTU8Z4feVripGUNU5RhyVAHGDeSorxA)

Along with basically every gun I own.

You wonder why one side of the table considers the other disingenuous...


Quote
(ii) All AR types, including the following:
“(I) AR–10.
“(II) AR–15.
“(III) Armalite M15 22LR Carbine.
“(IV) Armalite M15–T.
“(V) Barrett REC7.
“(VI) Beretta AR–70.
“(VII) Bushmaster ACR.
“(VIII) Bushmaster Carbon 15.
“(IX) Bushmaster MOE series.
“(X) Bushmaster XM15.
“(XI) Colt Match Target Rifles.

“(XII) DoubleStar AR rifles.
“(XIII) DPMS Tactical Rifles.
“(XIV) Heckler & Koch MR556.
“(XV) Olympic Arms.
“(XVI) Remington R–15 rifles.
“(XVII) Rock River Arms LAR–15.
“(XVIII) Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles.
“(XIX) Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles.
“(XX) Stag Arms AR rifles.
“(XXI) Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles.


And here are some really REALLY dumb quotes just for fun:
(But they still display why, rather succinctly, many gun owners are unwilling to come to the table)

Quote
Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.
-Patrician Eddington
https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ (https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ)

Quote
Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.
-Joe Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg)

Quote
This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
–Kevin de Leon
https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ (https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ)

Quote
We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.
-Terry McAuliffe

Quote
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
– Dianne Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw)

Quote
…it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book.
– Barack Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI)[/size]
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 19, 2018, 07:00:32 PM
I'll respond directly to the quotes you've brought forth as 'evidence' that politicians are working hard to ban all guns.

Quote
Quote
"If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!"
- Diane Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY)

This doesn't say what your out of context quote implies.  She's specifically talking about the assault weapons that could not be covered by her bill, she's not trying to take all of your guns.



Quote
Quote
Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.
-Joe Biden, 11/18/93, Associated Press interview

So, the actual quote was "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come" -
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/18/us/senate-approves-ban-on-manufacture-of-military-style-weapons.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/18/us/senate-approves-ban-on-manufacture-of-military-style-weapons.html).  You'll notice that the one you posted is not only taken out of context here (again, he was referring to assault weapons), but you also changed it to something he didn't say.



Quote
Quote
There is little sense in gun registration.  What we need to significantly enhance public safety is domestic disarmament . . . .  Domestic disarmament entails the removal of arms from private hands . . . .  Given the proper political support by the people who oppose the pro-gun lobby, legislation to remove the guns from private hands, acts like the legislation drafted by Senator John Chafee [to ban handguns], can be passed in short order.
- Communitarian Network's "Case for Domestic Disarmament" signed by San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros and Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke
https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html (https://www2.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_disarm.html)

Quote
The Brady Bill is the minimum step that Congress should take to control handguns.  We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.
-William L. Clay

Quote
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.”
-ACLU #47

Discusses limiting gun ownership of handguns.  Doesn't suggest banning all guns.  I haven't verified these quotes yet, but given the falsehoods previously passed off as truth it would probably be good if someone does.



Quote
It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

-H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

Limited controls for specific weapons.  No attempt to ban all guns.




Weak sauce.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on February 19, 2018, 07:18:29 PM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 19, 2018, 07:45:14 PM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Bingo!

Notice he didn't address the bill that is currently sitting on the House Floor (or is it stalled in sub-committee... Not sure since it hasn't been touched).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on February 19, 2018, 10:35:21 PM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

As a non US citizen, I always find these discussions amusing in a dark kind of way.  GuitarStv seems to be arguing for gun laws basically the same as those in Australia.  As an Australian, I own a gun.  I cannot own a semi-automatic.  I do not feel a deep seated need for a semi-automatic.  I see no reason for needing a semi-automatic weapon on my farm.  When I shoot a fox, I aim carefully and hit it on the first shot.  When I kill a goat, I aim carefully and kill it with one shot.

As for the bike analogy, I rather see then analogy as "Of course you can own a bicycle, but you can't claim that motorcycle as a bicycle."

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 20, 2018, 02:11:35 AM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

As a non US citizen, I always find these discussions amusing in a dark kind of way.  GuitarStv seems to be arguing for gun laws basically the same as those in Australia.  As an Australian, I own a gun.  I cannot own a semi-automatic.  I do not feel a deep seated need for a semi-automatic.  I see no reason for needing a semi-automatic weapon on my farm.  When I shoot a fox, I aim carefully and hit it on the first shot.  When I kill a goat, I aim carefully and kill it with one shot.

As for the bike analogy, I rather see then analogy as "Of course you can own a bicycle, but you can't claim that motorcycle as a bicycle."

Well said.

GuitarStv seems to be doing a good job of backing up his assertions.

His detractors... not so much.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 20, 2018, 08:26:06 AM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole.  None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever.  That's fine.  If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint.  If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.







Quote
Some of these bullets, as you saw, have an incendiary device on the tip of it, which is a heat seeking device. So, you don’t shoot deer with a bullet that size. If you do you could cook it at the same time.
-Patrician Eddington
https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ (https://youtu.be/BRQqieimwLQ)

Quote
Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.
-Joe Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpj-BEPnSg)

Quote
This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.”
–Kevin de Leon
https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ (https://youtu.be/RAeI7rTjJMQ)

Quote
We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.
-Terry McAuliffe

Quote
We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds. And yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.
– Dianne Feinstein
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOSrc_U_Vtw)

Quote
…it is easier for a 12- or 13-year-old to purchase a gun, and cheaper, than it is for them to get a book.
– Barack Obama
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seHXY5a9ezI)[/size]

These are some stupid things that people have said.  It hurts their argument, and I certainly wish that they hadn't said them.  When you use hyperbole and lies to try to prove a point, you weaken your argument.  But it's kinda ironic that you couple a bunch of snicker worthy comments like this with lies and hyperbole of your own that puts you in the same category.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 20, 2018, 08:53:12 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.

Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular.  They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for.  Stop voting for incumbents.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 08:56:38 AM
Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular.  They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for.  Stop voting for incumbents.

@TheOldestYoungMan, Is there a thread or could you start a thread on term limits for congress.

That is something I am particularly interested in discussing (and gauging this forum's opinion on).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 20, 2018, 10:17:16 AM
8 proposals with >60% public support.

Congress won't enact a single one.

Can you cite the source of this data, DaS?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html

There are more than 8 with that amount of support (in fact, 20 measures polled received 59% or more public support) but those 8 were deemed to be likely the most effective by experts.

Just bumping this to reiterate, effective measures are available, possible, constitutional, overwhelmingly popular.  They aren't happening because your congress is bought and paid for.  Stop voting for incumbents.

And also the NRA is extremely well-organized with propaganda and has a consistent message - think of all the fear they spew that Democrats want to take away your guns.  They have NRATV set up - a TV network dedicated solely to push more gun ownership in this country.

Gun control advocates are typically left chasing - ban bump stocks, ban assault rifles, ban the gun show loophole, more background checks - and are thus left with an inconsistent message that fades away compared to the NRA propaganda machine.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on February 20, 2018, 10:30:58 AM
When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Except that again, the “some classes of firearm” they are looking to “limit” are by far the most popular and widely owned. So yes, if I’m a gun owner who only owns an AR-15 and a “high capacity” semi automatic pistol, which is probably the most common combination out there, then yes, plenty of people in government have suggested “taking all of my guns”.  The “you can still get a hunting rifle” is immaterial and irrelevant.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 20, 2018, 10:39:40 AM
Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole.  None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever.  That's fine.  If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint.  If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.



Politicians who claim to want to ban "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" based on cosmetics while leaving functionally equivalent weapons legal can only be (1) trying to get the camels  nose under the tent to regulate the functional equivalents later, (2) hoping their supporters are too ignorant to know how the made up terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" are defined, or (3) so ignorant themselves that they don't know what they are advocating for. 

I can understand why people assume that politicians pushing gun control really fall under option number (1) and not options number (2) or (3).  Maybe that's giving them too much credit, but it doesn't seem implausible that there are gun control advocates who are not trying to dupe their supporters and who are not complete morons. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 20, 2018, 11:20:37 AM
When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.

Except that again, the “some classes of firearm” they are looking to “limit” are by far the most popular and widely owned. So yes, if I’m a gun owner who only owns an AR-15 and a “high capacity” semi automatic pistol, which is probably the most common combination out there, then yes, plenty of people in government have suggested “taking all of my guns”.  The “you can still get a hunting rifle” is immaterial and irrelevant.

If I owned a fully automatic machine gun and a sawed off shotgun in the '30s I'd be pretty upset about the government wanting to impose restrictions on those weapons too.  That's a perfectly reasonable thing to complain about, and debate.  It would be silly of me to try to claim that the government is banning all guns though . . . since it's obviously not true.

I get that you're upset that someone wants to take away your favorite toys.  Continuing to whine about the unfairness of gun regulation because it personally impacts you doesn't make your argument any more true than it was originally though.


Just dropping in to see that GuitarStv is still playing the game where he either doesn’t understand or pretends not to understand that a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all handguns is effectively a ban on basically all guns except bolt-action rifles and shotguns. “We’re not going to take your guns just 75%+ of the guns Americans own.”  Kinda like “hey, we’re not going to ban all bikes, you can still own a penny farthing if you want!”

Yes Chris, I'm still playing that game of pointing out lies and misrepresentations used to support hyperbole.  None of the quotes presented suggested a ban on all semi-automatic rifles, so I see that you are intent on keeping the game alive and well.

I get that you don't want restriction of any gun whatsoever.  That's fine.  If you want to say 'Hey, they're coming for my assault rifle' that's a perfectly legit complaint.  If you want to say hey, some other people have come up with some draft legislation that has never made it to a reading that says it might be a good idea to restrict handguns for ownership other than for target practice, collection, federal/state/local military/law enforcement agencies, and professional security services - that's a perfectly legit complaint.

When you claim that the government is trying to take away all your guns because some people have suggested limiting some classes of firearm at separate occasions over the past 30 years you start to look kinda silly.  Even up here in gun-grabbin' Canada nobody has come for our guns.  Hell, I had no problem getting a semi-automatic hunting rifle at the age of 12.



Politicians who claim to want to ban "assault rifles" or "assault weapons" based on cosmetics while leaving functionally equivalent weapons legal can only be (1) trying to get the camels  nose under the tent to regulate the functional equivalents later, (2) hoping their supporters are too ignorant to know how the made up terms "assault rifle" and "assault weapons" are defined, or (3) so ignorant themselves that they don't know what they are advocating for. 

I can understand why people assume that politicians pushing gun control really fall under option number (1) and not options number (2) or (3).  Maybe that's giving them too much credit, but it doesn't seem implausible that there are gun control advocates who are not trying to dupe their supporters and who are not complete morons. 


I think it's already been mentioned in this thread (whoops, it was the other gun thread), but the banning 'based on cosmetics' argument is not entirely true, is it?

The pistol grip is a scary cosmetic feature.  Unfortunately, the ruger 223 would have been just as deadly in this situation despite its wooden stock and lack of a pistol grip.
There is a reason almost every military rifle is made with a pistol grip.  It is an ergonomically superior position and it gives greater control of the weapon.  Better control of the weapon in an easier to hold position = more enemy soldiers shot.  The same goes for civilians.  It is very likely that the Ruger Ranch .223 would not have been "just as deadly" in this situation.  Still deadly, yes, just not "as deadly".  Perhaps enacting laws that might result in less dead people from a mass shooting is a good place to start. 

Having said that, I agree with you that banning pistol grips wont stop mass shootings.  Nor will restrictions on magazine capacity.  Nothing will completely stop mass shootings.  Just like banning murder doesn't stop murders from happening.  That's probably not a great argument for allowing murder though.


I'm not going to argue that every part of the assault weapons ban makes perfect sense (some things certainly don't), but it is disingenuous to argue that all aspects of it are purely cosmetic.  Stuff like the pistol grip (aids in aiming), a collapsible stock (easier to conceal weapon), a flash supressor (makes it harder to see where someone is firing from), these are certainly not cosmetic features.



So, maybe
4) Some (non-ignorant) people believe that there might be societal benefit from changing the availability of particular weapons.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 20, 2018, 01:03:30 PM
Why haven't the owners of gun stores set up their own, non government controlled, database/registry of listed and de-listed buyers?

You can refuse to sell to anyone.  You can even discriminate as long as you don't do so against protected classes.  So get together, in the interest of protecting your business, and hire people to populate the database with violent felons and so forth.  I bet the uncounted tens of thousands of homeland employees would be more than happy to keep it updated on their lunch break.

You don't even have to track who you sell to, just run the name against a list of known violent-as-fuck/batshit-crazy folks prior to purchase.

Refuse to sell to folks without a high school diploma or GED.  Require a good report card/recommendation from coach/scout leader/youth group minister/ROTC/beta club/NHS etc. to sell to minors.  Make it so people can update it with names when a friend says something violent on social media.  "I'm gonna kill em all" is funny rhetoric and everything in certain context, but freedom of speech only goes so far and I'm sort of OK with every gun dealer in the lower 48 refusing to sell to me because I threatened, publicly, a violent act.

However the fuck you want to do it.

Why can't the leadership of our country stand up and say:  Fix this.

Or better yet:  You haven't fixed this already, we're fixing it for you.

There is nothing, nothing on the list of reasonable, popular measures, that the makers/sellers of guns couldn't do right now, on their own, with full control over how it is implemented and who controls the data.

The reason they haven't?  Greed.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

"I don't have to" isn't a good enough reason anymore.  Fucking fix it.  And if you continue to refuse, fuckin-a-right we're taking your guns away.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on February 20, 2018, 01:16:30 PM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 02:09:52 PM
And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 20, 2018, 02:34:14 PM
And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

Must be 21 and wait 3 days for a pistol in Florida.

Only need to be 18 and almost no wait for an AR-15.

Give me a break.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 20, 2018, 02:48:50 PM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient.  It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough.  Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids.  That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride.  He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors.  I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older.  And had no policy against it.  He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is.  But whatever.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 20, 2018, 02:54:02 PM
https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/florida-house-votes-down-motion-to-take-up-weapons-ban-with-douglas-students-present

Florida House votes down motion to take up weapons ban with Douglas students present

A nearly party line vote (71-36) on the motion.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 20, 2018, 03:12:36 PM
Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns.  I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I  find it cowardly.  Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions.  So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea.  If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 03:19:02 PM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient.  It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough.  Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids.  That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride.  He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors.  I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older.  And had no policy against it.  He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is.  But whatever.

Quote
Sec. 46.06.  UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)  sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2)  intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm)

The strawman is RIGHT THERE.

I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable, but spouting off incorrect things like "its easier to buy a gun than spray paint" is useless for the conversation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 03:26:19 PM
Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns.  I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I  find it cowardly.  Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions.  So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea.  If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.

If you are going to blame anybody, blame both sides.

Most people don't know that this happened in 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?utm_term=.1835471587ff (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?utm_term=.1835471587ff)

Quote
To counter Feinstein’s amendment, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) proposed a measure that would give the [US] attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.

Tldr:  GOP and Dems push for gun control measures.  Dems block the GOP measure out of spite and because "it didn't go far enough". 

If they really cared and weren't interested in partisan politics, they would have happily taken the offer.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 20, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
I don't believe escalation is the answer. Where does it end? Once all students are armed with guns?

Did the alarm bells not sound that society needs to change when people believed it necessary to have security guards at schools?
I think I can answer a couple of these concerns:
1) I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe escalation is the answer."  Do you mean to say that if teachers are armed, we'll see more gun violence in schools?  I have a hard time believing that armed teachers will cause *more* school shootings.  We already trust teachers every day.  If a teacher is going to kill a bunch of students, they have easy access.  On contrary, I think that having a policy of allowing teachers to take extra training and carry concealed in schools is a good one.  Why?  Because even if no teachers opt to do so, it changes the school from a defenseless target to one that is far riskier for a potential shooter.  Those who choose to commit these horrific crimes are often unstable, but not stupid.  They don't target gun stores or police departments.

2) I agree that it's a bit disturbing that we feel the need to increase security at schools!  But rather than rush to enact broad gun regulations which have little chance of making an impact, let's start looking at what has changed in our culture.  After all, civilian semiautomatic rifles have been in common possession for the better part of a century. 

Quote
I don't want my kids' teachers to have guns in school. I don't want there to be cops in school. I'm positive both only make this problem worse. I am baffled why anyone thinks more guns is a solution to the wrong people having and using guns. Crossfire, anyone? And really, how are police supposed to know who to take down if everyone is pulling a gun in school?
I have a hard time understanding this one.  Off the top of my head, every one of these mass murders has been committed by a single person, and never by a teacher.  Crossfire?  I think if someone is coming into your classroom with the intent of killing as many as people as possible, a crossfire is probably the least of your concerns.  Mass shootings are not an extended gun battle.  They typically go until the police (or someone else with a gun) shows up, at which point either 1) the shooter gives themselves up, 2) the shooter gets killed, or 3) the shooter kills himself.

Even with the potential of a crossfire, how is this worse then the alternative of a bunch of people getting killed?
Quote
Agreed criminals do not care. But it's not just criminals killing people with guns. Avoidable accidents also contribute to the death toll.
Contribute, yes.  But not a whole lot.  About 600 deaths per year, or 1/20th as many as murders.
Quote
The way I see it is escalation leads to more incidents and more deaths. So what's the alternative? Nation wide mass removal of guns, without infrifging your rights.

1. Nation wide gun registry. Any gun not registered is confiscated and destroyed.
Various states (most recently New York) have a history of using such a registry to confiscate guns from people without due process.
Quote
2. Firearms license. Similar to drivers license. If you fire or are in possession of a gun and do not have a license it is confiscated and destroyed.
3. Higher grade licenses required for semi automatic weapons, assult rifles (pretty much any gun that isn't built for recreational hunting)
4. Secure storage requirements. You can argue the details but at the minimum guns and ammo separately secured when owner not at home, or transported in public.
5. The registered gun owner is liable for the damage caused by their guns. We can argue the extent. This is to ensure all transactions go through the registry, security requirements are followed, and thefys are reported.
6. Mandatory background checks, with right of appeal, and maxum decision time.
This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals.  Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner.  In Las Vegas, the shooter would have passed any training/examination/licensing requirements.
Quote
7. Generous buy back of guns purchased prior to change in laws coming into effect. All buy back guns are destroyed.
That's been tried many times.  It has never proven effective.
Quote
8. Statistical gathering of all gun related incidents focused on improving background check markers and training requirements.
Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?
Quote
9. Mass education on responsible gun ownership.
Hey, I have no problem with this.  Perhaps we'd then get legislators who could tell a butt stock from a barrel shroud, and a semiautomatic rifle from a machine gun.
Quote
The kicker is this has to be nation wide. A single state will be ineffective as criminals will simply source from another state.

As a gun owner, what do you get out of it?
1. No one taking your guns.
2. Knowledge that all other owners are moving towards greater responsibility.
3. Knowledge that police can effectively remove guns from the criminal population.
1) Not quite.  It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.
2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people."  I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern.  And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.
3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 20, 2018, 03:37:59 PM
Yeah, even though I fully support an individual right to bear arms I'm really getting sick of the argument that we can't do anything because the evil government will take all our guns.  I'm no longer sympathetic to it at all, in fact I  find it cowardly.  Maybe there are some people who do want to ban all or most guns and maybe that number is growing because our broken government refuses to come up with any better solutions.  So guess what, if the only solution being offered is to ban all guns then fine, I'll support it and those who think it's a good idea.  If anyone doesn't like that then I suggest they start enacting some actual workable solutions that don't involve banning all or most guns so that I can support those solutions instead.

If you are going to blame anybody, blame both sides.

Most people don't know that this happened in 2015.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?utm_term=.1835471587ff (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/12/03/senate-democrats-to-force-gun-control-votes-in-the-wake-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/?utm_term=.1835471587ff)

Quote
To counter Feinstein’s amendment, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) proposed a measure that would give the [US] attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.

Tldr:  GOP and Dems push for gun control measures.  Dems block the GOP measure out of spite and because "it didn't go far enough". 

If they really cared and weren't interested in partisan politics, they would have happily taken the offer.

I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 20, 2018, 03:41:46 PM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 20, 2018, 03:47:16 PM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 20, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient.  It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough.  Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids.  That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride.  He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors.  I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older.  And had no policy against it.  He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is.  But whatever.

Quote
Sec. 46.06.  UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)  sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2)  intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm)

The strawman is RIGHT THERE.

I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable, but spouting off incorrect things like "its easier to buy a gun than spray paint" is useless for the conversation.

Umm . . . if you read a bit further on in the link you posted:

Quote
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

I suspect that what happened was the guy's mom told the gun store it was cool - which then means there's no barrier to selling (or giving) a minor a gun.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 20, 2018, 07:39:03 PM
Umm . . . if you read a bit further on in the link you posted:

Quote
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

I suspect that what happened was the guy's mom told the gun store it was cool - which then means there's no barrier to selling (or giving) a minor a gun.

Still not "easier than spray paint".

Move past the straw man.  Get on to real solutions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 21, 2018, 02:12:43 AM
???  Gun stores run every purchaser through an instant background check by law already.

And this is already proven to be insufficient.  It needs to stop being a box they check, a compliance step, and start being something they take seriously, and that they insist be thorough.  Someone with known issues legally bought a gun and murdered a bunch of kids.  That shouldn't have been possible, and gun stores don't need a new law to prevent it from happening again, they just have to decide they are going to do whatever it takes to prevent it from happening again.

And have a minimum age of 18 years.
21 years for anything with a pistol grip.

It shouldn't be easier to buy guns than it is to buy spray paint.

This is a huge straw man.

So, it's been twenty years, but I don't think the laws are any different, but at age 16 a friend and I went to the store together, I was his ride.  He was picking up a gun he'd bought his dad for Christmas, I was getting spray paint for a school project.

Which one of us do you suppose left the store with what we wanted?

The store, by policy, did not sell spray paint to minors.  I would need a note on school letterhead or my parents would have to buy the paint.

The store, by law, could sell long guns to 16 and older.  And had no policy against it.  He didn't even have an ID.

So I don't know where the straw man is.  But whatever.

Quote
Sec. 46.06.  UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)  sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2)  intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm)

The strawman is RIGHT THERE.

I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable, but spouting off incorrect things like "its easier to buy a gun than spray paint" is useless for the conversation.

Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 21, 2018, 02:36:59 AM
Quote
I think I can answer a couple of these concerns:
1) I don't understand what you mean by "I don't believe escalation is the answer."  Do you mean to say that if teachers are armed, we'll see more gun violence in schools?  I have a hard time believing that armed teachers will cause *more* school shootings.  We already trust teachers every day.  If a teacher is going to kill a bunch of students, they have easy access.  On contrary, I think that having a policy of allowing teachers to take extra training and carry concealed in schools is a good one.  Why?  Because even if no teachers opt to do so, it changes the school from a defenseless target to one that is far riskier for a potential shooter.  Those who choose to commit these horrific crimes are often unstable, but not stupid.  They don't target gun stores or police departments.

Once guns are in classrooms, do you gueniely believe they won’t accidentally end up in the hands of students? Student (5 to 18 year olds) who are not trained in proper handling of deadly weapons, who are in some cases struggle to deal with their emotions, who can still confuse fantasy (tv) with reality, who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.

It’s a fucking recipe for disaster.

Quote
This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals.  Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner.

Yes it will effect criminals. It enables the instant confiscation of weapons by police that are not legitimate.

It will ensure legitimate weapons are appropriately secured so harder to steal.

Quote
That's been tried many times.  It has never proven effective.

How do you know, your government isn’t allowed to gather the statistics? PS it worked in Australia. Not only did it reduce criminal gun use, it was very effective if continuing the decline of suicides.

Quote
Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?

That’s open for discussion, but I would expect stats to be gathered on all of the following incidents.

All reports to emergency services that involve guns. E.g.
1. Death by gun shot.
2. Injury by gun shot.
3. Shot fired in public.
4. Gun drawn in public
5. Gun drawn in self defence
6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)

I’d expect the following information to be gathered.
1. The intent of the incident (self defence, intimidation, murder)
2. The gun make/model
3. The legal status of the gun
4. The license level of the gun holder
5. Incident outcome

Quote
1) Not quite.  It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.
2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people."  I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern.  And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.
3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.

1. Only those who flaunt the rules should fear greater responsibility.

2. We’ve already got an example in this thread of someone’s boss selling a gun to anyone. Responsibility of transfer of ownership is beneficial to responsible gun owners.

3. As mentioned above, instant confiscation of unregistered firearms by police. Reduced chance of the aft of guns. It all helps.

PS I'm glad we agree on the education front.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 21, 2018, 08:20:25 AM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it.  But #1 is the kicker.  Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them.  And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).


I've trimmed some of the quotes below for the sake of brevity.  I hope you don't mind.
Once guns are in classrooms, do you gueniely believe they won’t accidentally end up in the hands of students? Student (5 to 18 year olds) who are not trained in proper handling of deadly weapons, who are in some cases struggle to deal with their emotions, who can still confuse fantasy (tv) with reality, who have no concept of the consequences of their actions.
It's possible, but highly unlikely.  There are already millions of people who carry concealed in public, and you very rarely, if ever hear about a gun accidentally ending up in someone else's hands.  There are already school districts that allow teachers to carry concealed, and there have been no incidents that I've heard of where a kid has got ahold of it.  The point is to create uncertainty and risk for potential attackers.  Students (or attackers) won't know who (if anyone) is carrying.
Quote
Quote
This would certainly deter gun ownership among law-abiding citizens, but would not affect criminals.  Remember, the Sandy Hook shooter stole his firearms after murdering their owner.
Yes it will effect criminals. It enables the instant confiscation of weapons by police that are not legitimate.

It will ensure legitimate weapons are appropriately secured so harder to steal.
Can you give me a specific situation where this would make a difference?  Police already confiscate weapons from people who are "prohibited persons" (felons, mentally ill, etc).  As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ViUdd-2LM).  Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

Quote
Quote
That's been tried many times.  It has never proven effective.

How do you know, your government isn’t allowed to gather the statistics? PS it worked in Australia. Not only did it reduce criminal gun use, it was very effective if continuing the decline of suicides.
I have a couple issues with this one:
1) Australia's crime rate, like the US's, was already on the decline. "Effective [at] continuing the decline..." is speculation.  All we know is that it was declining before the buyback, and it continued to decline afterward.
2) Australia's buyback was not voluntary.  Even law-abiding citizens (and likely, only law-abiding citizens) had to turn in their guns, even if they posed no threat to anyone.

Voluntary buybacks in the US have historically been political stunts.  "We took 2157 guns off the streets" sounds great, but when nearly all of the guns are bolt-action rifles, rusted pieces of junk, and pellet guns (seriously, I'm not kidding! (https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/i-team-gun-buybacks-often-bring-in-broken-guns-bb-guns)), it becomes comical.  See also "tragic boating accident" :D
Quote
Quote
Can you expand on what sorts of statistics would be gathered, and what requirements would be affected?

That’s open for discussion, but I would expect stats to be gathered on all of the following incidents.

All reports to emergency services that involve guns. E.g.
1. Death by gun shot.
2. Injury by gun shot.
3. Shot fired in public.
4. Gun drawn in public
5. Gun drawn in self defence
6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)

I’d expect the following information to be gathered.
1. The intent of the incident (self defence, intimidation, murder)
2. The gun make/model
3. The legal status of the gun
4. The license level of the gun holder
5. Incident outcome
#1 is already tracked.  #4-6 are going to be really hard to track, from a practical perspective, for a couple reasons: 1) there's a lot of those types of events, 2) a lot of them happen with people who wouldn't be allowed to own guns, and 3) law-abiding folk will be afraid to report it because they (right, IMO) fear that they'll lose their ability to own a gun.
Quote
Quote
1) Not quite.  It actually increases the fear, because it gives more power to the government (at whatever level) to confiscate your guns.
2) I think you're conflating "moving toward greater responsibility" with "complying with laws because they're law-abiding people."  I don't think I know any gun owners who rate others' responsibility (or lack thereof) as a significant concern.  And gun owners aren't shy about telling someone they're being dangerous.
3) I don't see anything here that would affect criminals beyond what is already possible through existing gun laws.
1. Only those who flaunt the rules should fear greater responsibility.
2. We’ve already got an example in this thread of someone’s boss selling a gun to anyone. Responsibility of transfer of ownership is beneficial to responsible gun owners.
3. As mentioned above, instant confiscation of unregistered firearms by police. Reduced chance of the aft of guns. It all helps.

PS I'm glad we agree on the education front.
1) This sounds an awful lot like "nothing to hide, nothing to fear."  There's already a long and storied history of governments on various levels instituting gun-control measures and then abusing them to confiscate guns from innocent people without due process.  Like I stated earlier, New York's Safe Act has already racked up some impressively scary stories.
2) I may have misunderstood you on this one.  I thought you were referring safe storage of guns, but it now sounds like you meant background checks/tracing for private sales.  Is that correct?
3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here?  If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them?  If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to.  (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry)  If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns.  So I fail to see how it would make a difference.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 08:25:54 AM
Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.
I'll wait.



However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 21, 2018, 09:19:03 AM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it.  But #1 is the kicker.  Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them.  And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

Except that, unlike republicans and to my great frustration at times, democrats don't vote in lock step with their most extreme members.  If you can't get 9 yes votes on your legislation from senators Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Claire McCaskill, Angus King, Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, Mark Warner, Michael Bennet, John Tester and Doug Jones then it's just too damn conservative and you need to try harder.

PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 09:40:01 AM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it.  But #1 is the kicker.  Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them.  And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



Quote
As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it.  Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it).  Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft.  There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.



3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here?  If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them?  If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to.  (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry)  If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns.  So I fail to see how it would make a difference.

If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun.  Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered.  This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 21, 2018, 09:47:24 AM
I don't care what happened in 2015.  It's 2018 and republicans control the entire federal government.  If they can't come up with some kind of legislation that 9 democratic senators could vote yes on then they're just not trying hard enough.
You're assuming that 1) the proposals will work, 2) it will pass constitutional muster, and 3) it won't get them booted out of office.  I like the idea of opening up NICS so that responsible gun owners can make sure they're not selling to a prohibited person.  Making it mandatory wouldn't accomplish anything, though--law-abiding citizens would use it anyway, and criminals would continue to ignore it.

It is the responsibility of those currently in control of the government to ensure that concerns 1 and 2 are addressed and I don't care a lick about 3.  Do the right thing, personal consequences be damned.
Fair enough on #3, and I suppose so on #2, although those on the pro-gun-control side don't seem to care too much about it.  But #1 is the kicker.  Those on the left have lots of ideas that won't work, so the guys on the right reject them.  And those on the right have ideas that might work, but those ideas are rejected by those on the left because 1) the guys on the right came up with them, and 2) they're emotionally unpalatable (like arming teachers).

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



Quote
As for security from theft, if a criminal has physical access to your house and knows where your gun safe is, chances are they'll get into it.  Sure, it increases the barrier to theft, but it's really still nibbling around the edges.

It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it).  Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft.  There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.



3) Whose guns are getting confiscated here?  If it's a person who's allowed to own guns in general, why should it matter whether the gun is registered to them?  If it isn't, and they're allowed to own guns, just update the record--no need to confiscate the gun, nor is there any reason to.  (note: this is by no means an endorsement of any sort of registry)  If it's a criminal ("prohibited person") the police already confiscate guns.  So I fail to see how it would make a difference.

If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun.  Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered.  This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.

I'm pretty sure arming teachers will also have the residual effect of turning many current and potential teachers away from the profession.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 10:08:23 AM
Relevant.


PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 21, 2018, 10:10:36 AM
Except that, unlike republicans and to my great frustration at times, democrats don't vote in lock step with their most extreme members.  If you can't get 9 yes votes on your legislation from senators Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp, Claire McCaskill, Angus King, Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, Mark Warner, Michael Bennet, John Tester and Doug Jones then it's just too damn conservative and you need to try harder.

PS. It might help your cause to stop saying that you want to arm teachers and instead actually explain that you just want to give them the option to be armed in order to give the appearance of a harder target whether they actually decide to be armed or not.
I'll leave the whole "democrats don't vote in lock step comment" where it lies, as that's a whole other rabbit hole which is not relevant to the topic at hand.

I have stated in other posts in this thread that it would be a publicly-announced option for teachers, exactly as you describe.  "Arming teachers" is just a shorthand way of referring to it, rather than "allowing teachers to carry concealed in schools."

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.
It's a possibility, sure.  However, there's no data to confirm that hypothesis.  If anything, we have the opposite.  I believe both Texas and Utah allow teachers to carry concealed, and have done so for several years without incident.

Quote
It's pretty easy for a criminal to break into your car and steal it (or anything inside it).  Most of us still lock our car though, because increasing barrier to theft reduces instances of theft.  There's also the knock on benefit of making it harder for a child in the home to gain access to a firearm.
A barrier? Sure.  One that effectively and significantly reduces how many guns are in the hands of criminals?  I don't know--I haven't seen any studies which have looked into safe storage requirements and their effect on the rate of gun theft.
Quote
If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun.  Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered.  This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.
As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them.  What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork.  I have a problem with that.

Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation.  Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out.  Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.

I'm pretty sure arming teachers will also have the residual effect of turning many current and potential teachers away from the profession.
I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear.  Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed.  What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 21, 2018, 10:14:10 AM
Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.
I'll wait.



However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"

equals

I don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.

and

To be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.


expert
ˈɛkspəːt/Submit
noun
1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.
 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 10:31:00 AM
Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.
I'll wait.



However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"
equals
I don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.
and
To be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.

expert
ˈɛkspəːt/Submit
noun
1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

You seem to not understanding the positions of adverbs in syntax.  I have underlined it for you.

Either way, those are some pretty big steps you're taking defending a position that is demonstrably false.

You cannot buy a gun at 16 in Texas (the original poster's location and statement).  Only way around it is with written permission of a parent or guardian (which would require them to be present).  The original statement: "It should not be easier to buy a gun than spray paint".  Clarified by the anecdotal statement "I bought a gun at 16 and the laws haven't changed".  To which I posted the legal code that, no, you could not buy a gun at 16 today in Texas, and therefore, it was not "easier to buy a gun than spraypaint".

But sure...  Try to make that out to mean I don't listen to anyone or value their opinion unless they are an expert of firearms law.  Thats TOTALLY what I meant...  (roll eyes)  /s

This is why these conversations never go anywhere.

Still waiting on anyone to discuss anything useful.  Prolly not gonna happen.  :/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 21, 2018, 11:10:26 AM
Why does someone need to be an expert on firearms to have a valid opinion?
Their opinion is on outcomes, not inputs. They don't need to know every last detail and permutation of a subject to have a valid opinion.
(Think democracy.)

Lots of people have opinions on the safety of airplanes, trains, road vehicles, pharmaceuticals etc., all with out knowing the first thing about those subjects. Do they need to shut up too?

Under your premise, if the powers that be said they were going to build a nuclear plant beside your family's home, you and your neighbours opinion would mean nothing.

Show me where I said expert.
I'll wait.



However, pointing out where someone does not know the facts of the current law hardly means I want them to be an 'expert'.

"I appreciate everyone's opinion on things to which they are knowledgeable"
equals
I don't appreciate anyone's opinion on things to which they are not knowledgeable.
and
To be truly knowledgeable on something would make you an expert.

expert
ˈɛkspəːt/Submit
noun
1.a person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area.

You seem to not understanding the positions of adverbs in syntax.  I have underlined it for you.

Either way, those are some pretty big steps you're taking defending a position that is demonstrably false.

You cannot buy a gun at 16 in Texas (the original poster's location and statement).  Only way around it is with written permission of a parent or guardian (which would require them to be present).  The original statement: "It should not be easier to buy a gun than spray paint".  Clarified by the anecdotal statement "I bought a gun at 16 and the laws haven't changed".  To which I posted the legal code that, no, you could not buy a gun at 16 today in Texas, and therefore, it was not "easier to buy a gun than spraypaint".

But sure...  Try to make that out to mean I don't listen to anyone or value their opinion unless they are an expert of firearms law.  Thats TOTALLY what I meant...  (roll eyes)  /s

This is why these conversations never go anywhere.

Still waiting on anyone to discuss anything useful.  Prolly not gonna happen.  :/

I'm just responding to comments and assertions you have made.

It's a forum discussing a hot topic. I can see you are frustrated. But there is no need for sarcasm...

Check out the other thread. I have proposed a starting point for a solution there.
Let me know what you think.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 11:11:50 AM

Quote
If there is no repercussion for having an unregistered gun after registry is required, then there would be no reason to ever register a gun.  Just wait until you get caught, and then have it registered.  This would defeat the whole purpose of a registry.
As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them.  What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork.  I have a problem with that.

The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.


Currently:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right.  Is he a criminal?  Who cares.  Are you a straw purchaser?  Who knows.  Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime?  You don't really know.


With a registry:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else.  To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner.  When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.
- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check.
- This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).
- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.
- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.



Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation.  Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out.  Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.

It's possible to circumvent nearly any law.  I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it.  That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.



I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear.  Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed.  What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.

While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools.  A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 21, 2018, 11:35:41 AM
I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 21, 2018, 12:50:54 PM
As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them.  What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork.  I have a problem with that.
The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.
If the current system were used as intended, it *would* work.  Instead of creating a much more invasive system that will fail for the same reasons, let's fix the one we have.
Quote
Currently:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right.  Is he a criminal?  Who cares.  Are you a straw purchaser?  Who knows.  Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime?  You don't really know.


With a registry:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else.  To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner.  When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.
- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check.
- This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).
- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.
- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.
In order:
1) I assume that since background checks are only not required for private sales, that you're referring to private sales only.  Is that correct? Criminals already obtain 90% (IIRC) of their guns illegally, i.e. stolen or straw purchases, so this really just nibbles around the edges, at least by itself.  I'd be in favor of granting access to NICS, so if I sold a gun, I could make sure the buyer isn't prohibited.
2) Yes, this would aid in tracing a gun's chain of custody.  I read an article that said the FBI gets about 300,000 trace requests per year.  I wonder how many of them would actually result in criminal convictions?
3) There's no need for a registry here.  Get a court hearing to prove the person is a danger, get a court order for him/her to sell or relinquish his guns, search the house after.
4) I have a hard time believing that a lot of stolen/used-in-a-crime firearms are being sold to law-abiding people.  I'm sure there are a *few*, but c'mon.  Besides, why (other than the risk of the police confiscating it as evidence and/or confiscating it to return it to its owner) would I really care?  Heck, I'd *prefer* that type of weapon get back in the hands of a law-abiding citizen!
Quote
Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation.  Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out.  Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.
It's possible to circumvent nearly any law.  I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it.  That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.
True, but that's really apples and oranges.  If you choose not to get car insurance, you're probably not doing so in order to mask a more serious crime.
Quote
I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear.  Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed.  What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.
While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools.  A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining.  As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 01:32:11 PM
As I said earlier, we already have a system that disqualifies certain people from owning firearms, and police can and do confiscate guns from them.  What it sounds like you're proposing is a new system where the police can take your guns, not because of any actual threat to public safety, but because you didn't fill out some paperwork.  I have a problem with that.
The current system intended to disqualify certain people from owning firearms doesn't work.
If the current system were used as intended, it *would* work.  Instead of creating a much more invasive system that will fail for the same reasons, let's fix the one we have.
Quote
Currently:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else without asking anything about the other person, as is your legal right.  Is he a criminal?  Who cares.  Are you a straw purchaser?  Who knows.  Is the weapon stolen, or has it been used in a crime?  You don't really know.


With a registry:
You buy a gun privately.  You sell it privately to someone else.  To transfer ownership, you were registered as the gun owner.  When you sell you change the registry from your name to the person you're selling it to.
- This ensures that everyone who has a gun transferred to them will actually get a background check.
- This makes it impossible to be a straw purchaser and not get caught (the gun will either be registered to you, or the criminal you're trying to sell to).
- If at some point in the future you're diagnosed as a danger to others or you become a criminal law enforcement can take away all of your firearms.
- You know that you're not buying a stolen weapon or a weapon used in a crime when buying privately.
In order:
1) I assume that since background checks are only not required for private sales, that you're referring to private sales only.  Is that correct? Criminals already obtain 90% (IIRC) of their guns illegally, i.e. stolen or straw purchases, so this really just nibbles around the edges, at least by itself.  I'd be in favor of granting access to NICS, so if I sold a gun, I could make sure the buyer isn't prohibited.
2) Yes, this would aid in tracing a gun's chain of custody.  I read an article that said the FBI gets about 300,000 trace requests per year.  I wonder how many of them would actually result in criminal convictions?
3) There's no need for a registry here.  Get a court hearing to prove the person is a danger, get a court order for him/her to sell or relinquish his guns, search the house after.
4) I have a hard time believing that a lot of stolen/used-in-a-crime firearms are being sold to law-abiding people.  I'm sure there are a *few*, but c'mon.  Besides, why (other than the risk of the police confiscating it as evidence and/or confiscating it to return it to its owner) would I really care?  Heck, I'd *prefer* that type of weapon get back in the hands of a law-abiding citizen!

2)  Given that there are an awful lot of problems with the current paper trail, I'd suspect very few:
- It's not easily searchable (by law), which means that more time/effort/resources must be spent to follow it for an investigator.  There are limited resources investigating a crime, when you waste them like this it makes crime fighting less efficient overall.
- Firearms dealers who choose to sell to criminals are also in charge of the records that prove who they're selling to.
- Gun records are kept as paper copies by firearms dealers, and are occasionally subject to being destroyed by flood/fire/etc.  After 20 years, the records are destroyed and the guns become invisible.
- There's no record of any kind and the paper trail completely stops after a private sale

3)  Here's a scenario for you where the current system fails and a registry wouldn't - I'm a bad guy.  I want to shoot up the local school.  I've purchased a couple dozen guns from private sellers.  I keep some of them at the house, and some in a box in the woods.  Police get word of my plans, get a court order for my guns, and search the house.  They find some of my guns and head home happy, job well done.  Of course, I shoot up the school a couple days later . . . because there's no record of what weapons I have already amassed and nobody knew that they should have kept looking.

There are many more scenarios like this one.

4)  Maybe the gun was used a couple weeks ago in an armed robbery, and now the criminals are making it disappear . . . so you're helping them hide evidence of their crime.  Maybe that kind of thing never happens.  The fact of the matter is, you don't know where the weapon comes from because there's no way of knowing.  With a registry there would be.




Quote
Now, if you're looking to track down a straw purchaser via a gun's serial number, I think that's a valid motivation.  Serial numbers aren't hard to file off, however, if someone wants to avoid being found out.  Sure, it's a felony if you're caught, but if you're involved with a straw purchase, it's probably not the worst crime you've committed.
It's possible to circumvent nearly any law.  I can drive my car without insurance and get away with it.  That doesn't mean that insurance shouldn't be legally required to drive a car, or than having these laws are without value.
True, but that's really apples and oranges.  If you choose not to get car insurance, you're probably not doing so in order to mask a more serious crime.

A lot of people who have lost their licences (for say DUIs) will drive without insurance because they know they can't get it.  So yeah, it is being used to mask a serious crime.

Quote
I apologize if my intended meaning was unclear.  Nobody's advocating putting a gun in every classroom, or requiring teachers to be trained and armed.  What I'm in favor of is giving teachers the option, and then making it publicly known that teachers (and staff) may be armed.
While I'm unconvinced that this would have any impact on school shootings, I don't really have a problem with it - provided that accidents with the guns don't ever happen in schools.  A kid who is shot by their teacher accidentally is just as dead as a kid who was shot by their classmate on a rampage.
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining.  As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:

Quote
Quote
4. Gun drawn in public
5. Gun drawn in self defence
6. Irresponsible use of a gun (I.e. waving around a gun at peoples faces in a shooting range)
#4-6 are going to be really hard to track, from a practical perspective, for a couple reasons: 1) there's a lot of those types of events, 2) a lot of them happen with people who wouldn't be allowed to own guns, and 3) law-abiding folk will be afraid to report it because they (right, IMO) fear that they'll lose their ability to own a gun.
 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 01:38:58 PM
Quote
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:


Per your link:  46 accidental shooting deaths this year.  Not 241.
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting)
Keep it honest.

Edit to add:
That puts us on track for 329 accidental shooting deaths in 2018.
Out of 323,100,000.
or 1 -in- 1,000,000.

While it is tragic, why is this statistically relevant?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 01:52:16 PM
And considering this was categorized as a "Mass Shooting", it brings the data into suspicion.

http://krqe.com/2018/02/20/deputy-involved-shooting-in-southwest-albuquerque/ (http://krqe.com/2018/02/20/deputy-involved-shooting-in-southwest-albuquerque/)

Quote
Once deputies arrived at the CNM parking lot, they found out the truck was stolen.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales said when deputies approached the truck, it rammed into one of the deputy’s vehicle and a pursuit ensued.

The suspect led deputies into the Valley Gardens neighborhood near Coors Boulevard and Gun Club Road.

Sheriff Gonzales says deputies fired shots at the 28-year-old man who was in the truck.

The suspect is in critical condition at this time, his name has also not yet been released.

Gun who stole a truck and got shot ≠ mass shooting.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 01:55:25 PM
Quote
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:


Per your link:  46 accidental shooting deaths this year.  Not 241.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting)

Keep it honest.

I appreciate that you've decided to start checking references.  You can rest assured that my comment was honest.

The 241 number is listed as the number of confirmed 'unintentional shootings' from the main page of the website.  It's the last number given in the box on the left.  (Try ctrl-f and then type "unintentional" and you'll see it.)  This is a combination of people injured by accident and killed by accident.  You appear to only be counting the dead.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that my child neither die nor be shot because an idiot with a gun in the classroom made a mistake.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 02:01:29 PM
And considering this was categorized as a "Mass Shooting", it brings the data into suspicion.

http://krqe.com/2018/02/20/deputy-involved-shooting-in-southwest-albuquerque/ (http://krqe.com/2018/02/20/deputy-involved-shooting-in-southwest-albuquerque/)

Quote
Once deputies arrived at the CNM parking lot, they found out the truck was stolen.

Bernalillo County Sheriff Manuel Gonzales said when deputies approached the truck, it rammed into one of the deputy’s vehicle and a pursuit ensued.

The suspect led deputies into the Valley Gardens neighborhood near Coors Boulevard and Gun Club Road.

Sheriff Gonzales says deputies fired shots at the 28-year-old man who was in the truck.

The suspect is in critical condition at this time, his name has also not yet been released.

Gun who stole a truck and got shot ≠ mass shooting.

The way that the numbers are tallied is laid out quite clearly:  http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology)

They consider a mass shooting an event where four or more people were shot.  This is consistent with the FBI "mass murder" definition, 4 or more people killed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 21, 2018, 02:17:41 PM
Quote
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:


Per your link:  46 accidental shooting deaths this year.  Not 241.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting)

Keep it honest.

I appreciate that you've decided to start checking references.  You can rest assured that my comment was honest.

The 241 number is listed as the number of confirmed 'unintentional shootings' from the main page of the website.  It's the last number given in the box on the left.  (Try ctrl-f and then type "unintentional" and you'll see it.)  This is a combination of people injured by accident and killed by accident.  You appear to only be counting the dead.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that my child neither die nor be shot because an idiot with a gun in the classroom made a mistake.

Except you bolded his statement regarding shooting deaths being around 500 per year and subsequently listed your number of "241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month" in direct contradiction with the numbers he posted.

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.


Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

(https://media.makeameme.org/created/peace.jpg)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 21, 2018, 02:25:10 PM
^^ This.
This is why you are a part of the problem and not the solution.

"If no one will talk about the solution that I prefer, then I am taking my ball and going home" [stomps off]

B' bye
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 21, 2018, 02:33:53 PM
^^ This.
This is why you are a part of the problem and not the solution.

"If no one will talk about the solution that I prefer, then I am taking my ball and going home" [stomps off]

B' bye

Also relevant:

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 21, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
Quote
Some states are already doing it with no issue.  Part of the difficulty here really is that mass school shootings are (thankfully!) so rare that it's really hard to apply statistics in a meaningful way, in order to draw conclusions.  Accidental shooting deaths are a also very small number, around 500 per year, and appear to be declining. As concerns teachers carrying concealed, training and proper equipment will solve that issue anyway.

There have been 241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/ (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)).  Of course, that doesn't count the large numbers that are not reported, which I think you were mentioning earlier:


Per your link:  46 accidental shooting deaths this year.  Not 241.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/accidental-shooting)

Keep it honest.

I appreciate that you've decided to start checking references.  You can rest assured that my comment was honest.

The 241 number is listed as the number of confirmed 'unintentional shootings' from the main page of the website.  It's the last number given in the box on the left.  (Try ctrl-f and then type "unintentional" and you'll see it.)  This is a combination of people injured by accident and killed by accident.  You appear to only be counting the dead.

I don't know about you, but I'd prefer that my child neither die nor be shot because an idiot with a gun in the classroom made a mistake.

Except you bolded his statement regarding shooting deaths being around 500 per year and subsequently listed your number of "241 accidental shootings this year and we're not even out of the second month" in direct contradiction with the numbers he posted.

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.


Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

We were discussing the idea of arming teachers.  zolotiyeruki mentioned that he thought there weren't many accidental gun deaths each year.  I mentioned in response that there were a lot of accidents involving guns already this year.  At this point you jumped in and accused me of being dishonest.  So I took the time to show you where the number I quoted came from and explained why you were seeing a different number (you were looking at different data).  Then you accused the website that I was getting information from of being dishonest.  I showed you their methodology.  Now you're accusing me of being dishonest again because you didn't bother to read the exchange you started commenting on.

This is all coming after you posted #268 in this thread - a collection of outright fabricated quotations, and quotes taken out of context presented as fact by you.

I am glad that you've decided that telling the truth is important to you.  I haven't been lying though.  Zolotiyeruki and I weren't even discussing confiscating guns, we were discussing the merits of arming teachers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 21, 2018, 03:30:09 PM
Umm . . . if you read a bit further on in the link you posted:

Quote
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.

I suspect that what happened was the guy's mom told the gun store it was cool - which then means there's no barrier to selling (or giving) a minor a gun.

Still not "easier than spray paint".

Move past the straw man.  Get on to real solutions.

Sorry, it wasn't in Texas, my apologies.  I'm in Texas now but I wasn't twenty years ago.

Regardless, I'll put down my straw man about the spray paint.  Clearly there IS no store with a more restrictive policy regarding the sale of spray paint than firearms.  No store ever recognized there was a potential harm in selling spray paint to minors and enacted, on their own, independent of congressional action, a set of rules designed to limit the distribution to potentially irresponsible consumers.  That never happened, you are correct.  It is a straw man fallacy to suggest that a retailer of a product could decide not to sell it to a particular non-protected group without needing the federal or state government to forbid them from selling it.  That would almost be like personal responsibility.  That would almost be like a local solution.  No reason to bring it up here at all.  I apologize.

Unfortunately, I don't really understand your statement regarding background checks.

I suppose there's someone out there that believes the minimal requirement for a background check that was so effective it allowed an asshole with known mental issues who had made violent threats legally purchase a weapon he'd use to slaughter little girls and teachers...

Someone who believes that check requirement's failure is evidence that no such check could work?  Is that what you were saying?  Or someone who's saying that check does work and there will be those who slip through the cracks?

I don't really follow what you were saying.

Do you get what I'm saying?  If gun advocates have a solution that will stop this from happening lets hear it?  Because where I'm at, I've heard the whinging for decades about how it can't be stopped without trampling the rights of legal owners and I'm sorta like...fuck it...lets change the constitution and trample those rights.  I no longer give a shit about your rights, you've had twenty years to fix this at least and near as I can tell you've done fuck all, so, yea, lets take all your guns away.  All I hear whenever the subject comes up is what's wrong with everyone else's ideas.  Nothing is not an acceptable path forward.

I'm prepared to let the gun rights activists lead us to progress, that's cool.  I don't understand guns?  Sure, fuck it, lets go with that.  You fix it then.  But if it doesn't work we're taking away your guns.  Clock is ticking.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 21, 2018, 03:43:18 PM
Lot's of people have talked about the influence of the NRA.  This gives you an idea of their reach.  And if you think (like I do) that money isn't given without something expected in return, then maybe you'll feel better giving a few people a call and tell them what you think.  I've been feeling GREAT all day...



NAME                          NRA FUNDING*                 PHONE NUMBER
 
ALABAMA
REP. ROBERT ADERHOLT      $49,928           (202) 225-4876
REP. MO BROOKS                  $5,000             (202) 225-4801
REP. BRADLEY BYRNE           $8,237             (202) 225-4931
REP. GARY PALMER              $5,000             (202) 225-4921
REP. MARTHA ROBY              $6,000             (202) 225-2901
REP. MIKE ROGERS               $33,079           (202) 225-3261
SEN. RICHARD SHELBY         $259,464         (202) 224-5744
 
ALASKA
REP. DON YOUNG                  $246,285         (202) 225-5765
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI         $141,536         (202) 224-6665
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN              $565                (202) 224-3004
 
ARIZONA
REP. ANDY BIGGS                  $2,000             (202) 225-2635
REP. PAUL GOSAR                 $12,591           (202) 225-2315
REP. MARTHA MCSALLY        $68,234           (202) 225-2542
REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT     77,687             (202) 225-2190
SEN. JEFF FLAKE                   $365,302         (202) 224-4521
 
ARKANSAS
REP. RICK CRAWFORD          $8,977             (202) 225-4076
REP. FRENCH HILL                 $543,612         (202) 225-2506
REP. BRUCE WESTERMAN     $9,504             (202) 225-3772
REP. STEVE WOMACK           $9,500             (202) 225-4301
SEN. JOHN BOOZMAN            $82,352           (202) 224-4843
SEN. TOM COTTON                $1,968,714       (202) 224-2353
 
CALIFORNIA
REP. KEN CALVERT               $61,125           (202) 225-1986
REP. PAUL COOK                   $8,000             (202) 225-5861
REP. JEFF DENHAM               $46,861           (202) 225-4540
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER         $13,000           (202) 225-5672
REP. DARRELL ISSA               $37,636           (202) 225-3906
REP. STEVE KNIGHT              $13,487           (202) 225-1956
REP. DOUG LAMALFA            $9,590             (202) 225-3076
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY         $33,940           (202) 225-2915
REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK        $52,842           (202) 225-2511
REP. DEVIN NUNES                $23,030           (202) 225-2523
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER   $34,817           (202) 225-2415
REP. ED ROYCE                     $38,800           (202) 225-4111
REP. DAVID VALADAO           $51,428           (202) 225-4695
REP. MIMI WALTERS              $4,000             (202) 225-5611
 
COLORADO
REP. KENNETH BUCK            $800,544         (202) 225-4676
REP. MIKE COFFMAN             $112,054         (202) 225-7882
REP. DOUGLAS LAMBORN     $32,560           (202) 225-4422
REP. SCOTT TIPTON              $105,214         (202) 225-4761
SEN. CORY GARDNER           $1,231,079       (202) 224-5941
 
FLORIDA
REP. GUS BILIRAKIS              $16,450           (202) 225-5755
REP. VERNON BUCHANAN     $19,940           (202) 225-5015
REP. RON DESANTIS              $5,000             (202) 225-2706
REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART     $32,002           (202) 225-4211
REP. NEAL DUNN                   $5,199             (202) 225-5235
REP. MATT GAETZ                 $1,000             (202) 225-4136
REP. BRIAN MAST                  $32,519           (202) 225-3026
REP. BILL POSEY                   $15,936           (202) 225-3671
REP. TOM ROONEY                $10,500           (202) 225-5792
REP. DENNIS ROSS                19,375             (202) 225-1252
REP. JOHN RUTHERFORD     $1,000             (202) 225-2501
REP. DANIEL WEBSTER         $37,788           (202) 225-1002
REP. TED YOHO                     $4,092             (202) 225-5744
SEN. MARCO RUBIO               $1,012,980       (202) 224-3041
 
 
GEORGIA
REP. RICHARD ALLEN            $4,000             (202) 225-2823
REP. SANFORD BISHOP         $49,496           (202) 225-3631
REP. BUDDY CARTER            $4,352            (202) 225-5831
REP. DOUG COLLINS             $11,140           (202) 225-9893
REP. DREW FERGUSON         $3,000             (202) 225-5901
REP. TOM GRAVES                $13,650           (202) 225-5211
REP. KAREN HANDEL             $24,997           (202) 225-4501
REP. JODY HICE                     $4,000             (202) 225-4101
REP. BARRY LOUDERMILK    $5,000             (202) 225-2931
REP. AUSTIN SCOTT              $7,500             (202) 225-6531
REP. ROB WOODALL              $2,000             (202) 225-4272
SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON         $130,809         (202) 224-3643
SEN. DAVID PERDUE              $355,854         (202) 224-3521
 
IDAHO
REP. RAUL LABRADOR          $14,813           (202) 225-6611
REP. MIKE SIMPSON              $385,731         (202) 225-5531
SEN. MIKE CRAPO                  $59,989           (202) 224-6142
SEN. JAMES RISCH                 $18,850           (202) 224-2752
 
ILLINOIS
REP. MIKE BOST                    $8,760             (202) 225-5661
REP. RODNEY DAVIS             $45,269           (202) 225-2371
REP. RANDY HULTGREN        $16,254           (202) 225-2976
REP. ADAM KINZINGER          $6,030             (202) 225-3635
REP. DARIN LAHOOD             $17,990           (202) 225-6201
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS             $59,304           (202) 225-5271
 
INDIANA
REP. JIM BANKS                     $2,000             (202) 225-4436
REP. SUSAN BROOKS            $3,000             (202) 225-2276
REP. LARRY BUCSHON          $11,379           (202) 225-4636
REP. TREY HOLLINGSWORTH $4,865 (202) 225-5315
REP. LUKE MESSER               $8,000             (202) 225-3021
REP. TODD ROKITA                $7,000             (202) 225-5037
REP. JACKIE WALORSKI        $20,572           (202) 225-3915
SEN. TODD YOUNG                $450,095         (202) 224-5623
 
 
 
IOWA
REP. ROD BLUM                     $45,279           (202) 225-2911
REP. STEVEN KING                $63,404           (202) 225-4426
REP. DAVID YOUNG               $384,121         (202) 225-5476
SEN. JONI ERNST                   $331,984         (202) 224-3254
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY        $235,907         (202) 224-3744
 
KANSAS
REP. RON ESTES                   $6,979             (202) 225-6216
REP. LYNN JENKINS               $8,000             (202) 225-6601
REP. ROGER MARSHALL       $3,500             (202) 225-2715
REP. KEVIN YODER                $52,938           (202) 225-2865
SEN. JERRY MORAN              $34,149           (202) 224-6521
SEN. PAT ROBERTS               $707,084         (202) 224-4774
 
KENTUCKY
REP. ANDY BARR                   $11,274           (202) 225-4706
REP. JAMES COMER              $11,192           (202) 225-3115
REP. BRETT GUTHRIE            $10,500           (202) 225-3501
REP. THOMAS MASSIE           $2,000             (202) 225-3465
REP. HAL ROGERS                 $60,429           (202) 225-4601
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL      $820,375         (202) 224-2541
SEN. RAND PAUL                   $104,456         (202) 224-4343
 
LOUISIANA
REP. RALPH ABRAHAM          $4,974             (202) 225-8490
REP. GARRET GRAVES          $5,900             202) 225-3901
REP. CLAY HIGGINS               $3,500             (202) 225-2031
REP. MIKE JOHNSON             $7,223             (202) 225-2777
REP. STEVE SCALISE             $36,250           (202) 225-3015
SEN. BILL CASSIDY                $419,651         (202) 224-5824
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY            $215,788         (202) 224-4623
 
MAINE
REP. BRUCE POLIQUIN          $135,636         (202) 225-6306
 
MARYLAND
REP. ANDY HARRIS                $25,447           (202) 225-5311
 
MICHIGAN
REP. JUSTIN AMASH              $1,000             (202) 225-3831
REP. JOHN BERGMAN            $6,450             (202) 225-4735
REP. MIKE BISHOP                 $10,082           (202) 225-4872
REP. BILL HUIZENGA              $11,650           (202) 225-4401
REP. PAUL MITCHELL            $3,000             (202) 225-2106
REP. JOHN MOOLENAAR       $10,554           (202) 225-3561
REP. DAVE TROTT                 $5,435             (202) 225-8171
REP. FRED UPTON                 $12,106           (202) 225-3761
REP. TIM WALBERG               $96,138           (202) 225-6276
 
MINNESOTA
REP. TOM EMMER                  $3,000             (202) 225-2331
REP. JASON LEWIS                $7,619             (202) 225-2271
REP. ERIK PAULSEN              $31,613           (202) 225-2871
REP. COLLIN PETERSON       $46,759           (202) 225-2165
 
MISSISSIPPI
REP. GREGG HARPER           $8,150             (202) 225-5031
REP. TRENT KELLY                $2,000             (202) 225-4306
REP. STEVEN PALAZZO         $7,250             (202) 225-5772
SEN. THAD COCHRAN            $65,833           (202) 224-5054
SEN. ROGER WICKER            $89,406           (202) 224-6253
 
MISSOURI
REP. SAM GRAVES                $97,394           (202) 225-7041
REP. VICKY HARTZLER          $10,359           (202) 225-2876
REP. BILLY LONG                   $10,500           (202) 225-6536
REP. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER $39,375           (202) 225-2956
REP. JASON SMITH                $6,500             (202) 225-4404
REP. ANN WAGNER                $8,187             (202) 225-1621
SEN. ROY BLUNT                   $1,488,706       (202) 224-5721
 
MONTANA
REP. GREG GIANFORTE        $73,009           (202) 225-3211
SEN. STEVE DAINES              $85,432           (202) 224-2651
 
NEBRASKA
REP. DONALD JOHN BACON   $18,328           (202) 225-4155
REP. JEFF FORTENBERRY     $21,628           (202) 225-4806
REP. ADRIAN SMITH               $16,800           (202) 225-6435
SEN. DEB FISCHER                $14,309           (202) 224-6551
SEN. BEN SASSE                    $68,623           (202) 224-4224
 
NEVADA
REP. MARK AMODEI               $18,640           (202) 225-6155
SEN. DEAN HELLER               $65,022           (202) 224-6244
 
NEW JERSEY
REP. FRANK LOBIONDO         $1,536             (202) 225-6572
REP. THOMAS MACARTHUR   $7,280             (202) 225-4765
 
NEW MEXICO
REP. STEVE PEARCE             $88,314           (202) 225-2365
 
NEW YORK
REP. CHRIS COLLINS             $5,000             (202) 225-5265
REP. JOHN FASO                   $44,939           (202) 225-5614
REP. JOHN KATKO                 $46,001           (202) 225-3701
REP. TOM REED                     $22,162           (202) 225-3161
REP. ELISE STEFANIK            $7,179             (202) 225-4611
REP. CLAUDIA TENNEY          $46,529           (202) 225-3665
REP. LEE ZELDIN                   $56,281           (202) 225-3826
 
NORTH CAROLINA
REP. TED BUDD                     $4,000             (202) 225-4531
REP. VIRGINIA FOXX              $22,078           (202) 225-2071
REP. GEORGE HOLDING        $8,797             (202) 225-3032
REP. RICHARD HUDSON        $18,926           (202) 225-3715
REP. WALTER JONES JR.       $56,655           (202) 225-3415
REP. PATRICK MCHENRY      $43,070           (202) 225-2576
REP. MARK MEADOWS          $4,150             (202) 225-6401
REP. ROBERT PITTENGER     $12,113           (202) 225-1976
REP. DAVID ROUZER             $2,427             (202) 225-2731
REP. MARK WALKER              $3,000             (202) 225-3065
SEN. RICHARD BURR             $1,399,698       (202) 224-3154
SEN. THOM TILLIS                  $1,971,554       (202) 224-6342
 
NORTH DAKOTA
REP. KEVIN CRAMER             $12,711           (202) 225-2611
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN              $21,050           (202) 224-2551
 
OHIO
REP. STEVE CHABOT             $113,689         (202) 225-2216
REP. WARREN DAVIDSON     $2,000             (202) 225-6205
REP. BOB GIBBS                    $10,442           (202) 225-6265
REP. BILL JOHNSON              $58,985           (202) 225-5705
REP. JIM JORDAN                  $15,878           (202) 225-2676
REP. DAVID JOYCE                $47,840           (202) 225-5731
REP. ROBERT LATTA             $42,423           (202) 225-6405
REP. JIM RENACCI                 $45,656           (202) 225-3876
REP. STEVE STIVERS            $70,402           (202) 225-2015
REP. MICHAEL TURNER         $22,866           (202) 225-6465
REP. BRAD WENSTRUP         $7,000             (202) 225-3164
SEN. ROB PORTMAN              $1,472,789       (202) 224-3353
 
OKLAHOMA
REP. JAMES BRIDENSTINE    $3,000             (202) 225-2211
REP. TOM COLE                     $26,521           (202) 225-6165
REP. FRANK LUCAS               $52,121           (202) 225-5565
REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN    $8,311             (202) 225-2701
REP. STEVE RUSSELL            $4,000             (202) 225-2132
SEN. JAMES INHOFE             $66,758           (202) 224-4721
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD        $18,955           (202) 224-5754
 
OREGON
REP. GREG WALDEN              $45,746           (202) 225-6730
 
PENNSYLVANIA
REP. LOU BARLETTA              $7,500             (202) 225-6511
REP. MIKE KELLY                   $32,109           (202) 225-5406
REP. TOM MARINO                 $8,000             (202) 225-3731
REP. SCOTT PERRY               $8,500             (202) 225-5836
REP. KEITH ROTHFUS           $5,500             (202) 225-2065
REP. BILL SHUSTER               $82,150           (202) 225-2431
REP. LLOYD SMUCKER          $222,736         (202) 225-2411
REP. GLENN THOMPSON       $10,500           (202) 225-5121
 
SOUTH CAROLINA
REP. JEFF DUNCAN               $12,500           (202) 225-5301
REP. TREY GOWDY                $7,150             (202) 225-6030
REP. RALPH NORMAN            $10,029           (202) 225-5501
REP. TOM RICE                      $6,000             (202) 225-9895
REP. MARK SANFORD            $12,290           (202) 225-3176
REP. JOE WILSON                  $20,271           (202) 225-2452
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM         $50,946           (202) 224-5972
SEN. TIM SCOTT                     $18,513           (202) 224-6121
 
 
SOUTH DAKOTA
REP. KRISTI NOEM                 $7,769             (202) 225-2801
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS               $89,433           (202) 224-5842
SEN. JOHN THUNE                 $632,486         (202) 224-2321
 
TENNESSEE
REP. DIANE BLACK                $22,991           (202) 225-4231
REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN    $32,951           (202) 225-2811
REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS      $9,511             (202) 225-6831
REP. JOHN DUNCAN JR.        $24,201           (202) 225-5435
REP. CHUCK FLEISCHMANN   $8,922             (202) 225-3271
REP. DAVID KUSTOFF            $3,000             (202) 225-4714
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER      $25,293           (202) 224-4944
SEN. BOB CORKER                $79,203           (202) 224-3344
 
TEXAS
REP. JODEY ARRINGTON      $2,000             (202) 225-4005
REP. BRIAN BABIN                 $7,500             (202) 225-1555
REP. JOE BARTON                 $63,912           (202) 225-2002
REP. KEVIN BRADY                $30,005           (202) 225-4901
REP. MICHAEL BURGESS      $17,214           (202) 225-7772
REP. JOHN CARTER               $27,014           (202) 225-3864
REP. MIKE CONAWAY            $16,064           (202) 225-3605
REP. HENRY CUELLAR           $26,344           (202) 225-1640
REP. JOHN CULBERSON        $41,389           (202) 225-2571
REP. BLAKE FARENTHOLD    $9,500             (202) 225-7742
REP. BILL FLORES                 $12,000           (202) 225-6105
REP. LOUIS GOHMERT JR.     $13,450           (202) 225-3035
REP. KAY GRANGER              $19,014           (202) 225-5071
REP. JEB HENSARLING          $29,539           (202) 225-3484
REP. WILL HURD                    $27,771           (202) 225-4511
REP. SAM JOHNSON              $35,014           (202) 225-4201
REP. KENNY MARCHANT       $14,814           (202) 225-6605
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL         $28,916           (202) 225-2401
REP. PETE OLSON                 $17,950           (202) 225-5951
REP. TED POE                        $15,500           (202) 225-6565
REP. JOHN LEE RATCLIFFE    $4,500             (202) 225-6673
REP. PETE SESSIONS            $108,111         (202) 225-2231
REP. LAMAR SMITH                $41,014           (202) 225-4236
REP. MAC THORNBERRY       $31,514           (202) 225-3706
REP. RANDY WEBER              $2,000             (202) 225-2831
REP. ROGER WILLIAMS         $6,500             (202) 225-9896
SEN. JOHN CORNYN              $71,995           (202) 224-2934
SEN. TED CRUZ                      $77,450           (202) 224-5922
 
UTAH
REP. ROB BISHOP                  $24,302           (202) 225-0453
REP. JOHN CURTIS                $1,000             (202) 225-7751
REP. MIA LOVE                       $4,013             (202) 225-3011
REP. CHRIS STEWART           $8,000             (202) 225-9730
SEN. ORRIN HATCH               $140,748         (202) 224-5251
SEN. MIKE LEE                       $8,291             (202) 224-5444
 
VIRGINIA
REP. DAVE BRAT                    $4,000             (202) 225-2815
REP. BARBARA COMSTOCK   $124,301         (202) 225-5136
REP. TOM GARRETT              $7,174             (202) 225-4711
REP. BOB GOODLATTE          $136,424         (202) 225-5431
REP. MORGAN GRIFFITH       $11,352           (202) 225-3861
REP. SCOTT TAYLOR             $5,290             (202) 225-4215
REP. ROB WITTMAN               $25,221           (202) 225-4261
 
WASHINGTON
REP. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER $95,298      (202) 225-3536
REP. DAN NEWHOUSE           $4,000             (202) 225-5816
REP. DAVE REICHERT             $18,436          (202) 225-7761
REP. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS $26,766 (202) 225-2006
 
WEST VIRGINIA
REP. EVAN JENKINS              $4,000             (202) 225-3452
REP. DAVID MCKINLEY          $10,500           (202) 225-4172
REP. ALEX MOONEY              $15,016           (202) 225-2711
SEN. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO $112,992      (202) 224-6472
 
WISCONSIN
REP. SEAN DUFFY                 $54,514           (202) 225-3365
REP. MIKE GALLAGHER         $40,262           (202) 225-5665
REP. GLENN GROTHMAN       $4,000             (202) 225-2476
REP. RON KIND                      $10,550           (202) 225-5506
REP. PAUL RYAN                    $61,401           (202) 225-3031
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR. $20,468   (202) 225-5101
SEN. RON JOHNSON              $1,015,173       (202) 224-5323
 
WYOMING
REP. LIZ CHENEY                   $1,000            (202) 225-2311
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO          $21,489           (202) 224-6441
SEN. MIKE ENZI                      $24,722            (202) 22
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 21, 2018, 04:02:44 PM
I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.

Neither cars nor Sudafed are specifically called out in the Constitution.  And you don't have to register a car unless you want to drive it on taxpayer funded roads... no clear nexus to gun registration there.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on February 21, 2018, 04:57:58 PM
I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.

Neither cars nor Sudafed are specifically called out in the Constitution.  And you don't have to register a car unless you want to drive it on taxpayer funded roads... no clear nexus to gun registration there.

But you have to register to exercise your constitutional right to vote.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 21, 2018, 07:32:07 PM
Do you get what I'm saying?  If gun advocates have a solution that will stop this from happening lets hear it?  Because where I'm at, I've heard the whinging for decades about how it can't be stopped without trampling the rights of legal owners and I'm sorta like...fuck it...lets change the constitution and trample those rights.  I no longer give a shit about your rights, you've had twenty years to fix this at least and near as I can tell you've done fuck all, so, yea, lets take all your guns away.  All I hear whenever the subject comes up is what's wrong with everyone else's ideas.  Nothing is not an acceptable path forward.

I'm prepared to let the gun rights activists lead us to progress, that's cool.  I don't understand guns?  Sure, fuck it, lets go with that.  You fix it then.  But if it doesn't work we're taking away your guns.  Clock is ticking.

Yeah, pretty much this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 21, 2018, 08:37:33 PM
I don't understand why it's considered unreasonable to have a gun registry. We register cars. Hell, I can't even buy psuedophedrine anymore without being logged into a system to make sure I'm not buying too much of it. I was barred from buying one box of adult Sudafed and one bottle of children's once in VA when we were all miserably sick from a cold because that was just too much to buy at one time (the only time that YEAR I'd tried to buy it, mind you). Yet, deadly weapon? No registry, no limits. This seems entirely unreasonable to me on so many levels.

Neither cars nor Sudafed are specifically called out in the Constitution.  And you don't have to register a car unless you want to drive it on taxpayer funded roads... no clear nexus to gun registration there.

Okay, this wins for dumbest argument against any kind of gun law I've heard yet. Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it proclaim all guns should be available for all with no registry period. It actually says something about militias. I don't see any of you forming militias. Pretty sure that Supreme Court decision also said that while the right to have a gun is protected, it does not mean without limits.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 21, 2018, 08:44:59 PM
Do you get what I'm saying?  If gun advocates have a solution that will stop this from happening lets hear it?  Because where I'm at, I've heard the whinging for decades about how it can't be stopped without trampling the rights of legal owners and I'm sorta like...fuck it...lets change the constitution and trample those rights.  I no longer give a shit about your rights, you've had twenty years to fix this at least and near as I can tell you've done fuck all, so, yea, lets take all your guns away.  All I hear whenever the subject comes up is what's wrong with everyone else's ideas.  Nothing is not an acceptable path forward.

I'm prepared to let the gun rights activists lead us to progress, that's cool.  I don't understand guns?  Sure, fuck it, lets go with that.  You fix it then.  But if it doesn't work we're taking away your guns.  Clock is ticking.

Yeah, pretty much this.

Yes, yes, yes!!! I've never been against guns, and we've even come close to buying one. My husband is military and well trained. We ultimately decided that with young kids in the house, it was too risky for now. I'm at the point, though, that I'm so sick of hearing "nothing works, so let's not try at all so my life isn't impacted (fuck yours and everyone else)" that I am totally down with a ban at this point. Don't care in the least. So you guys need to move your asses and change SOMETHING if you care about your arsenals.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on February 21, 2018, 10:26:43 PM
None of our enthusiastic gun supporters has any thoughts on why we can't have a national gun registry if it's OK to keep a registry of voters?

Has there been any chatter about the Florida gag law (NRA-supported) banning doctors from asking about guns that was in effect until very recently? I know that if I were a Florida voter, I'd be pretty interested to know which of my representatives voted to ban doctors, like the ones treating the shooter, from asking about guns in the home. 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/155/Vote/HouseVote_h0155c2292.PDF

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/155/Vote/SenateVote_h0155c2004.PDF
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 06:20:49 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 22, 2018, 06:36:40 AM
Maybe we need to add an Amendment extending due process rules to non-government entities. Thus you would have a Constitutional right to due process before being deprived of your life by anyone, not just government. Yes, I realize homicide is generally illegal, but it's not in the Constitution. Once human life and guns are on equal Constitutional footing, then we can have a debate about rules.

/sortofsarcasticbutnotreally
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on February 22, 2018, 07:14:02 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2018, 07:56:29 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 08:12:01 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.

I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.

I tried to lay it out in the comment you quoted, but obviously didn't do a good job.  Let me try to break it down again.  Basically, we have three variables:
Kms = Kids currently killed/hurt in mass shootings
Ka = Kids killed/hurt in increased firearms accidents at school after arming teachers
Kpat = Kids prevented from being killed/hurt by arming teachers


The assumptions being made when advocating for guns in the classroom:
Kms > Ka: There are more kids killed/injured in mass shootings than would be killed/injured by introducing guns into the classroom
Kpat > 0 : Arming teachers will actually reduce the number of kids killed/injured in mass shootings
Kms - Kpat < Ka : The number of deaths/injuries prevented by arming teachers will outweigh the number of deaths/injuries introduced by arming teachers.

We know that:
Ka > 0 : Currently teachers are not allowed to have guns, so there is no chance for gun accidents to happen.  In the general population, gun accidents do happen (although not at high percentages).  It is reasonable to infer that gun accidents will happen at a non-zero rate after introducing guns into the classroom.


Nobody has given evidence beyond a gut feeling that any of advocacy assumptions are true.  We can reasonably infer that gun accidents will happen because people make mistakes.  Therefore implementing this plan carries greater risk than many of the other ideas being discussed (that do not include an increased threat to children).

There are additionally a number of other potential issues to consider:
- Will young black children be shot more often by teachers with guns in the same way that black men are shot more often by police?
- Will carrying in the class disproportionately negatively impact those who live in poor neighbourhoods . . . even though school shootings happen across income ranges?
- Will the climate of increasing weaponization in classroom setting actually instigate increased school shootings?
- Will enough teachers choose to carry to make a difference anyway?


For the record, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea  . . . but I would prefer at least to have data showing that there is value in the suggestion before risking kids lives.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 22, 2018, 08:15:02 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 08:21:52 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 08:32:19 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.

I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.

I tried to lay it out in the comment you quoted, but obviously didn't do a good job.  Let me try to break it down again.  Basically, we have three variables:
Kms = Kids currently killed/hurt in mass shootings
Ka = Kids killed/hurt in increased firearms accidents at school after arming teachers
Kpat = Kids prevented from being killed/hurt by arming teachers


The assumptions being made when advocating for guns in the classroom:
Kms > Ka: There are more kids killed/injured in mass shootings than would be killed/injured by introducing guns into the classroom
Kpat > 0 : Arming teachers will actually reduce the number of kids killed/injured in mass shootings
Kms - Kpat < Ka : The number of deaths/injuries prevented by arming teachers will outweigh the number of deaths/injuries introduced by arming teachers.

We know that:
Ka > 0 : Currently teachers are not allowed to have guns, so there is no chance for gun accidents to happen.  In the general population, gun accidents do happen (although not at high percentages).  It is reasonable to infer that gun accidents will happen at a non-zero rate after introducing guns into the classroom.


Nobody has given evidence beyond a gut feeling that any of advocacy assumptions are true.  We can reasonably infer that gun accidents will happen because people make mistakes.  Therefore implementing this plan carries greater risk than many of the other ideas being discussed (that do not include an increased threat to children).

There are additionally a number of other potential issues to consider:
- Will young black children be shot more often by teachers with guns in the same way that black men are shot more often by police?
- Will carrying in the class disproportionately negatively impact those who live in poor neighbourhoods . . . even though school shootings happen across income ranges?
- Will the climate of increasing weaponization in classroom setting actually instigate increased school shootings?
- Will enough teachers choose to carry to make a difference anyway?


For the record, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea  . . . but I would prefer at least to have data showing that there is value in the suggestion before risking kids lives.

That seems like a reasonable position.  The question to me seems to be are we prepared to accept an occasional (unknown number) of AD's in exchange for a possible (unknown number) of reduced mass killings.

I submit that as a society we (The US) already have accepted the risk/reward of citizens carrying to defend themselves.  The only question is do we continue that protection to schools.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on February 22, 2018, 08:43:22 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2018, 08:45:29 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

Ah, “hysterical.” That age-old dog-whistle word.

Can you please explain the literal definition of hysteria, and then cite where the author (female, of course) exhibits that behavior?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 22, 2018, 08:47:56 AM
Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

We've kind of let the assertion that schools are "soft targets" fly by without any further examination.

I think it's a little bit misleading in the sense that people who attack schools do not do so because it's easier than other options (typical building access protocols make it harder). It ignores the fact that the attackers often have a kind of connection to the school, and target it for psychosocial reasons rather than being gun-free zones. School shootings are unlike like the Aurora, CO or Las Vegas attacks, where the attacker was seeking out places where it would be easy to cause a high number of casualties. Also worth noting that in both of those attacks, concealed carry holders failed to neutralize the attacker. Police officials often criticize proposals like this because they don't want to walk into a firefight not knowing who's trying to defend themselves or others, and who's trying to kill lots of innocent people.

We can debate whether additional barriers to school shootings would shift the attacks to other venues (malls, movies theaters, concerts, etc.). I don't really know one way or the other. I think that would be equally bad, and perhaps worse from a casualty standpoint because of weaker responses for random strangers in a place where they don't spend half their time. At least at school, the victims are familiar with their surroundings, and most schools drill for the situation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 09:01:26 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but can we please put the fallacy regarding domestic violence one to bed:

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

It's illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or in some cases merely under a restraining order to purchase or possess a firearm.

People with patterns of abusive and violent behavior should not have access to guns.  I'm not sure what that's referring to unless it's a continuation of the fallacy that people convicted of domestic violence can legally purchase or possess firearms.  Maybe you're referring to the FBI in this case that was criminally negligent (IMO) of failing to investigate the shooter, in that we would be in agreement.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 22, 2018, 09:02:37 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.
I don't entirely agree with the article but there's nothing hysterical about the author's point of view or tone. She speaks with the assumption that teacher's would be required or encouraged to carry while some people are only suggesting it as an option but if that's what she is arguing against I think she made her point clearly.

I actually expected more emotion and imagery when I clicked on the article because of your description and the fact that articles like that do exist, but this was not one of them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on February 22, 2018, 09:09:44 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but can we please put the fallacy regarding domestic violence one to bed:

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

It's illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or in some cases merely under a restraining order to purchase or possess a firearm.

People with patterns of abusive and violent behavior should not have access to guns.  I'm not sure what that's referring to unless it's a continuation of the fallacy that people convicted of domestic violence can legally purchase or possess firearms.  Maybe you're referring to the FBI in this case that was criminally negligent (IMO) of failing to investigate the shooter, in that we would be in agreement.

Well the system barring them from ownership doesn't seem to be working very well:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612410/domestic-gun-violence-mass-shootings
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html
The background check system needs to be more robust and include all reported incidents, and needs to apply to all transfers of guns, including private sales, to be effective.
And yes, the FBI probably should have done a better job preventing the latest shooter from getting a gun, but I also brought up the fact that an 18 year old is allowed to buy a gun but not allowed to buy a drink, and that's fucked up.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 09:14:55 AM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/cnn-town-hall-full-video-transcript/index.html

These kids are so damn inspiring.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 09:30:07 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but can we please put the fallacy regarding domestic violence one to bed:

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

It's illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or in some cases merely under a restraining order to purchase or possess a firearm.

People with patterns of abusive and violent behavior should not have access to guns.  I'm not sure what that's referring to unless it's a continuation of the fallacy that people convicted of domestic violence can legally purchase or possess firearms.  Maybe you're referring to the FBI in this case that was criminally negligent (IMO) of failing to investigate the shooter, in that we would be in agreement.

Well the system barring them from ownership doesn't seem to be working very well:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612410/domestic-gun-violence-mass-shootings
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html
The background check system needs to be more robust and include all reported incidents, and needs to apply to all transfers of guns, including private sales, to be effective.
And yes, the FBI probably should have done a better job preventing the latest shooter from getting a gun, but I also brought up the fact that an 18 year old is allowed to buy a gun but not allowed to buy a drink, and that's fucked up.

One of the reasons for a national gun registry would be to ensure that the system will work much better to prevent those who aren't supposed to have guns from having them.

If all your guns are registered to your name, then you commit domestic assault we wouldn't have to rely on the honor system for you to turn them in.  We would know exactly what weapons you have.

We wouldn't have to rely on the honor system if you then go to buy from a private seller . . . because when ownership was transferred to your name it would be red flagged and the sale would be prevented.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 22, 2018, 09:31:19 AM
I just watched the NRA at CPAC.  What a disgusting group of individuals--basically incapable and/unwilling to take any ownership in this debate.  They threw law enforcement under the bus--and basically encourage anarchy within the ranks of the FBI/law enforcement by suggesting rank and file members should overthrow any leader that has a view contrary to that of the NRA.

The NRA suggests that the school tragedies were a result of laws, currently on the books, were not enforced.  Ummm, yeah, Dipshits--that's how crimes are committed:  People break laws.   People shoot people.  Laws are broken.  No shit, Sherlock.  That's how all crimes are committed.  That's why they are called criminals, killers, insane.  Because they don't follow laws. 

The NRA suggest that it's not their problem that we are not protecting our children and adult citizens--it is a failure of politicians and communities from spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to arm teachers, to provide metal detectors, to fortify schools, to limit the freedoms of students.  Why must we pay these costs so you can get an erection holding an AR-15?  Why does all my medical records and the possibility of being unlawfully detained (in violation of the 4th Amend) be allowed so you can stroke yourself with your high-capacity weapon?  Why is my freedom of movement curtailed so you play big-boy with your firearm?

How anyone can contribute to that organization is beyond me.  And if that is who is on the the other side--a group that is unwilling to show compromise and make the choice "either/or" then I may need to move further to the left in my response.  I used to think there might be common ground.  Now I'm not so sure.

And if was a politician, on the dole of the NRA, and saw what I just witnessed on TV, then I'd be embarrassed to be associated with a lunatic group.  So I started doing what I did yesterday--I started going down the list (above) of congressmen/women that took money from the NRA and left a message of what I thought.

I've changed my tune after this latest (and not the last) tragedy--I no longer "hope and pray" for the victims  I now "hope and pray" for our country, call our congress people, march on the streets (March For Our Lives 3/24/2018), provide money where i can, and VOTE.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 22, 2018, 09:31:47 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.



I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Your opinion is noted.  I'm not sure what you base it on since there seems to be little in the way of available data or statistics. 

We have allowed pilots to be armed since 2001 and as far as I can tell there's only been 1 reported AD.  Unfortunately, there are no statistics on this either since the numbers of armed pilots is classified by the government.
I base it on the fact that I was a student in school, and the thought of my teachers carrying guns in the classroom is horrifying. I will have kids one day, and I don't want them to go to schools where their teachers have hidden guns just in case some monster comes in spraying bullets everywhere. I also want to prevent that monster from getting his hands on those weapons of mass destruction.
I'm so grateful for the fact that I live in Canada where this kind of insanity is much more rare, but I feel for the millions of parents who live in fear of their children being shot down in a place that should be safe. Why is it that an 18 year old can't buy a legal drink but they can buy a legal gun? Why is it that someone who has been reported dozens of times for violence and threats can buy a gun? Why can someone who has been accused or convicted of domestic violence can legally possess a gun? Why is anyone opposed to limiting access to guns to people who have clear patterns of abusive and violent behaviour? It's not my country, so I can't do anything about it, but I just fail to comprehend the mindset that seems to prevail among unconditional supporters of the second amendment.
I'm not opposed to safe gun ownership, but to me that means something more like the system we have in Canada. You have to take a class, you have to pass a background check, and you have to store guns safely, locked up away from the bullets (as far as I understand, there might be slight details I'm missing). Guns are for target shooting and hunting, and must be handled like the dangerous weapons they are.

I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but can we please put the fallacy regarding domestic violence one to bed:

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

It's illegal for a person convicted of domestic violence or in some cases merely under a restraining order to purchase or possess a firearm.

People with patterns of abusive and violent behavior should not have access to guns.  I'm not sure what that's referring to unless it's a continuation of the fallacy that people convicted of domestic violence can legally purchase or possess firearms.  Maybe you're referring to the FBI in this case that was criminally negligent (IMO) of failing to investigate the shooter, in that we would be in agreement.

Well the system barring them from ownership doesn't seem to be working very well:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/6/16612410/domestic-gun-violence-mass-shootings
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/politics/domestic-abuse-guns-texas-air-force.html
The background check system needs to be more robust and include all reported incidents, and needs to apply to all transfers of guns, including private sales, to be effective.
And yes, the FBI probably should have done a better job preventing the latest shooter from getting a gun, but I also brought up the fact that an 18 year old is allowed to buy a gun but not allowed to buy a drink, and that's fucked up.

Yeah the Air Force admitted that they failed to report his domestic violence record to civilian authorities.  Again an example of criminal negligence by a government agency, but I'm not sure what background check system would catch something that's not reported properly. 

I'd love to have access to the NICS system when I wanted to sell a gun.  I suspect privacy laws have something to do with the fact that I don't freely have that access, but that's just my suspicion.  Can you provide examples of private party sales that lead to mass shootings?  I'm sure they exist, and would be interested to see the statistics on that.

Age of legal consent is a different rabbit hole that I don't care to run down, you can take that up with someone else.  I merely want to correct fallacies that people throw around in this debate.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 22, 2018, 09:32:57 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

Ah, “hysterical.” That age-old dog-whistle word.

Can you please explain the literal definition of hysteria, and then cite where the author (female, of course) exhibits that behavior?

deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion.

synonyms:   overwrought, overemotional, out of control, frenzied, frantic, wild, feverish, crazed;

She goes from a proposal that some teachers be allowed to carry to fretting about being obligated to carry, obligated to shoot someone, potentially civilly liable if she doesn't, and also being "drafted into an ideological war".  Assuming the author is not being disingenuous and trying to mislead the reader, you explain how that train of thought leaves the station without the author being overcome by emotion. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 09:41:51 AM
Yeah the Air Force admitted that they failed to report his domestic violence record to civilian authorities.  Again an example of criminal negligence by a government agency, but I'm not sure what background check system would catch something that's not reported properly. 

Yes, this is a perfectly valid point.  Reporting regarding who can and can't own guns needs to be made simple, consistent, and easily available.  That's one of the benefits of a single federal gun registry . . . it would simply reporting by all agencies, reducing chance for errors.  Right now there are a mishmash of different laws and databases, and often things fall through the cracks.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 09:52:05 AM
Do you get what I'm saying?  If gun advocates have a solution that will stop this from happening lets hear it?  Because where I'm at, I've heard the whinging for decades about how it can't be stopped without trampling the rights of legal owners and I'm sorta like...fuck it...lets change the constitution and trample those rights.  I no longer give a shit about your rights, you've had twenty years to fix this at least and near as I can tell you've done fuck all, so, yea, lets take all your guns away.  All I hear whenever the subject comes up is what's wrong with everyone else's ideas.  Nothing is not an acceptable path forward.

I'm prepared to let the gun rights activists lead us to progress, that's cool.  I don't understand guns?  Sure, fuck it, lets go with that.  You fix it then.  But if it doesn't work we're taking away your guns.  Clock is ticking.

Yeah, pretty much this.

I have to laugh when I read tough talk like this. If you could do a total ban, you would have done it a long time ago. The fact is, the gun control rhetoric has failed, gun rights continue to advance, and I don't see that changing any time soon. This isn't even about the hard core pro-gun people, the gun control crowd has failed to convince very many of the moderates either.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 09:54:53 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWnD4UOW4AAUspX.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWnD4Q-W4AEev2R.jpg)

The NRA lobbied for - and got passed - a regulation that requires the records of a background check to be destroyed after 24 hours, which means the NICS system can NEVER BE AUDITED.  If someone is improperly approved?  Federal agencies can never follow up.

Guess what the GAO found?  97% of those who were improperly approved can evade detection thanks tot he 24-hour rule.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 09:55:51 AM
None of our enthusiastic gun supporters has any thoughts on why we can't have a national gun registry if it's OK to keep a registry of voters?

Has there been any chatter about the Florida gag law (NRA-supported) banning doctors from asking about guns that was in effect until very recently? I know that if I were a Florida voter, I'd be pretty interested to know which of my representatives voted to ban doctors, like the ones treating the shooter, from asking about guns in the home. 

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/155/Vote/HouseVote_h0155c2292.PDF

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/155/Vote/SenateVote_h0155c2004.PDF

Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 09:56:06 AM
I have to laugh when I read tough talk like this. If you could do a total ban, you would have done it a long time ago. The fact is, the gun control rhetoric has failed, gun rights continue to advance, and I don't see that changing any time soon. This isn't even about the hard core pro-gun people, the gun control crowd has failed to convince very many of the moderates either.

False.

8 proposals with >60% public support.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWCI9PwVAAUUHNN.jpg)

Congress won't enact a single one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 09:58:41 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 10:03:01 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

I suppose your argument might hold water if gun owners were asking the government to facilitate the 2A by actually providing guns and training to people.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 10:04:00 AM
I have to laugh when I read tough talk like this. If you could do a total ban, you would have done it a long time ago. The fact is, the gun control rhetoric has failed, gun rights continue to advance, and I don't see that changing any time soon. This isn't even about the hard core pro-gun people, the gun control crowd has failed to convince very many of the moderates either.

False.

8 proposals with >60% public support.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWCI9PwVAAUUHNN.jpg)

Congress won't enact a single one.

Better get them to the ballot box to vote on it then... those polls don't mean much until then.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2018, 10:04:11 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

Ah, “hysterical.” That age-old dog-whistle word.

Can you please explain the literal definition of hysteria, and then cite where the author (female, of course) exhibits that behavior?

deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion.

synonyms:   overwrought, overemotional, out of control, frenzied, frantic, wild, feverish, crazed;

She goes from a proposal that some teachers be allowed to carry to fretting about being obligated to carry, obligated to shoot someone, potentially civilly liable if she doesn't, and also being "drafted into an ideological war".  Assuming the author is not being disingenuous and trying to mislead the reader, you explain how that train of thought leaves the station without the author being overcome by emotion.

That's quite subjective, isn't it?

Out of control? Frenzied? Frantic? Wild? Feverish? Crazed?

Wow. She's clearly ready for the loony bin.

Unless...

a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women. (dictionary.com)

... you're speaking FIGURATIVELY, not literally...

And the woman's lived experience and perspective is something you merely want to discredit.

Edit: Here’s another perspective. Is this guy “hysterical,” too?

https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 10:08:01 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

When you buy property it's automatically registered with your municipal government for tax purposes, is it not?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 10:10:31 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

When you buy property it's automatically registered with your municipal government for tax purposes, is it not?

Perhaps the way the government treats land ownership should get a second look too. Property taxes and such are also wrong.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

When you buy property it's automatically registered with your municipal government for tax purposes, is it not?

Perhaps the way the government treats land ownership should get a second look too. Property taxes and such are also wrong.

There are 18 countries on Earth without property taxes.

But said another way, "Well, I got called out on this legitimate point so let me deflect and say that the government is wrong in this case."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 10:37:19 AM
Because the right to vote by its very nature implies a government administration to facilitate it. Really, if you want to extend this to other rights, like the 2A, should we require you to report your free speech and register your religion?

Maybe there would be some gun control measures in place if it's proponents weren't so disingenuous.

Must register for:
-property ownership
-marriage
-automobile
-voting
-government benefits

No registration needed:
-guns

Give me a ****ing break.

You don't need to register for any of those things unless you want the government benefits associated with them (standing to sue over property disputes, breach of marriage contract, etc). And I already addressed voting.

When you buy property it's automatically registered with your municipal government for tax purposes, is it not?

Perhaps the way the government treats land ownership should get a second look too. Property taxes and such are also wrong.

There are 18 countries on Earth without property taxes.

But said another way, "Well, I got called out on this legitimate point so let me deflect and say that the government is wrong in this case."

It's not a legitimate point at all. You continue dodging my points because you have nothing.

From upthread, I'd really like to see this point addressed.

"I suppose your argument might hold water if gun owners were asking the government to facilitate the 2A by actually providing guns and training to people."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 22, 2018, 11:42:16 AM

Arming teachers will increase gun related accidents at school (unless you have some way of preventing accidents from ever happening).  Even assuming that we go along with your dubious assertion that arming teachers will have a beneficial impact on school shootings, the uncertain benefit has to outweigh the guaranteed negatives.


I've been trying to understand the position against allowing teachers to arm themselves.  Is this what it boils down too?  That accidents can happen so it's best to not allow them a chance to defend themselves and their students?  Teachers seem to be in the best position to stop mass school killings.
No, they are not. They are not trained to run towards bullets, they are not trained in target shooting, they did not sign up for that. Let teachers teach. The last thing we need is a bunch of crossfire and teachers getting shot because they were mistaken for the shooter. It's a recipe for disaster. And if we can't get funding for reasonable class sizes and school supplies, how are we supposed to afford guns for every teacher, and is that really the best use of school dollars?

Exactly.

I read this in the Post this morning.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/02/22/why-i-will-never-carry-a-gun-in-my-classroom/?utm_term=.22e1daed5745

That article is a crock of shit and the author comes off as hysterical (in the literal sense).  I know people have used a lot of short hand and you can probalby find somebody on the internet arguing for anything and everything, but nobody is trying to draft teachers into the security guard or law enforcement professions.

Some people just think it would make schools slightly less appealing as soft targets if potential school shooters had to at least consider the fact that teachers and/or administrators might be carrying.   

I really doubt more than a very small minority of teachers would want to carry.  I certainly wouldn't.  I don't carry now, even though it would be much less stressful for me to carry than a teacher and even though I probably should at least occasionally, because I'm just too lazy to deal with the hassle for such a remote risk. 

But I do think teachers should be allowed to carry, if they want to and if they have gone through some required training.  People carry all over the place now with very few incidents.  Very few teachers would take advantage of it and it's somewhat ridiculous to prohibit them from carrying while also not providing adequate security.

Ah, “hysterical.” That age-old dog-whistle word.

Can you please explain the literal definition of hysteria, and then cite where the author (female, of course) exhibits that behavior?

deriving from or affected by uncontrolled extreme emotion.

synonyms:   overwrought, overemotional, out of control, frenzied, frantic, wild, feverish, crazed;

She goes from a proposal that some teachers be allowed to carry to fretting about being obligated to carry, obligated to shoot someone, potentially civilly liable if she doesn't, and also being "drafted into an ideological war".  Assuming the author is not being disingenuous and trying to mislead the reader, you explain how that train of thought leaves the station without the author being overcome by emotion.

That's quite subjective, isn't it?

Out of control? Frenzied? Frantic? Wild? Feverish? Crazed?

Wow. She's clearly ready for the loony bin.

Unless...

a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women. (dictionary.com)

... you're speaking FIGURATIVELY, not literally...

And the woman's lived experience and perspective is something you merely want to discredit.

Edit: Here’s another perspective. Is this guy “hysterical,” too?

https://www.charlottefive.com/arming-teachers/
Can you really not see the difference between the author making a logical argument, supplemented by his own experiences, against an actual proposal being considered by some, versus the author panicking about being drafted into an ideological war and held civilly liable for a policy that nobody has seriously proposed? 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 22, 2018, 11:44:56 AM
Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).
2. Implement a national concealed carry permit with strict training requirements which can be revoked for negligence/AD (with an appeals process).
3. Provide incentives to allow concealed carry on school campuses and/or allow concealed carry with the new national CC permit.
4. Provide funding for schools to implement safety measures (penetration resistant glass doors, single point of entry, time-lock magnetic doors).
5. Increased funding for mental health treatment and law enforcement (specifically earmarked for increased enforcement of current gun laws).
6. Fund a project to improve gun tech (fingerprint scanners, microstamp bullets, etc) and require it to be on all newly manufactured guns once it's proven to be reasonably reliable.
7. All new guns sold go into a national registry which requires a warrant to search but is easily searchable once a warrant is obtained.
8. The registered owner of a gun is held liable for any damages caused by it unless they can prove that it was properly secured and reported stolen.
9. Require background checks for all gun transfers (with shall issue, timely approval requirements and an appeals process).
10. Provide easy online access to background checks for private sellers.
11. Bar sales to all violent criminals, mentally ill and stalkers (with judicial review and appeals process).
12. Allow the government to impose a delay on firearms purchases by those on the terror watch list/no fly list that can become a permanent ban with judicial review.
13. Impose a one to two week waiting period for all gun purchases (exact time is up for debate).
14. Impose magazine capacity limits (exact number is up for debate).
15. Update the legal definition of a machine gun to be based on firing rate (targeting bump stocks).
16. A generous and voluntary gun buyback program applying to all guns made before the law passed (to remove as many unregistered guns from circulation as possible).
17. Remove restrictions on the government's ability to conduct gun violence research.

I'm sure I missed a few things and of course it would need further fleshing out before being finalized.  But if I were in congress this is the basic outline of the legislation that I would be drafting.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 22, 2018, 11:56:18 AM
Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).

Weapons capable of automatic fire are already effectively unobtainable.

The Las Vegas shooter (legally) modified a single-shot rifle that was able to accept high-capacity magazines. It's something worth adding to the list with regular automatic weapons, but the problem is you could 3D print the part.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 11:58:05 AM
Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).
2. Implement a national concealed carry permit with strict training requirements which can be revoked for negligence/AD (with an appeals process).
3. Provide incentives to allow concealed carry on school campuses and/or allow concealed carry with the new national CC permit.
4. Provide funding for schools to implement safety measures (penetration resistant glass doors, single point of entry, time-lock magnetic doors).
5. Increased funding for mental health treatment and law enforcement (specifically earmarked for increased enforcement of current gun laws).
6. Fund a project to improve gun tech (fingerprint scanners, microstamp bullets, etc) and require it to be on all newly manufactured guns once it's proven to be reasonably reliable.
7. All new guns sold go into a national registry which requires a warrant to search but is easily searchable once a warrant is obtained.
8. The registered owner of a gun is held liable for any damages caused by it unless they can prove that it was properly secured and reported stolen.
9. Require background checks for all gun transfers (with shall issue, timely approval requirements and an appeals process).
10. Provide easy online access to background checks for private sellers.
11. Bar sales to all violent criminals, mentally ill and stalkers (with judicial review and appeals process).
12. Allow the government to impose a delay on firearms purchases by those on the terror watch list/no fly list that can become a permanent ban with judicial review.
13. Impose a one to two week waiting period for all gun purchases (exact time is up for debate).
14. Impose magazine capacity limits (exact number is up for debate).
15. Update the legal definition of a machine gun to be based on firing rate (targeting bump stocks).
16. A generous and voluntary gun buyback program applying to all guns made before the law passed (to remove as many unregistered guns from circulation as possible).
17. Remove restrictions on the government's ability to conduct gun violence research.

I'm sure I missed a few things and of course it would need further fleshing out before being finalized.  But if I were in congress this is the basic outline of the legislation that I would be drafting.


Generally this seems pretty reasonable.  Some points that may merit additional discussion though:

1 - Fully automatic weapons aren't really used too often in crime, I'm not sure there's going to be significant benefit from this action.

3 - There has still been no evidence presented that arming teachers will be a net benefit for child safety.  I'm not entirely sure why incentives should be given to carry a gun in a school.

11 - This is a bit tricky because mental illness will require a diagnosis.  If someone really likes his guns is he likely to seek psychiatric treatment if he knows he'll lost 'em?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 22, 2018, 11:59:52 AM
Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).

Weapons capable of automatic fire are already effectively unobtainable.

The Las Vegas shooter (legally) modified a single-shot rifle that was able to accept high-capacity magazines. It's something worth adding to the list with regular automatic weapons, but the problem is you could 3D print the part.

Generally this seems pretty reasonable.  Some points that may merit additional discussion though:

1 - Fully automatic weapons aren't really used too often in crime, I'm not sure there's going to be significant benefit from this action.

3 - There has still been no evidence presented that arming teachers will be a net benefit for child safety.  I'm not entirely sure why incentives should be given to carry a gun in a school.

11 - This is a bit tricky because mental illness will require a diagnosis.  If someone really likes his guns is he likely to seek psychiatric treatment if he knows he'll lost 'em?

1 - Not trying to make them harder to obtain with that one.  My understanding from the discussion on these threads is that it would actually make them easier to obtain.  It's a message of good faith to conservatives, because I don't think it will significantly worsen the situation (since I don't see a lot of grenade launchers being used in crimes).

3 - Not incentives to carry, just incentives to allow school staff to carry if they so choose.

11- That's a good point and I don't have a great answer off the top of my head.

Edited to address multiple posts.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 22, 2018, 12:31:56 PM

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.


Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

Put another way - "Wow, a lot of people have a different opinion than me.  I'm not talking to you guys."

Quote
A 2017 Pew Research Center poll found that 68 percent of adults favor banning assault weapons, and 65 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines.

More strikingly, substantial numbers of gun owners supported the measures as well: 48 percent of gun owners in that poll said they would support a ban on assault style weapons, and 44 percent said they favored a ban on high-capacity magazines. A Quinnipiac poll conducted later in the year showed similar numbers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 12:34:44 PM

If the conversation isn't going to be honest, why bother.


Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

Put another way - "Wow, a lot of people have a different opinion than me.  I'm not talking to you guys."

Quote
A 2017 Pew Research Center poll found that 68 percent of adults favor banning assault weapons, and 65 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines.

More strikingly, substantial numbers of gun owners supported the measures as well: 48 percent of gun owners in that poll said they would support a ban on assault style weapons, and 44 percent said they favored a ban on high-capacity magazines. A Quinnipiac poll conducted later in the year showed similar numbers.

Get em down to the ballot box and let's amend the Constitution then. What people think doesn't matter unless, you know, they vote for it. And if it's a winning issue, Democrats should push gun control to the front of their platform for the 2018 midterms.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 22, 2018, 01:31:12 PM
That's what I'm saying.  The people that care about the right to own guns need to fix it.  The rest of us need to start pushing for a constitutional amendment.  They won't do anything as long as the status quo protects their right.  It's time to put that right under legitimate threat.  For too long the FEAR of someone coming to take their guns paralyzed them from action.  They need to be confronted by what it looks like when we actually come to take their guns.  It isn't going to be some sunglassed FBI agent, it's going to be the local soccer moms or the girl's cross country team.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 01:52:48 PM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 22, 2018, 01:56:02 PM
That's what I'm saying.  The people that care about the right to own guns need to fix it.  The rest of us need to start pushing for a constitutional amendment.  They won't do anything as long as the status quo protects their right.  It's time to put that right under legitimate threat.  For too long the FEAR of someone coming to take their guns paralyzed them from action.  They need to be confronted by what it looks like when we actually come to take their guns.  It isn't going to be some sunglassed FBI agent, it's going to be the local soccer moms or the girl's cross country team.

I'm all for a constitutional amendment at this point (although, I think if you take a linguistic approach to reading the ONE-SENTENCE 2nd Amendment it doesn't say what the NRA and some Supreme Court Justices thinks it says).

That being said, after 45 years, we still haven't ratified the Equal Rights Amendment--mostly being held up by Red Southern States.  If we can't get soccer mom's on board with that, I'm not sure there is hope.  We shall see if there is a repudiation during the next course of elections, but after hearing the morons gobble up the NRA propaganda at the CPAC meeting today, I'm not hopeful.

After Trump's comments of eliminating ICE funding for California (on top of his penalizing blue states with his tax law), I'd be happy to secede our state from the rest of the union, take our 6th largest economy in the world for ourselves, stop providing welfare for all of backward red states, and be done with it...But I'd be happy if Oregon and Washington joined us too.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 22, 2018, 02:14:26 PM
https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/florida-house-votes-down-motion-to-take-up-weapons-ban-with-douglas-students-present

Florida House votes down motion to take up weapons ban with Douglas students present

A nearly party line vote (71-36) on the motion.

Don't forget that those FL kids protesting at the capital are actors! (sarcasm)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/20/aide-florida-lawmaker-outspoken-survivors-florida-shooting-crisis-actors/356960002/

That Trump was elected despite his mouth, that we've had another school shooting plus another already averted, and that the government requires more license and registration to have certain pets, ride scooters, and get married - than to buy guns and ammo - is mind boggling! The past couple of years has broken my reality.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 02:23:12 PM
https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/florida-house-votes-down-motion-to-take-up-weapons-ban-with-douglas-students-present

Florida House votes down motion to take up weapons ban with Douglas students present

A nearly party line vote (71-36) on the motion.

Don't forget that those FL kids protesting at the capital are actors! (sarcasm)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/20/aide-florida-lawmaker-outspoken-survivors-florida-shooting-crisis-actors/356960002/

That Trump was elected despite his mouth, that we've had another school shooting plus another already averted, and that the government requires more license and registration to have certain pets, ride scooters, and get married - than to buy guns and ammo - is mind boggling! The past couple of years has broken my reality.

I’ve been terminated from the State House. I made a mistake whereas I tried to inform a reporter of information relating to his story regarding a school shooting. This was not my responsibility. I meant no disrespect to the students or parents of Parkland.

— Benjamin Kelly



Total non-apology and failure to accept personal responsibility.  What he should have said:


I’ve been terminated from the State House. I made a mistake when I tried to pass off my imagination as fact.  This was a stupid thing to do.  I am sorry for the disrespect I showed the students and parents of Parkland.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 02:46:32 PM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

You want to amend the Constitution but you don't understand the mechanisms within it?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on February 22, 2018, 02:54:47 PM
That's what I'm saying.  The people that care about the right to own guns need to fix it.  The rest of us need to start pushing for a constitutional amendment.  They won't do anything as long as the status quo protects their right.  It's time to put that right under legitimate threat.  For too long the FEAR of someone coming to take their guns paralyzed them from action.  They need to be confronted by what it looks like when we actually come to take their guns.  It isn't going to be some sunglassed FBI agent, it's going to be the local soccer moms or the girl's cross country team.

I'm all for a constitutional amendment at this point (although, I think if you take a linguistic approach to reading the ONE-SENTENCE 2nd Amendment it doesn't say what the NRA and some Supreme Court Justices thinks it says).

That being said, after 45 years, we still haven't ratified the Equal Rights Amendment--mostly being held up by Red Southern States.  If we can't get soccer mom's on board with that, I'm not sure there is hope.  We shall see if there is a repudiation during the next course of elections, but after hearing the morons gobble up the NRA propaganda at the CPAC meeting today, I'm not hopeful.

After Trump's comments of eliminating ICE funding for California (on top of his penalizing blue states with his tax law), I'd be happy to secede our state from the rest of the union, take our 6th largest economy in the world for ourselves, stop providing welfare for all of backward red states, and be done with it...But I'd be happy if Oregon and Washington joined us too.

1 - Trump's ICE comment was one of his more idiotic (and that's saying something).
2 - If California were to attempt to secede, why would you assume a) the agricultural areas (primarily republican) would go along with the secession?  b) Along those lines, doesn't most of California's water supply originate from those same areas and/or other states? 

Lastly, this secession talk is really a dangerous hypothetical regardless because the rest of the US won't allow California to leave.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 22, 2018, 02:56:39 PM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

You want to amend the Constitution but you don't understand the mechanisms within it?

I don't see how those two things are contradictory, the question seems to be asking for a loophole or lesser known path to amendment.

But as far as I know it must be proposed by congress.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 03:00:05 PM
You want to amend the Constitution but you don't understand the mechanisms within it?
You want to answer a question with snark?

Well let me return the favour.......

Perhaps you missed or failed to comprehend my previous posts in which I stated I have no interest in whether or not the US decides to change its Constitution, nor even if it cares to change any of its laws.  Presently the US as a society has decided the carnage associated with its unique gun culture is acceptable.  I don't believe law changes will be effective until the US decides it is unwilling to accept that carnage.

You might also take note of how I phrased the above comment.

Care to answer the question now?  If not, feel free to ignore it rather than wasting your time by replying.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 03:03:15 PM
I don't see how those two things are contradictory, the question seems to be asking for a loophole or lesser known path to amendment.

But as far as I know it must be proposed by congress.
That being the case then it seems a bit disingenuous for posters to keep making comments along the lines of "you need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change".

With congress bought and paid for by vested interests it isn't likely to propose giving the power to the people to change the Constitution even if a demonstrable majority wanted it changed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 03:09:49 PM
I don't see how those two things are contradictory, the question seems to be asking for a loophole or lesser known path to amendment.

But as far as I know it must be proposed by congress.
That being the case then it seems a bit disingenuous for posters to keep making comments along the lines of "you need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change".

With congress bought and paid for by vested interests it isn't likely to propose giving the power to the people to change the Constitution even if a demonstrable majority wanted it changed.

It's disingenuous to suggest that people of your persuasion need to put in some work and get voters out if you want to change the document that our country is founded on? OK
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2018, 05:12:43 PM
I don't see how those two things are contradictory, the question seems to be asking for a loophole or lesser known path to amendment.

But as far as I know it must be proposed by congress.
That being the case then it seems a bit disingenuous for posters to keep making comments along the lines of "you need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change".

With congress bought and paid for by vested interests it isn't likely to propose giving the power to the people to change the Constitution even if a demonstrable majority wanted it changed.

The people in congress are voted into their positions.  If you don't like how corrupt they are, then you need to stop voting the corrupt ones into power.  You do need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 05:33:43 PM
It's disingenuous to suggest that people of your persuasion need to put in some work and get voters out if you want to change the document that our country is founded on? OK
Did you fail to read again or fail to comprehend?

I do not have any interest in changing your Constitution.  Keep it the same, change it, use it to start a fire.  I don't care.  It's your country.

You do realise it is actually possible to be interested in a discussion and how things work without wanting to change it don't you?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 05:40:36 PM
It's disingenuous to suggest that people of your persuasion need to put in some work and get voters out if you want to change the document that our country is founded on? OK
Did you fail to read again or fail to comprehend?

I do not have any interest in changing your Constitution.  Keep it the same, change it, use it to start a fire.  I don't care.  It's your country.

You do realise it is actually possible to be interested in a discussion and how things work without wanting to change it don't you?

Uh in your post just up thread you specifically query how the Constitution could be changed. And why the heck are you talking about our congress if you (presumably) aren't an American?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 05:44:55 PM
The people in congress are voted into their positions.  If you don't like how corrupt they are, then you need to stop voting the corrupt ones into power.  You do need to get people out to vote if you want the Constitution to change.
I'm not suggesting anyone in congress is corrupt.  Corruption is illegal and I have no knowledge of any illegal acts having taken place.  However, the piper must be paid.  The representatives know that they have little chance of being elected again if the piper isn't paid in the appropriate manner.  And the piper who is owed the most gets paid first.  The vested interests ensure that they pay much more than the mere constituents who elect the representatives.

That's why both sides of politics have not made any attempt to change the 2nd amendment.  That's why I asked if there was a way the public could force the politicians to allow a vote on the actual question rather than wait to see if Congress will allow such a thing to happen.

And before Dr Hasslein fails to comprehend this post let me reassure him/her that I don't actually care if your Constitution is changed or not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 05:54:09 PM
Uh in your post just up thread you specifically query how the Constitution could be changed. And why the heck are you talking about our congress if you (presumably) aren't an American?
Yes I queried how your Constitution can be changed.  Are you suggesting that the only reason someone might enquire about something is because they want to change that something?  Here's one alternative possible reason.  Someone might be interested in verifying the claim of another person.

As for talking about your congress if I'm not American, are you suggesting the only people in the world who might have an interest in talking about your congress are Americans?  If the only things you have any interest in discussing are American things, might I suggest you broaden your view.  Try taking an interest in the world outside your borders, there are lots of interesting things you might find you would enjoy discussing that are not American.   Perhaps then you might come to understand that others might also enjoy discussing something that is American even if they are not American themselves.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 22, 2018, 06:10:33 PM
Uh in your post just up thread you specifically query how the Constitution could be changed. And why the heck are you talking about our congress if you (presumably) aren't an American?
Yes I queried how your Constitution can be changed.  Are you suggesting that the only reason someone might enquire about something is because they want to change that something?  Here's one alternative possible reason.  Someone might be interested in verifying the claim of another person.

As for talking about your congress if I'm not American, are you suggesting the only people in the world who might have an interest in talking about your congress are Americans?  If the only things you have any interest in discussing are American things, might I suggest you broaden your view.  Try taking an interest in the world outside your borders, there are lots of interesting things you might find you would enjoy discussing that are not American.   Perhaps then you might come to understand that others might also enjoy discussing something that is American even if they are not American themselves.

Whack whack! There's the sound of you knocking down a strawman. I am knowledgeable about politics in several other countries, yet I don't presume to make comments to people from those countries about their nations' internal affairs.

Go ahead and tell me what country you are a citizen of and I'd be happy to analyze a political facet of it that I disagree with.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 22, 2018, 06:51:11 PM
Whack whack! There's the sound of you knocking down a strawman. I am knowledgeable about politics in several other countries, yet I don't presume to make comments to people from those countries about their nations' internal affairs.
Who's making the strawman?

So you never discuss the politics of other countries with people from those countries?  Really?  And yet you think you are knowledgeable about the politics of those countries?  That's a good one.

If, as I suspect, by your comment of "presume to make comments......" you actually mean "presume to tell people from other countries how they should run their country....." then I ask you to link to any comment I have made which presumes to tell Americans how they should run their country.  I'll wait.
Quote from: Dr Hasslein
Go ahead and tell me what country you are a citizen of and I'd be happy to analyze a political facet of it that I disagree with.
Well that would suggest I give a hoot about your analysis of any political facet of my country.

Why don't you just admit that you didn't bother to read or comprehend my previous posts so you had some context before you spouted off about something that upset you because you incorrectly assumed something not actually true?  Wouldn't that be easier?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: No longer lurking on February 23, 2018, 07:47:52 AM
Hello, I have been reading the forums for a while but had to make an account to ask a question in this discussion. A little back story first, I am a gun owner. All the guns I own are hunting rifles, so most of the posters suggestions on stricter controls I am for. I also lost a family member in the Vegas mass shooting and it has changed my opinion considerably on them. I would gladly give up all my guns if it meant the amount of people getting murdered by them would lower significantly.
This may be to off topic for this thread, however is anyone familiar with the Black Panther movement? Do you think the progress they made was helped by their insistence to arm themselves or do you think it is what led to their demise?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2018, 08:07:04 AM
This may be to off topic for this thread, however is anyone familiar with the Black Panther movement? Do you think the progress they made was helped by their insistence to arm themselves or do you think it is what led to their demise?

I kinda think it was both.

The BPP came about because of the very evident racism and murders of black people by police.  It was a reaction to socially accepted abuses of police power.  Long term however, it's hard to advocate for peace when you're aggressively violent in your approach.  When you get any group of people who are armed and ready to use those arms, it's only a matter of time before mistakes happen.  The moment that you go from victim to aggressor, you lose legitimacy in your struggle.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 23, 2018, 08:29:48 AM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

There are a couple of ways actually!

From the constitution itself!

Thank you for the question:

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
ratifi ed 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 Ratifi cation 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 fi rst and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the fi rst 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.  The reason the convention hasn't ever been used is that there would be little to no control over what happened at that convention.  That would likely end up being a "total overhaul" situation, and isn't ideal.  But a single state legislature could put forward an amendment and get 3/4 of the rest of the states to ratify it and then it'd be law.  And there doesn't have to be a sunset provision to that, some amendments took a really long time to get in.

There are some that would argue that Congress has to propose the amendment, but don't worry.  If the Supreme Court won't enforce an amendment because the process we used ignored "Congress shall propose" then we'll have good precedent for enforcing that "well regulated militia" bit.

The NRA has state legislatures locked up pretty tightly too, but I think we can do it.

Figure:  3/4 is 38 states:

For (maybe with some effort) (18)
Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont

Maybe (with alot of effort) (15)
Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, Indiana, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Probably better spent efforts elsewhere (16):

Texas, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi, West Virginia

Once we get the first 18, the next 15 will be easier, and then it's just enough peer pressure to flip five of the hardest holdouts, maybe compromise to leave veterans with the right or something, and that'll be that.

So unless gun rights activists manage to stop armed rampage killings we're going to amend the constitution with something like:

The language in Amendment 2 is hereby clarified:  The right to keep and bear arms refers to the right to possess and wield artificial limbs or strap live bears to your arms.  Congress shall pass regulations limiting possession of firearms to peace officers and active duty military personnel, due to the inability of the militia to self-regulate.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 23, 2018, 08:44:37 AM
Is there any method by which the public is able to insist or force a referendum to amend the Constitution or is it left entirely up to the the Politicians?

There are a couple of ways actually!

From the constitution itself!

Thank you for the question:

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
ratifi ed 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 Ratifi cation 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 fi rst and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the fi rst 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.  The reason the convention hasn't ever been used is that there would be little to no control over what happened at that convention.  That would likely end up being a "total overhaul" situation, and isn't ideal.  But a single state legislature could put forward an amendment and get 3/4 of the rest of the states to ratify it and then it'd be law.  And there doesn't have to be a sunset provision to that, some amendments took a really long time to get in.

There are some that would argue that Congress has to propose the amendment, but don't worry.  If the Supreme Court won't enforce an amendment because the process we used ignored "Congress shall propose" then we'll have good precedent for enforcing that "well regulated militia" bit.

The NRA has state legislatures locked up pretty tightly too, but I think we can do it.

Figure:  3/4 is 38 states:

For (maybe with some effort) (18)
Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Colorado, Ohio, Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont

Maybe (with alot of effort) (15)
Maine, New Hampshire, Iowa, Indiana, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Probably better spent efforts elsewhere (16):

Texas, Florida, Missouri, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Mississippi, West Virginia

Once we get the first 18, the next 15 will be easier, and then it's just enough peer pressure to flip five of the hardest holdouts, maybe compromise to leave veterans with the right or something, and that'll be that.

So unless gun rights activists manage to stop armed rampage killings we're going to amend the constitution with something like:

The language in Amendment 2 is hereby clarified:  The right to keep and bear arms refers to the right to possess and wield artificial limbs or strap live bears to your arms.  Congress shall pass regulations limiting possession of firearms to peace officers and active duty military personnel, due to the inability of the militia to self-regulate.

Sorry, I can't see that working... should read:

The right to keep and bear arms refers to the right to possess and wield artificial limbs or strap live bear's arms to your arms.

Seriously, kudos to you for, first, doing the research, second for providing a thumbnail analysis of the state legislature standings and lastly for having the balls to make a truly revolutionary proposal to solve the problem.

You've raised my hope for the future.
Thanks 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 08:45:14 AM
Looks like the resource officer assigned to Parkland didn't go in an confront the shooter.

I guess I can sort of see it in a way that he wasn't sure what was going on, and called in for backup. I am sure many, and partially myself, that he should have gone right in and shot it out with the shooter. I don't know the training he got and what he should have done. I know he resigned and the sheriff isn't happy. He was out-gunned though.

It just doesn't look good when a PE teacher dies in a hail of bullets protecting students while an armed cop sits outside and doesn't do a whole lot. And if a cop can't do a whole lot, what the hell do we expect teachers to do.

I highly doubt arming teachers is the way to go. There are all sorts of issues with self-defense too. I can just see a teacher, untrained and who really doesn't want to shoot anyone, shooting a active shooter in a way that might seem unwarranted (maybe at the moment the shooter was not threatening anyone), and then the teacher being arrested or locked up. Laugh if you want, but I have seen similar if not worse. And god forbid if during the firefight, the teacher accidentally hits a student.

Better yet, wait till a teacher who is having a bad day goes postal in a school, and we'll see the debate then.

I don't think there is a solution. America loves its guns. We can take turns passing the buck on who is responsible (gun sellers who aren't psychologists, not arming teachers, not loosening gun restrictions, not making gun ownership more restrictive, not enough cops, too many mentally ill people with guns, Trump (even though plenty of shootings happened under Obama too, etc etc), but the reality is, as bad as these shootings are, nothing will change. Congress will not change. For god's sake a congressman was shot and they still didn't have a debate. What do they care about kids who aren't in their districts?

So all this is pointless.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on February 23, 2018, 08:55:08 AM
Looks like the resource officer assigned to Parkland didn't go in an confront the shooter.

I guess I can sort of see it in a way that he wasn't sure what was going on, and called in for backup. I am sure many, and partially myself, that he should have gone right in and shot it out with the shooter. I don't know the training he got and what he should have done. I know he resigned and the sheriff isn't happy. He was out-gunned though.

It just doesn't look good when a PE teacher dies in a hail of bullets protecting students while an armed cop sits outside and doesn't do a whole lot. And if a cop can't do a whole lot, what the hell do we expect teachers to do.

I highly doubt arming teachers is the way to go. There are all sorts of issues with self-defense too. I can just see a teacher, untrained and who really doesn't want to shoot anyone, shooting a active shooter in a way that might seem unwarranted (maybe at the moment the shooter was not threatening anyone), and then the teacher being arrested or locked up. Laugh if you want, but I have seen similar if not worse. And god forbid if during the firefight, the teacher accidentally hits a student.

Better yet, wait till a teacher who is having a bad day goes postal in a school, and we'll see the debate then.

I don't think there is a solution. America loves its guns. We can take turns passing the buck on who is responsible (gun sellers who aren't psychologists, not arming teachers, not loosening gun restrictions, not making gun ownership more restrictive, not enough cops, too many mentally ill people with guns, Trump (even though plenty of shootings happened under Obama too, etc etc), but the reality is, as bad as these shootings are, nothing will change. Congress will not change. For god's sake a congressman was shot and they still didn't have a debate. What do they care about kids who aren't in their districts?

So all this is pointless.

I wonder if the people who suggest arming teachers ever stop to really reflect on what they are saying.

Turning a place of learning, meant for children, into an armed fortress.

The complete and utter madness of it all is bewildering.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2018, 09:04:14 AM
Looks like the resource officer assigned to Parkland didn't go in an confront the shooter.

I guess I can sort of see it in a way that he wasn't sure what was going on, and called in for backup. I am sure many, and partially myself, that he should have gone right in and shot it out with the shooter. I don't know the training he got and what he should have done. I know he resigned and the sheriff isn't happy. He was out-gunned though.

It just doesn't look good when a PE teacher dies in a hail of bullets protecting students while an armed cop sits outside and doesn't do a whole lot. And if a cop can't do a whole lot, what the hell do we expect teachers to do.

I highly doubt arming teachers is the way to go. There are all sorts of issues with self-defense too. I can just see a teacher, untrained and who really doesn't want to shoot anyone, shooting a active shooter in a way that might seem unwarranted (maybe at the moment the shooter was not threatening anyone), and then the teacher being arrested or locked up. Laugh if you want, but I have seen similar if not worse. And god forbid if during the firefight, the teacher accidentally hits a student.

Better yet, wait till a teacher who is having a bad day goes postal in a school, and we'll see the debate then.

I don't think there is a solution. America loves its guns. We can take turns passing the buck on who is responsible (gun sellers who aren't psychologists, not arming teachers, not loosening gun restrictions, not making gun ownership more restrictive, not enough cops, too many mentally ill people with guns, Trump (even though plenty of shootings happened under Obama too, etc etc), but the reality is, as bad as these shootings are, nothing will change. Congress will not change. For god's sake a congressman was shot and they still didn't have a debate. What do they care about kids who aren't in their districts?

So all this is pointless.

FWIW, I participated in a shooting simulation at a large university a few years back. Three or four different LE agencies participated (2 University departments, Hospital, City, County). The protocol was for officers to enter the building as quickly as possible, mostly sidearms, maybe rifles if they have time to grab them from the car, standard uniforms, no heavy armor.

It's a little bit different than this scenario, because there are a lot more officers on duty in the general area, and they used teams of three or four to clear the building. But the tactics were very proactive. It's a lot more dangerous for the officers than waiting for SWAT, but the idea is to end the situation as quickly as possible, because that's the only way you're going to limit casualties and secure the scene for medics.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 09:04:52 AM
I don't mind allowing teachers to arm themselves, I really don't. But doing so for the purpose of protecting the school? Wow. I think more qualified personal would be in order.

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. So they go where there are less defenses. I do not have children, but I have nephews. I can't imagine in this day and age any parent who wishfully thinks that their schools are safer without some kind of ARMED protection, in our society. Any parent who says, "guns do not belong in our schools" doesn't seem to grasp we live in America during these times. They are, dangerous times. We do need to be prepared. If you think its justifiable to have a weapon for home protection, I image its not hard to justify protecting children at schools.

Maybe some day there will be a change in society and stricter gun controls and therefore less shootings in schools, but until that day comes, schools need to be protected in a way they tells potential attackers that it is not worth their effort to go there.

Until that happens, get used to these shootings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 23, 2018, 09:07:16 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
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 09:12:02 AM
Yes, I am aware this happened, and this was more of a terrorist attack. I am sure there are shootings at police stations too.  Just not to the degree that school shootings happen.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2018, 09:36:00 AM
I don't mind allowing teachers to arm themselves, I really don't. But doing so for the purpose of protecting the school? Wow. I think more qualified personal would be in order.

But there is a reason people shoot at people in churches, schools, movie theaters, and not police stations and army bases.

This is a valid point.  People are allowed to carry firearms in churches and movie theaters.  This hasn't prevented shootings from occurring in these locations.  The protective benefit of allowing teachers to arm themselves may well be far less than some people suspect.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 23, 2018, 09:45:48 AM
Looking back at the teachers I had in Middle and High School, very few of them stick out in my mind as capable of doing a shootout with an active shooter.

I don't know what schools you guys went to, but most of my teachers were elderly and female. A few coaches I can remember may have been able to fill the role pretty well, but that's it.

Teachers become teachers to teach. There is a personality trait that typically goes a lot with that. They do not sign up to be teachers to 'protect and server' or defend the country.

I am sure there are a few bad ass teachers in any country that would do an exceptional job with whatever means necessary, but the idea of arming them to solve these problems is ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING THE BUCK.

We would need a greater police presence to protect schools, but they cost money. The counties can barely pay for school materials and teacher's salaries, so wonder where the extra cash is going to come from.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2018, 09:54:50 AM
MMM-adjacent: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/02/21/when-you-buy-these-bike-brands-youre-supporting-the-gun-lobby/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 23, 2018, 10:05:29 AM
Looking back at the teachers I had in Middle and High School, very few of them stick out in my mind as capable of doing a shootout with an active shooter.

I don't know what schools you guys went to, but most of my teachers were elderly and female. A few coaches I can remember may have been able to fill the role pretty well, but that's it.

Teachers become teachers to teach. There is a personality trait that typically goes a lot with that. They do not sign up to be teachers to 'protect and server' or defend the country.

I am sure there are a few bad ass teachers in any country that would do an exceptional job with whatever means necessary, but the idea of arming them to solve these problems is ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING THE BUCK.

We would need a greater police presence to protect schools, but they cost money. The counties can barely pay for school materials and teacher's salaries, so wonder where the extra cash is going to come from.

Exactly.

And selling more guns, of course.

Imagine the cost of arming, say, 20% of teachers.

The Washington post tried to estimate this, and came up with the estimate of 3.6 million teachers in public and private schools.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/02/22/the-economics-of-arming-americas-schools/?utm_term=.b74a9467350c

20% of that is 718,000.

We would essentially be adding 50 percent to the size of the military by mandating that nearly three-quarters of a million people be trained and prepared to take up arms to defend civilians.

What kind of training would they receive? The bare minimum? They estimate about $100 per person for that.

That's $71.8 million.

A more robust training -- with 26 hours of training over 3 days, would be about $1000.

That more robust training means that the cost for our 718,000 teachers spikes to $718 million.

Then there's the cost of the guns.


This would be additional money we'd need find and spend in an environment where we have some schools that can't afford to meet five days a week. Some schools that don't require a degree in teaching to teach because they pay teachers so little. None of this would go to teaching students.

The president says teachers should get "a little bit of a bonus." A true bonus would be any amount above the actual cost. Or is he saying is that we'd expect teachers to cover the cost of this training on their own? So this might be a "tax" on teachers instead of people that are paying teachers.

That's not a bonus. That's grossly underpaying teachers. Again.

How many of you can look back on your teachers and think of at least one or two who had some... let's put this kindly... anger issues? Or who seemed unduly stressed out by teaching, and didn't like the job? Or who just plain don't seem like good candidates for this?

Do you REALLY think that a school that gets a mandate passed down to them to arm 20% of their teachers is going to look very closely at who they arm? Because frankly, a good number of these people will NOT volunteer to do it.

It's quite likely that at least some of the volunteers are people who should not be carrying a handgun around your kid.

It's also likely that such a shift in culture would cause a fair number of teachers to quit. And a fair number of people contemplating a teaching career to abandon the idea.

These might very well be just the kinds of teachers your kids need. The ones who would make EXCELLENT teachers, and who would do anything for your kids, but who do not want to teach in this new culture.

Which leaves... who? Well, if Trump gets his wish, we'll see, I guess.

But I'm not very confident that who it leaves are the best teachers.



Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 23, 2018, 10:08:33 AM
If this problem continues parents will begin forming homeschooling efforts. Or parents will ask for permission to patrol the hallways while classes are in session - not necessarily armed - but with radios or cellphones to call in problems.

My children both attend schools that have large glass panels at ground level. Even if the building is locked up, a determined shooter will easily enter the building by smashing their way in.

I can imagine groups of volunteer parents taking turns watching the school just like we did guard duty in the military.

Even then shooters could change tactics and do horrendous things during dismissal.

Gun access limits, mental health improvements and cultural change. None of it will give immediate results. I still think our nation is rotting and needs to be stabilized. Extreme political division isn't helping either. Neither is social media. Nor 24-hour news. Nor our fascination with celebrity.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 23, 2018, 10:17:21 AM
I suspect the primary benefit of arming teachers would come from the possibility that someone might shoot back deterring would be shooters. As many have already pointed out there are issues with a teacher who has limited training carrying and even more so firing a gun. The ideal situation in my mind would be one where no one knows which teachers may have a gun and very few if any actually do.

But then even this could have negative impacts for some students who are distracted or scared of the fact that their teachers may have a gun. I don't think this would have bothered me as a student but I can imagine those who have no experience with guns would be more fearful of them.

Regarding the idea of giving raises or bonuses to teachers who are armed, I think that's about the worst part of the plan. Giving the option on a completely voluntary basis would likely attract very few teachers but they would be teachers who already have some training/experience and the desire to actually be the hero if the time came. If we get teacher's to do it for money you will get more people who are just, well, doing it for the money.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2018, 10:30:56 AM
I suspect the primary benefit of arming teachers would come from the possibility that someone might shoot back deterring would be shooters. As many have already pointed out there are issues with a teacher who has limited training carrying and even more so firing a gun. The ideal situation in my mind would be one where no one knows which teachers may have a gun and very few if any actually do.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is exactly the same scenario that you have with churches, movie theaters, and other public places, right?  Is there any evidence that this has reduced the number of mass shootings in those locations?


But then even this could have negative impacts for some students who are distracted or scared of the fact that their teachers may have a gun. I don't think this would have bothered me as a student but I can imagine those who have no experience with guns would be more fearful of them.

Accidents with guns are rare, but they do happen.  School shootings are rare, but they do happen.  The negative impact of increasing the number of gun accidents in schools by allowing teachers to carry firearms may well outweigh any benefit that comes from having them.




Another unproven assumption we keep making is that a teacher with a gun will be a hero, stopping the bad guy.  Is it not just as likely that a teacher with a gun, semi-trained, under stress, with adrenaline running through his/her veins misses the shot and ends up simply adding to the casualties?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on February 23, 2018, 10:43:35 AM
Can't afford books, bus service, basic supplies and/or athletics. But here are your guns. Sheer lunacy!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on February 23, 2018, 10:44:27 AM

Another unproven assumption we keep making is that a teacher with a gun will be a hero, stopping the bad guy.  Is it not just as likely that a teacher with a gun, semi-trained, under stress, with adrenaline running through his/her veins misses the shot and ends up simply adding to the casualties?

I would say it's not anywhere near as likely.  The more likely scenario would be that they do nothing but hunker up in their class room with their kids, which would still be a major improvement if the shooter tried to get into their class room. 

They may not be very effective, but just taking a couple of pot shots at the shooter would slow down most shooters, which would be a big deal by itself. 

It's been a while, but there was a Pearl, Mississippi shooting in the late ninieties where a teacher ran to his car to get his gun, came back and stopped the shooting not by killing the shooter, but just by the shooter no longer advancing.  Eventually the police arrived and I think the shooter actually surrendered and stood trial.  I suspect some shooters would force the issue rather than letting themselves be pinned down by the threat of fire, but even then it's probably be 50/50 whether the teacher or the shooter prevails (or maybe better because I imagine both would end up injured in a lot of situations). 

Can't remember when the Gun Free Schools act or whatever was passed, but I think if it was in effect, the Pearl Mississippi teacher was actually committing a crime by having his gun in his car. 

ETA:  I'm still not sure the number of school shootings really justify teachers going through the trouble to carry on a regular basis, but it seems like some of the least destructive policies being considered.  It seems like it would be a shame if we started paying for an armed guard or more at every school for such an extremely low risk, but it also seems somewhat horrifying to just say, it's an extremely low risk, so we're just going to leave kids defenseless against shooters, even if that might be the rational approach based on a cost benefit analysis. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: partgypsy on February 23, 2018, 10:58:54 AM
But you know, all the extra guns could come in handy in case a grizzly bear attacks the school. It's totally worth the extra cost. I love how the NRA, no matter what the problem is, MORE guns is the solution. Teachers, student, police Mds: we want to ban military grade assault weapons so this can't happen again.  NO, you are being silly. Say a student comes in with his god given right for an AR 15, you can have a shoot out with the teachers and their handguns. Teachers and students: We don't WANT that, that's a stupid idea and wouldn't solve the problem! NRA: those silly teachers and students. Just because they had to live through a massacre they act like they know what they are talking about. Or they are crisis actors. Something.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 23, 2018, 11:04:34 AM
But you know, all the extra guns could come in handy in case a grizzly bear attacks the school. It's totally worth the extra cost. I love how the NRA, no matter what the problem is, MORE guns is the solution.

When all you have is a hammer ...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2018, 11:06:37 AM
There's a very relevant article from Scientific America that discusses what information we do have regarding the efficacy of arming people for safety:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/)


But you know, all the extra guns could come in handy in case a grizzly bear attacks the school. It's totally worth the extra cost. I love how the NRA, no matter what the problem is, MORE guns is the solution.

When all you have is a hammer ...

Then you clearly need a gun!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 23, 2018, 11:29:41 AM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17043216/florida-shooting-nra-teachers-guns

There is only one solution - fewer guns and more difficult access to guns.  It is true around the world - if you want less gun deaths, have fewer guns.

Bringing up insane ideas like arming teachers (gee, who stands to profit from arming hundreds of thousands of teachers?  the gun manufacturers backing the NRA) or mental health (We don't have a monopoly on mental health problems but we do have a monopoly on owning a shit load of guns) is all a distraction.  There's a finite window of time where the public cares about gun laws and gun control - about 2 to 3 weeks.

The NRA and Trump are throwing out everything they possibly can - arm teachers, mental health, more guns are needed, blame the media, blame George Soros, etc. etc. - because they want to muddy up the discussion, create a lot of noise, and it works every time.  We haven't passed a single piece of gun legislation since Sandy Hook.  The NRA and the right are good at what they do.  They prey on fear (you need good guys with guns to kill the bad guys.  the liberal government wants to take away the 2nd amendment).  This is all a distraction to get anything meaningful done.  Then, they wait for the public to lose interest and to move on to the next news item.

Don't fall for it.  If you want gun deaths to be reduced in this country, we need fewer guns and stricter gun laws.  Period.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 23, 2018, 12:03:52 PM
How about we tax the shit out of guns and ammo to help offset costs for the training and arming of our schools, the metal detectors, the redesign of the buildings, the security personnel, the medical professionals, and on and on...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 23, 2018, 12:09:01 PM
I suspect the primary benefit of arming teachers would come from the possibility that someone might shoot back deterring would be shooters. As many have already pointed out there are issues with a teacher who has limited training carrying and even more so firing a gun. The ideal situation in my mind would be one where no one knows which teachers may have a gun and very few if any actually do.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is exactly the same scenario that you have with churches, movie theaters, and other public places, right?  Is there any evidence that this has reduced the number of mass shootings in those locations?

More or less, ya. Movie theaters in particular are vulnerable due to setting (dark) and even though people can carry in church it is less likely that they will than on a day to day basis.

Either way I agree that there is little evidence of benefit but would also point out that statistical evidence would be extremely difficult to come by due to lack of data points and a control. It's really just speculation on either side and if that's the best we've got I'm sure there are people whose speculation is worth more than my own.

To be clear, I'm not in favor of arming teachers but I try to keep an open mind. I think the best solution would be stricter gun control.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: meghan88 on February 23, 2018, 12:38:30 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
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 23, 2018, 12:48:26 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!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on February 23, 2018, 01:27:18 PM

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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on February 23, 2018, 01:36:16 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/23/17044318/nra-membership-partners-cut-ties
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 23, 2018, 01:53:05 PM

Another unproven assumption we keep making is that a teacher with a gun will be a hero, stopping the bad guy.  Is it not just as likely that a teacher with a gun, semi-trained, under stress, with adrenaline running through his/her veins misses the shot and ends up simply adding to the casualties?

I would say it's not anywhere near as likely.  The more likely scenario would be that they do nothing but hunker up in their class room with their kids, which would still be a major improvement if the shooter tried to get into their class room. 

They may not be very effective, but just taking a couple of pot shots at the shooter would slow down most shooters, which would be a big deal by itself. 

It's been a while, but there was a Pearl, Mississippi shooting in the late ninieties where a teacher ran to his car to get his gun, came back and stopped the shooting not by killing the shooter, but just by the shooter no longer advancing.  Eventually the police arrived and I think the shooter actually surrendered and stood trial.  I suspect some shooters would force the issue rather than letting themselves be pinned down by the threat of fire, but even then it's probably be 50/50 whether the teacher or the shooter prevails (or maybe better because I imagine both would end up injured in a lot of situations). 

Can't remember when the Gun Free Schools act or whatever was passed, but I think if it was in effect, the Pearl Mississippi teacher was actually committing a crime by having his gun in his car. 

ETA:  I'm still not sure the number of school shootings really justify teachers going through the trouble to carry on a regular basis, but it seems like some of the least destructive policies being considered.  It seems like it would be a shame if we started paying for an armed guard or more at every school for such an extremely low risk, but it also seems somewhat horrifying to just say, it's an extremely low risk, so we're just going to leave kids defenseless against shooters, even if that might be the rational approach based on a cost benefit analysis.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/school-shootings-teachers.html

That principal is against arming teachers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 23, 2018, 01:58:22 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?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Peter Parker on February 23, 2018, 02:04:55 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)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW 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?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter 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.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi 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?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong 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...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe 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. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian 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 don’t 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. It’s not purely logical. On the gun control side, there’s 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 you’d like to say, because I am NOT saying that we can’t have a conversation about guns because something else that is also preventable kills more people. We can talk about multiple things simultaneously. But it’s 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 aren’t 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. I’m not claiming the high ground here. I’m just saying that it’s 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 that’s 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 Obama’s 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, we’re much more emotionally driven than logically driven.

All that being said, I’m curious as to how people for gun control feel about this from a philosophical standpoint at least. There’s a lot of blame and guilt laid out in regards to this. I’ve seen it on these posts. We’ve heard it where at the town hall in Florida, people were yelling at the NRA spokesman that they were murderers. I’ve seen it with people saying, gun rights people are at fault because they don’t have solutions to prevent killings. There’s blood on their hands. They bear at least some responsibility in the murders that are committed.

My thought is this. There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re 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 wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s 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 they’re 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, that’s 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 don’t 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 isn’t or shouldn’t be part of the rights to have a gun.
OK, so if that’s the case, let me give you a story. A very intoxicated/high (not sure) person attempted to break into my grandfather’s 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. I’m 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 hadn’t been there? No one could possibly know. The guy, however, was so out of it and was in his 20’s, so who knows if he would have gotten so angry about my grandfather “resisting helping” 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 aren’t they all? The Florida shooting is ultimately an anecdote. A very tragic one, but it’s a single story that’s captured the public’s 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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? I’m 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish 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?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 24, 2018, 01:55:52 PM
Quote
There aren’t 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. There’s 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
There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re 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 wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s 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 they’re 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, that’s 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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/ (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 (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/ (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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 24, 2018, 08:08:46 PM
Quote
There aren’t 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. There’s 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
There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re 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 wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s 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 they’re 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, that’s 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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/ (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 (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/ (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).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper 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
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache 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!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache 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 ( :
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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/ (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 (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/ (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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper 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!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong 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 don’t 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. It’s not purely logical. On the gun control side, there’s 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 you’d like to say, because I am NOT saying that we can’t have a conversation about guns because something else that is also preventable kills more people. We can talk about multiple things simultaneously. But it’s 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 aren’t 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. I’m not claiming the high ground here. I’m just saying that it’s 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 that’s 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 Obama’s 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, we’re much more emotionally driven than logically driven.

All that being said, I’m curious as to how people for gun control feel about this from a philosophical standpoint at least. There’s a lot of blame and guilt laid out in regards to this. I’ve seen it on these posts. We’ve heard it where at the town hall in Florida, people were yelling at the NRA spokesman that they were murderers. I’ve seen it with people saying, gun rights people are at fault because they don’t have solutions to prevent killings. There’s blood on their hands. They bear at least some responsibility in the murders that are committed.

My thought is this. There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re 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 wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s 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 they’re 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, that’s 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 don’t 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 isn’t or shouldn’t be part of the rights to have a gun.
OK, so if that’s the case, let me give you a story. A very intoxicated/high (not sure) person attempted to break into my grandfather’s 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. I’m 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 hadn’t been there? No one could possibly know. The guy, however, was so out of it and was in his 20’s, so who knows if he would have gotten so angry about my grandfather “resisting helping” 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 aren’t they all? The Florida shooting is ultimately an anecdote. A very tragic one, but it’s a single story that’s captured the public’s 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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? I’m 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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/ (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 (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/ (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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian 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 don’t 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. It’s not purely logical. On the gun control side, there’s 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 you’d like to say, because I am NOT saying that we can’t have a conversation about guns because something else that is also preventable kills more people. We can talk about multiple things simultaneously. But it’s 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 aren’t 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. I’m not claiming the high ground here. I’m just saying that it’s 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 that’s 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 Obama’s 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, we’re much more emotionally driven than logically driven.

All that being said, I’m curious as to how people for gun control feel about this from a philosophical standpoint at least. There’s a lot of blame and guilt laid out in regards to this. I’ve seen it on these posts. We’ve heard it where at the town hall in Florida, people were yelling at the NRA spokesman that they were murderers. I’ve seen it with people saying, gun rights people are at fault because they don’t have solutions to prevent killings. There’s blood on their hands. They bear at least some responsibility in the murders that are committed.

My thought is this. There’s a theme in this thread and in just the general vibe of articles and the like that, maybe we’re 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 wasn’t meant to be guaranteed in the Constitution, or even if it was, let’s 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 they’re 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, that’s 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 don’t 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 isn’t or shouldn’t be part of the rights to have a gun.
OK, so if that’s the case, let me give you a story. A very intoxicated/high (not sure) person attempted to break into my grandfather’s 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. I’m 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 hadn’t been there? No one could possibly know. The guy, however, was so out of it and was in his 20’s, so who knows if he would have gotten so angry about my grandfather “resisting helping” 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 aren’t they all? The Florida shooting is ultimately an anecdote. A very tragic one, but it’s a single story that’s captured the public’s 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 – and again, this doesn’t 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? I’m 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki 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. Let’s say it’s 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 aren’t deadly weapons, guns are, and for me that’s 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv 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 — 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 — most recently in 2012 — 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 (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://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 (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.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 (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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/us/public-defenders-are-tightening-belts-because-of-steep-federal-budget-cuts.html)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen 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
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG 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 — 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 — most recently in 2012 — 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 (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://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 (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.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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris 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 — 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 — most recently in 2012 — 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 (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://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 (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.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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen 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 — 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 — most recently in 2012 — 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 (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://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 (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.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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris 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 — 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 — most recently in 2012 — 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 (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://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 (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.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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv 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 . . .
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty 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.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EricL on February 26, 2018, 12:17:54 PM
I’m 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 “just” 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 you’re going to be hung as a wolf while a sheep, why not be a wolf? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty 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?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster 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.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster 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).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 26, 2018, 02:12:13 PM
Perhaps rather than focusing on the suggestions made in jest, your time would be better spent addressing the real ones.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Cowardly Toaster on February 26, 2018, 03:09:05 PM
Perhaps rather than focusing on the suggestions made in jest, your time would be better spent addressing the real ones.

The second 2 paragraphs are relevant regardless of the quoted post, especially the 3rd paragraph.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 26, 2018, 03:30:17 PM
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).

Perhaps rather than focusing on the suggestions made in jest, your time would be better spent addressing the real ones.

My suggestion for example...

Unless somebody starts wanting to have a useful conversation about potential solutions that don't include confiscation of 70%+ of the lawful guns in this country, I'm out.

How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).
2. Implement a national concealed carry permit with strict training requirements which can be revoked for negligence/AD (with an appeals process).
3. Provide incentives to allow concealed carry on school campuses and/or allow concealed carry with the new national CC permit.
4. Provide funding for schools to implement safety measures (penetration resistant glass doors, single point of entry, time-lock magnetic doors).
5. Increased funding for mental health treatment and law enforcement (specifically earmarked for increased enforcement of current gun laws).
6. Fund a project to improve gun tech (fingerprint scanners, microstamp bullets, etc) and require it to be on all newly manufactured guns once it's proven to be reasonably reliable.
7. All new guns sold go into a national registry which requires a warrant to search but is easily searchable once a warrant is obtained.
8. The registered owner of a gun is held liable for any damages caused by it unless they can prove that it was properly secured and reported stolen.
9. Require background checks for all gun transfers (with shall issue, timely approval requirements and an appeals process).
10. Provide easy online access to background checks for private sellers.
11. Bar sales to all violent criminals, mentally ill and stalkers (with judicial review and appeals process).
12. Allow the government to impose a delay on firearms purchases by those on the terror watch list/no fly list that can become a permanent ban with judicial review.
13. Impose a one to two week waiting period for all gun purchases (exact time is up for debate).
14. Impose magazine capacity limits (exact number is up for debate).
15. Update the legal definition of a machine gun to be based on firing rate (targeting bump stocks).
16. A generous and voluntary gun buyback program applying to all guns made before the law passed (to remove as many unregistered guns from circulation as possible).
17. Remove restrictions on the government's ability to conduct gun violence research.

I'm sure I missed a few things and of course it would need further fleshing out before being finalized.  But if I were in congress this is the basic outline of the legislation that I would be drafting.

I still haven't heard any good reasons why a republican could not propose something like this and get it passed.  Oh, and now that you mention it I think it would be a good idea to pay for all of the increased funding with increased taxes on guns and ammo.  Not to punish gun owners, but to recognize the external costs of the right to bear arms.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 26, 2018, 04:01:59 PM
Quote
How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).
Are you thinking this is more, or less restrictive than it currently is?
Quote
2. Implement a national concealed carry permit with strict training requirements which can be revoked for negligence/AD (with an appeals process).
Agreed
Quote
3. Provide incentives to allow concealed carry on school campuses and/or allow concealed carry with the new national CC permit.
A man after my own heart
Quote
4. Provide funding for schools to implement safety measures (penetration resistant glass doors, single point of entry, time-lock magnetic doors).
Not opposed.
Quote
5. Increased funding for mental health treatment and law enforcement (specifically earmarked for increased enforcement of current gun laws).
Sure
Quote
6. Fund a project to improve gun tech (fingerprint scanners, microstamp bullets, etc) and require it to be on all newly manufactured guns once it's proven to be reasonably reliable.
We would have to discuss what 'reasonanly reliable' is... but fundamentally I'm not opposed.
Quote
7. All new guns sold go into a national registry which requires a warrant to search but is easily searchable once a warrant is obtained.
8. The registered owner of a gun is held liable for any damages caused by it unless they can prove that it was properly secured and reported stolen.
Registries are a bit problematic. I'd onlyway I'd even remotely support it, is if there was no way to reference the registry to a particular gun make/model, to prevent arbitrary and capricious abuses of the registry to ban the scary looking gun de-jour. Registries have been abused time and time again by governments, small and large, and I think everything below would be just as effective without a registry... or only marginally less so.
Quote
9. Require background checks for all gun transfers (with shall issue, timely approval requirements and an appeals process).
10. Provide easy online access to background checks for private sellers.
11. Bar sales to all violent criminals, mentally ill and stalkers (with judicial review and appeals process).
12. Allow the government to impose a delay on firearms purchases by those on the terror watch list/no fly list that can become a permanent ban with judicial review.
13. Impose a one to two week waiting period for all gun purchases (exact time is up for debate).
Agreed.
Quote
14. Impose magazine capacity limits (exact number is up for debate).
The capacity limit I'd be OK with is probably higher than you'd find acceptable... I think firearms must maintain capacity to be a viable deterant to tyranny.
Quote
15. Update the legal definition of a machine gun to be based on firing rate (targeting bump stocks).
Sounds good. bumpstocks are useless unless you just want to hooligan around and waste ammo, or indescriminately hurl lead into a crowd. Neither are uh, high value activities I'd care to protect.
Quote
16. A generous and voluntary gun buyback program applying to all guns made before the law passed (to remove as many unregistered guns from circulation as possible).
I think it's a waste of money. You're just going to get all of grandpa's old rusty .22 rifles and such... unless you restrict it to certain makes/models.
Quote
17. Remove restrictions on the government's ability to conduct gun violence research.
There is no government restriction...only the CDC is prevented from studying it from an injury prevention standpoint... which is probably a waste of thier time anyway. The BJS and a number of other agencies have extensive data on it.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 26, 2018, 06:16:43 PM
Quote
How about this for a solution?

1. Adjust the requirements for obtaining a machine gun to match other restricted weapons (grenade launchers, grenades, etc.).
Are you thinking this is more, or less restrictive than it currently is?

See my previous explanation.

1 - Not trying to make them harder to obtain with that one.  My understanding from the discussion on these threads is that it would actually make them easier to obtain.  It's a message of good faith to conservatives, because I don't think it will significantly worsen the situation (since I don't see a lot of grenade launchers being used in crimes).

Quote
6. Fund a project to improve gun tech (fingerprint scanners, microstamp bullets, etc) and require it to be on all newly manufactured guns once it's proven to be reasonably reliable.
We would have to discuss what 'reasonanly reliable' is... but fundamentally I'm not opposed.

I would probably say reasonably reliable is about 95%+ reliability, but exact numbers are always debatable.

Quote
7. All new guns sold go into a national registry which requires a warrant to search but is easily searchable once a warrant is obtained.
8. The registered owner of a gun is held liable for any damages caused by it unless they can prove that it was properly secured and reported stolen.
Registries are a bit problematic. I'd onlyway I'd even remotely support it, is if there was no way to reference the registry to a particular gun make/model, to prevent arbitrary and capricious abuses of the registry to ban the scary looking gun de-jour. Registries have been abused time and time again by governments, small and large, and I think everything below would be just as effective without a registry... or only marginally less so.

Maybe a registry is a step too far for conservatives, but I personally think it is the best solution.  I'm a big fan of personal responsibility and I think a registry would allow us to more accurately assign responsibility when things do go wrong.  If someone forgets their gun on a park bench and it's later used in a crime I want to be able to hold them responsible for their negligence.

Quote
14. Impose magazine capacity limits (exact number is up for debate).
The capacity limit I'd be OK with is probably higher than you'd find acceptable... I think firearms must maintain capacity to be a viable deterant to tyranny.

I think we could find a happy middle ground if we tried.

Quote
16. A generous and voluntary gun buyback program applying to all guns made before the law passed (to remove as many unregistered guns from circulation as possible).
I think it's a waste of money. You're just going to get all of grandpa's old rusty .22 rifles and such... unless you restrict it to certain makes/models.

I'm okay wasting a little money to accelerate the process, but it's also not central to the plan.

Quote
17. Remove restrictions on the government's ability to conduct gun violence research.
There is no government restriction...only the CDC is prevented from studying it from an injury prevention standpoint... which is probably a waste of thier time anyway. The BJS and a number of other agencies have extensive data on it.

I haven't done the research on this one myself, it may not be necessary.  I just know we often don't have data to go off of in these conversations and I think that should change.

I think the main point I'm trying to make however is that if I can come up with a proposal that takes some ideas from both sides and makes some changes that have a reasonable chance of making a difference then why can't our elected representatives?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on February 27, 2018, 01:13:28 AM
Quote
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.

Does the USA not have the equivalent of community service (manual labor) in lieu of jail time for minor offences?

It seems a much more efficient way to deal consequences. Society benefits from getting shit done and spending a whole lot less than sending them to prison. The law breaker suffers the consequence of having to do forced labor on their days off while retaining their ability to continue earning so the chance of ending up in a cycle of poverty is reduced.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: marty998 on February 27, 2018, 01:42:45 AM
Quote
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.

Does the USA not have the equivalent of community service (manual labor) in lieu of jail time for minor offences?

It seems a much more efficient way to deal consequences. Society benefits from getting shit done and spending a whole lot less than sending them to prison. The law breaker suffers the consequence of having to do forced labor on their days off while retaining their ability to continue earning so the chance of ending up in a cycle of poverty is reduced.

Gooki - one issue is that the judge might be mates with the owner of the (privately operated) prisons.

Privatise your prison system and suddenly you have hidden incentives to keep people locked up as long as possible.

Even Law and Order did an episode on it (which was based on a scandal in the US a number of years back).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: sequoia on February 27, 2018, 07:21:42 AM


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.

Bottom line is if one live on $488 Social Security check and food stamps, one can not afford to own a dog. Back to the topic at hand...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2018, 07:40:25 AM


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.

Bottom line is if one live on $488 Social Security check and food stamps, one can not afford to own a dog. Back to the topic at hand...

Given his income, it's not likely that the guy paid a breeder for the dog.  What probably happened is that he found a stray, or knew someone who had too many puppies and agreed to take one.  You're saying that he can't afford to keep the dog.  So . . . the dog should be yet another of millions every year abandoned, eventually picked up by a shelter, and then euthanized?  Does that make anything better?  Now the guy is lonely because he has to give up his dog, and the dog becomes the problem of society.  Lose-lose.  Just like sending the guy to jail is lose-lose.

Do fans of these hard line solutions really aspire to make the world a worse place for everyone, or have they just not thought through the result of their stance?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 27, 2018, 08:08:52 AM


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.

Bottom line is if one live on $488 Social Security check and food stamps, one can not afford to own a dog. Back to the topic at hand...

Given his income, it's not likely that the guy paid a breeder for the dog.  What probably happened is that he found a stray, or knew someone who had too many puppies and agreed to take one.  You're saying that he can't afford to keep the dog.  So . . . the dog should be yet another of millions every year abandoned, eventually picked up by a shelter, and then euthanized?  Does that make anything better?  Now the guy is lonely because he has to give up his dog, and the dog becomes the problem of society.  Lose-lose.  Just like sending the guy to jail is lose-lose.

Do fans of these hard line solutions really aspire to make the world a worse place for everyone, or have they just not thought through the result of their stance?

While I agree that jail time for Brown in this case is a lose-lose, you're making several assumptions to come to your conclusion about the dog. Anyone who is struggling to feed and house themselves probably shouldn't own a dog. The circumstances of how he came to own the dog and how much it means to him is relevant so I'm not going to take a hard stance.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 27, 2018, 08:12:19 AM


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.

Bottom line is if one live on $488 Social Security check and food stamps, one can not afford to own a dog. Back to the topic at hand...

Given his income, it's not likely that the guy paid a breeder for the dog.  What probably happened is that he found a stray, or knew someone who had too many puppies and agreed to take one.  You're saying that he can't afford to keep the dog.  So . . . the dog should be yet another of millions every year abandoned, eventually picked up by a shelter, and then euthanized?  Does that make anything better?  Now the guy is lonely because he has to give up his dog, and the dog becomes the problem of society.  Lose-lose.  Just like sending the guy to jail is lose-lose.

Do fans of these hard line solutions really aspire to make the world a worse place for everyone, or have they just not thought through the result of their stance?

While I agree that jail time for Brown in this case is a lose-lose, you're making several assumptions to come to your conclusion about the dog. Anyone who is struggling to feed and house themselves probably shouldn't own a dog. The circumstances of how he came to own the dog and how much it means to him is relevant so I'm not going to take a hard stance.

Sure. But:

1) There are more strays than willing owners in this country (and probably in most/all countries)
2) People who are struggling to feed and house themselves often struggle from severe loneliness, isolation and depression. So, "shouldn't own a dog" is, I suppose, logical, but you're talking about human beings as though they are robots. The emotional relief of having a pet when one is living such a precarious life is, I imagine, quite strong.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 27, 2018, 09:04:59 AM


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.

Bottom line is if one live on $488 Social Security check and food stamps, one can not afford to own a dog. Back to the topic at hand...

Given his income, it's not likely that the guy paid a breeder for the dog.  What probably happened is that he found a stray, or knew someone who had too many puppies and agreed to take one.  You're saying that he can't afford to keep the dog.  So . . . the dog should be yet another of millions every year abandoned, eventually picked up by a shelter, and then euthanized?  Does that make anything better?  Now the guy is lonely because he has to give up his dog, and the dog becomes the problem of society.  Lose-lose.  Just like sending the guy to jail is lose-lose.

Do fans of these hard line solutions really aspire to make the world a worse place for everyone, or have they just not thought through the result of their stance?

While I agree that jail time for Brown in this case is a lose-lose, you're making several assumptions to come to your conclusion about the dog. Anyone who is struggling to feed and house themselves probably shouldn't own a dog. The circumstances of how he came to own the dog and how much it means to him is relevant so I'm not going to take a hard stance.

Sure. But:

1) There are more strays than willing owners in this country (and probably in most/all countries)
2) People who are struggling to feed and house themselves often struggle from severe loneliness, isolation and depression. So, "shouldn't own a dog" is, I suppose, logical, but you're talking about human beings as though they are robots. The emotional relief of having a pet when one is living such a precarious life is, I imagine, quite strong.

I specifically said "The circumstances of how he came to own the dog and how much it means to him is relevant so I'm not going to take a hard stance." to avoid someone giving this response.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 27, 2018, 09:28:10 AM


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.

Bottom line is if one live on $488 Social Security check and food stamps, one can not afford to own a dog. Back to the topic at hand...

Given his income, it's not likely that the guy paid a breeder for the dog.  What probably happened is that he found a stray, or knew someone who had too many puppies and agreed to take one.  You're saying that he can't afford to keep the dog.  So . . . the dog should be yet another of millions every year abandoned, eventually picked up by a shelter, and then euthanized?  Does that make anything better?  Now the guy is lonely because he has to give up his dog, and the dog becomes the problem of society.  Lose-lose.  Just like sending the guy to jail is lose-lose.

Do fans of these hard line solutions really aspire to make the world a worse place for everyone, or have they just not thought through the result of their stance?

While I agree that jail time for Brown in this case is a lose-lose, you're making several assumptions to come to your conclusion about the dog. Anyone who is struggling to feed and house themselves probably shouldn't own a dog. The circumstances of how he came to own the dog and how much it means to him is relevant so I'm not going to take a hard stance.

Sure. But:

1) There are more strays than willing owners in this country (and probably in most/all countries)
2) People who are struggling to feed and house themselves often struggle from severe loneliness, isolation and depression. So, "shouldn't own a dog" is, I suppose, logical, but you're talking about human beings as though they are robots. The emotional relief of having a pet when one is living such a precarious life is, I imagine, quite strong.

I specifically said "The circumstances of how he came to own the dog and how much it means to him is relevant so I'm not going to take a hard stance." to avoid someone giving this response.

I see. I apologize for talking without authorization on an open forum.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 27, 2018, 10:05:09 AM


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.

Bottom line is if one live on $488 Social Security check and food stamps, one can not afford to own a dog. Back to the topic at hand...

Given his income, it's not likely that the guy paid a breeder for the dog.  What probably happened is that he found a stray, or knew someone who had too many puppies and agreed to take one.  You're saying that he can't afford to keep the dog.  So . . . the dog should be yet another of millions every year abandoned, eventually picked up by a shelter, and then euthanized?  Does that make anything better?  Now the guy is lonely because he has to give up his dog, and the dog becomes the problem of society.  Lose-lose.  Just like sending the guy to jail is lose-lose.

Do fans of these hard line solutions really aspire to make the world a worse place for everyone, or have they just not thought through the result of their stance?

While I agree that jail time for Brown in this case is a lose-lose, you're making several assumptions to come to your conclusion about the dog. Anyone who is struggling to feed and house themselves probably shouldn't own a dog. The circumstances of how he came to own the dog and how much it means to him is relevant so I'm not going to take a hard stance.

Sure. But:

1) There are more strays than willing owners in this country (and probably in most/all countries)
2) People who are struggling to feed and house themselves often struggle from severe loneliness, isolation and depression. So, "shouldn't own a dog" is, I suppose, logical, but you're talking about human beings as though they are robots. The emotional relief of having a pet when one is living such a precarious life is, I imagine, quite strong.

I specifically said "The circumstances of how he came to own the dog and how much it means to him is relevant so I'm not going to take a hard stance." to avoid someone giving this response.

I see. I apologize for talking without authorization on an open forum.

You said I was talking about human beings as though they're robots. But what I really said is I don't know the circumstances so I'm not going to say he should or shouldn't. You and GuitarStv are both making assumptions that dogs provide great emotional benefit to people who you assume are lonely. Given Mr. Brown's age and living situation, that seems likely but we're not talking about Mr. Brown anymore, we're talking about anyone who is struggling to get by. Others are making assumptions that dogs are a waste of money for poor people. Can we all just stop acting like we know shit we don't know?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 27, 2018, 10:12:06 AM
At the end of the day, if you don't enforce the law in some way, rich or poor, society will fall apart and be crappy for everyone except those with the means to insulate themselves from it. In a place where tire slashings, car theft, small thefts, trespassing, etc go without consequences, it will be the middle class and poor who have to pay for it.   

So as I said before, perhaps some judicial discretion in sentencing is important, and more oppurtunities for community service should be made, but there need to be consequences. And yes, those consequences will often make life harder for those who face them... but that's kind of the point.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on February 27, 2018, 10:22:46 AM
At the end of the day, if you don't enforce the law in some way, rich or poor, society will fall apart and be crappy for everyone except those with the means to insulate themselves from it. In a place where tire slashings, car theft, small thefts, trespassing, etc go without consequences, it will be the middle class and poor who have to pay for it.   

So as I said before, perhaps some judicial discretion in sentencing is important, and more oppurtunities for community service should be made, but there need to be consequences. And yes, those consequences will often make life harder for those who face them... but that's kind of the point.

Greater proportionality in sentencing would help too. The way Finland handles speeding has some of that.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2018, 11:02:57 AM
At the end of the day, if you don't enforce the law in some way, rich or poor, society will fall apart and be crappy for everyone except those with the means to insulate themselves from it. In a place where tire slashings, car theft, small thefts, trespassing, etc go without consequences, it will be the middle class and poor who have to pay for it.   

So as I said before, perhaps some judicial discretion in sentencing is important, and more oppurtunities for community service should be made, but there need to be consequences. And yes, those consequences will often make life harder for those who face them... but that's kind of the point.

Agreed.  Consequences for actions need to exist, and law needs to be enforced.

At the same time, laws need to be just.  They need to fairly apply to the rich and the poor, or they should be modified.  A person's situation needs to be considered during sentencing to ensure that justice (and the public good) is being served.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 27, 2018, 11:17:35 AM
This is where a sense of community would be worthwhile. Imagine living in a place where the cops bust you for your dog being unlicensed, and guide you through the process of getting a ride over to the shelter where the dog can be spayed/neutered and receive its shots at a price relative to the owner's income.

Nope, this is 'Murica! Stick his tail in jail for a month and teach him a **** lesson!

This guy is very low income - what other factors is he up against? Health problems? mental health problems? Lack of education?

Admittedly he probably could have gone to the library, the firehouse, a church or a number of other places and asked for guidance but if he's been at odds with "The Man" much of his life, he might avoid some of those opportunities.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: sequoia on February 27, 2018, 11:51:38 AM


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.

Bottom line is if one live on $488 Social Security check and food stamps, one can not afford to own a dog. Back to the topic at hand...

Given his income, it's not likely that the guy paid a breeder for the dog.  What probably happened is that he found a stray, or knew someone who had too many puppies and agreed to take one.  You're saying that he can't afford to keep the dog.  So . . . the dog should be yet another of millions every year abandoned, eventually picked up by a shelter, and then euthanized?  Does that make anything better?  Now the guy is lonely because he has to give up his dog, and the dog becomes the problem of society.  Lose-lose.  Just like sending the guy to jail is lose-lose.

Do fans of these hard line solutions really aspire to make the world a worse place for everyone, or have they just not thought through the result of their stance?

It is not hard line solution, it is a fact. $488 Social Security check and food stamps means that one can not afford owning a pet (dog,cat,bird, etc). imho do not end up with one to start with. One need to worry about basic necessity first (food, shelter) vs owning a pet which is a luxury. Understand that this may not agreeable for everyone. And I understand a lot of people can not think rationally about money - plenty of stories here about people who are in debt (regardless of how much they make).

I love dog and other pets (have owned plenty of them in my life). If the choice is euthanizing the dog or end up in jail, the dog lose that battle everytime, but hey that just me. I rather to be lonely but have my freedom instead of end up in jail :)

Can we go back to topic at hand?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 27, 2018, 11:53:34 AM
Congress is back in session today and basically signaling they won't do a damn thing.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: KTG on February 27, 2018, 12:20:04 PM
As I expected. Give the networks 10 days to run with this story, and then they will move on to something else. We'll stop talking about it. Then meet back here when the next mass shooting occurs.

Lather, rinse, and repeat.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2018, 12:25:50 PM
Yep.

In other news, today I learned that there are several US cities in which legislation has passed to require people to own guns.  I guess that's the government for you . . . always trying to take away your guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on February 27, 2018, 12:28:15 PM
It's really going to come down to whether or not people vote according to this issue this fall. I know I will be.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 27, 2018, 12:43:32 PM
I certainly hope the GOP does something reasonable for gun control, and the democrats don't torpedo it because it "doesn't go too far enough!!!1111!"

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: sequoia on February 27, 2018, 12:53:52 PM
It's really going to come down to whether or not people vote according to this issue this fall. I know I will be.

+1. I feel like I have been sitting on the sideline on this, but not this time around.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on February 27, 2018, 02:38:52 PM
I love dog and other pets (have owned plenty of them in my life). If the choice is euthanizing the dog or end up in jail, the dog lose that battle everytime, but hey that just me. I rather to be lonely but have my freedom instead of end up in jail :)
I was going to stay out until this one.

You should absolutely never own a pet, whether you think you can currently afford one or not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 27, 2018, 06:05:45 PM
I love dog and other pets (have owned plenty of them in my life). If the choice is euthanizing the dog or end up in jail, the dog lose that battle everytime, but hey that just me. I rather to be lonely but have my freedom instead of end up in jail :)
I was going to stay out until this one.

You should absolutely never own a pet, whether you think you can currently afford one or not.

Also true of guns.

:P
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Fireball on February 27, 2018, 06:14:44 PM
It's really going to come down to whether or not people vote according to this issue this fall. I know I will be.

+1. I feel like I have been sitting on the sideline on this, but not this time around.

+2
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on February 28, 2018, 11:16:25 AM
It's really going to come down to whether or not people vote according to this issue this fall. I know I will be.

Me too. Time for the rules to evolve.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 28, 2018, 11:44:54 AM
Can we all just stop acting like we know shit we don't know?

Welcome to the internet, no research or common sense needed here!  Haha
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 28, 2018, 02:39:06 PM
I certainly hope the GOP does something reasonable for gun control, and the democrats don't torpedo it because it "doesn't go too far enough!!!1111!"
As if on cue...that's exactly what the Democrats are currently doing. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.98f1a65df1db)  The bill in question addresses some of the issues that have contributed to people slipping through the background check system.  It's got bipartisan support, or at least it *had* bipartisan support until the Parkland shooting.  Now the Democrats are trying to stop the bill, because they sense blood in the water and would like to pass something more restrictive.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on February 28, 2018, 02:52:50 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/28/the-two-assault-weapons-bans-before-congress-are-co-sponsored-by-195-democrats-and-0-republicans/?utm_term=.e1fa4f8ba39f

The two assault weapons bans before Congress are co-sponsored by 195 Democrats and 0 Republicans
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on February 28, 2018, 03:14:23 PM
An assault weapons ban is not useful and something I do not support. I hope 0 republicans support it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: fuzzy math on February 28, 2018, 06:07:15 PM
I never thought I'd live to see the day when Walmart restricted gun sales. But here we are, and I feel compelled to say something positive about Walmart, which is giving me major cognitive dissonance. thanks Walmart, you're ... Awesome?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 28, 2018, 06:36:46 PM
I never thought I'd live to see the day when Walmart restricted gun sales. But here we are, and I feel compelled to say something positive about Walmart, which is giving me major cognitive dissonance. thanks Walmart, you're ... Awesome?

I'm sure it's just a calculated decision with profit in mind as the bottom line.

Which is interesting in terms of what it implies for what it think the stance of its customer base is regarding gun control. I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Fireball on February 28, 2018, 07:51:51 PM
I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.

Definitely. The county where I grew up voted 92% for Trump in 2016.  When Dick's announced they were restricting guns sales there was much hemming and hawing. Boycott, etc etc. Never stepping foot in there again. When Wal-Mart announced the exact same restrictions - crickets.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 28, 2018, 08:02:10 PM
Dick's did the same after Sandy Hook. Then started selling them again. Bottom line always wins.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: fuzzy math on February 28, 2018, 08:53:28 PM
I never thought I'd live to see the day when Walmart restricted gun sales. But here we are, and I feel compelled to say something positive about Walmart, which is giving me major cognitive dissonance. thanks Walmart, you're ... Awesome?

I'm sure it's just a calculated decision with profit in mind as the bottom line.

Which is interesting in terms of what it implies for what it think the stance of its customer base is regarding gun control. I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.


Well, even republicans gotta eat - I can't imagine that a lot of them have many other options in more rural areas, maybe they know the backlash will suck but realize these people won't actually abandon them. I think WM has noticed who their customer base is, and what will happen in 10, 20, 30 yrs if they don't appeal to a younger more liberal (more monied) base. They've done a few things recently that suggest they either have an actual conscience, or they want to attract the other side too.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 28, 2018, 09:00:53 PM
I never thought I'd live to see the day when Walmart restricted gun sales. But here we are, and I feel compelled to say something positive about Walmart, which is giving me major cognitive dissonance. thanks Walmart, you're ... Awesome?

I'm sure it's just a calculated decision with profit in mind as the bottom line.

Which is interesting in terms of what it implies for what it think the stance of its customer base is regarding gun control. I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.


Well, even republicans gotta eat - I can't imagine that a lot of them have many other options in more rural areas, maybe they know the backlash will suck but realize these people won't actually abandon them. I think WM has noticed who their customer base is, and what will happen in 10, 20, 30 yrs if they don't appeal to a younger more liberal (more monied) base. They've done a few things recently that suggest they either have an actual conscience, or they want to attract the other side too.

Well, that and the fact that majorities of Americans actually favor gun control. Which means that even some conservatives are starting to wake up a little.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 01, 2018, 06:13:22 AM
I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.

Walmart is the nation's top retailer, practically all Americans shop there.  Why would you think their customers are more conservative - doesn't everyone want a good value?

No one in my circle of friends shops there, because of the way they treat employees. And the way their omnipresence in snall-town America has helped to decimate small businesses in them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 01, 2018, 06:50:45 AM
I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.

Walmart is the nation's top retailer, practically all Americans shop there.  Why would you think their customers are more conservative - doesn't everyone want a good value?

Liberals tend to live in urban areas.  Urban areas have fewer Walmarts.  Liberals also tend, imo, to want to support local/small businesses in their area and don't mind paying a slightly higher price to do so.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 01, 2018, 06:53:18 AM
An assault weapons ban is not useful and something I do not support. I hope 0 republicans support it.

Wut.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.1e9fa38ef211

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2018/02/awb.png)

Quote
For his 2016 book “Rampage Nation,” Klarevas collected data on every gun massacre — which he defines as six or more people shot and killed — for the 50 years before 2016. His aim was to see whether there was any change in the number of gun massacres while the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons was in place.

He calls the results “staggering.” Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

Explain.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 01, 2018, 06:56:55 AM
I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.

Walmart is the nation's top retailer, practically all Americans shop there.  Why would you think their customers are more conservative - doesn't everyone want a good value?

No one in my circle of friends shops there, because of the way they treat employees. And the way their omnipresence in snall-town America has helped to decimate small businesses in them.

I don't and know several others who say it's pretty rare they go to Wal-Mart, and frankly I don't think they're the best value much of the time. Groceries are definitely more than where I shop and most other things I would buy there I can get cheaper and choose the one I want from Amazon. I'm not in an urban area but not exactly rural either.

To be fair it probably is a good value for people who don't really analyze prices and just grab what they want because most of their prices are close to the lowest, just not the lowest.

As for taking out other businesses in rural areas, Dollar General seems to be coming in to clean up the scraps. Maybe it's anecdotal but I like to get off the interstate a bit and drive through a lot of small towns in the east coast states. DG's seem to pop up in some unlikely places like small shopping areas where every other building is 50+ years old or dead strip malls where every other unit is dark. Sometimes they seem to be dropped into a field in the middle of nowhere, but they must be making money.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 01, 2018, 07:08:22 AM
An assault weapons ban is not useful and something I do not support. I hope 0 republicans support it.

Wut.

Quote
For his 2016 book “Rampage Nation,” Klarevas collected data on every gun massacre — which he defines as six or more people shot and killed — for the 50 years before 2016. His aim was to see whether there was any change in the number of gun massacres while the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons was in place.

He calls the results “staggering.” Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

Explain.

These are interesting numbers. I would assume the book also contained information on what type of weapon was used in each of the shootings, do you know how many in each time span used a weapon that would be effected by the ban?

ETA: didn't see the linked article at first, it did not answer this question but I may do some more digging when I get a chance.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 01, 2018, 07:39:45 AM
Found this a bit disturbing:

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second


I'm comfortable with some gun control measures being put into place but I'm concerned that an emotional response will, as seen post 9/11, result in the this generation's PATRIOT Act with people's rights being trampled.

I mean, I don't think he knows what he's talking about at all, but I could see a speedy preliminary injunction type process pending formal proceedings. We do it for plenty of other stuff.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 01, 2018, 07:43:23 AM
Found this a bit disturbing:

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second


I'm comfortable with some gun control measures being put into place but I'm concerned that an emotional response will, as seen post 9/11, result in the this generation's PATRIOT Act with people's rights being trampled.

NRA: Do nothing (maybe expand background checks?)

Trump: Trample the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments and ban bump stocks

The Left/The kids: Some or all of - Raise age to buy to 21, ban bump stocks, ban assault weapons, lower/set magazine maximum (ban high-capacity magazines), longer wait period, universal background checks for gun and ammo buyers, ban semi-automatic weapons, ban sales to all violent criminals including domestic abusers
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 01, 2018, 07:44:48 AM
These are interesting numbers. I would assume the book also contained information on what type of weapon was used in each of the shootings, do you know how many in each time span used a weapon that would be effected by the ban?

ETA: didn't see the linked article at first, it did not answer this question but I may do some more digging when I get a chance.

I haven't read the book so I'd have to do some digging as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on March 01, 2018, 07:49:37 AM
Found this a bit disturbing:

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second


I'm comfortable with some gun control measures being put into place but I'm concerned that an emotional response will, as seen post 9/11, result in the this generation's PATRIOT Act with people's rights being trampled.

I find this funny.  Conservatives were worried about Obama taking their guns.  I wonder what kind of gun control legislation might be passed if there's a democratic wave in the 2018 elections and Trump decides to work with them...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 01, 2018, 07:50:30 AM
An assault weapons ban is not useful and something I do not support. I hope 0 republicans support it.

Wut.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/?utm_term=.1e9fa38ef211



Quote
For his 2016 book “Rampage Nation,” Klarevas collected data on every gun massacre — which he defines as six or more people shot and killed — for the 50 years before 2016. His aim was to see whether there was any change in the number of gun massacres while the 10-year federal ban on assault weapons was in place.

He calls the results “staggering.” Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

Explain.



https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

The type of weapon is largely fungible, with only marginal differences in effectiveness between types. If one type is banned, the use of a different type would go up similarly. Some of the most deadly shootings were done using shotguns.

If you look at the timeline in this article, you see the frequency picking up in 1999. Right in the middle of the AWB. Some years the frequency wanes, some years it comes back.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.5389d997ae2f



Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2018, 08:04:51 AM
I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.

Walmart is the nation's top retailer, practically all Americans shop there.  Why would you think their customers are more conservative - doesn't everyone want a good value?

No one in my circle of friends shops there, because of the way they treat employees. And the way their omnipresence in snall-town America has helped to decimate small businesses in them.

Your circle of friends is pretty isolated from society as a whole.  95% of Americans shop at Walmart, and they save over $2k annually on average due to the lower prices.  Walmart employs a lot of people that would otherwise have difficulty finding employment.  Their employment practices have shown massive progress over the years as well.

The elitist liberal attitude hurts your credibility.  Your circle of friends doesn't constitute a large enough sample group to say mainly conservatives shop Walmart.  When you surround yourself with people that share the same ideology, it can lead to a warped sense of reality.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandindex/2012/06/21/republican-love-for-walmart-unmatched-among-democrat-consumers/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandindex/2012/06/21/republican-love-for-walmart-unmatched-among-democrat-consumers/)
https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/shopping-at-wal-mart-you-might-be-a-republican.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/shopping-at-wal-mart-you-might-be-a-republican.html)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2015/08/14/the-dramatic-democratization-of-the-weekly-wal-mart-shopper/#50604be6a3ca (https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2015/08/14/the-dramatic-democratization-of-the-weekly-wal-mart-shopper/#50604be6a3ca)
http://fortune.com/2016/06/06/fortune-500-conservatives-liberals-love-hate/ (http://fortune.com/2016/06/06/fortune-500-conservatives-liberals-love-hate/)

It would appear that conservative preference to Wal-Mart is pretty well documented.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 01, 2018, 08:12:05 AM
If you look at the timeline in this article, you see the frequency picking up in 1999. Right in the middle of the AWB. Some years the frequency wanes, some years it comes back.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.5389d997ae2f

There is a clear proliferation after 2004.  To ignore it is to be willfully ignorant.

According to your link, 175 people died in mass shootings between 1994-2004, an average of 17.5 per year (the Washington Post is apparently using 4+ fatalities as their definition for a "mass shooting" whereas Klarevas used 6+).

-2005: 27 deaths
-2006: 26 deaths
-2007: 54 deaths
-2008: 29 deaths
-2009: 39 deaths
-2010: 22 deaths
-2011: 25 deaths
-2012: 72 deaths
-2013: 36 deaths
-2014: 16 deaths (the one year below the '94-'04 average)
-2015: 47 deaths
-2016: 67 deaths
-2017: 117 deaths
-2018: 22 deaths in 2 months

So in every year but one the number of deaths related to mass shootings was more (and often far more) than the 10-year average of 1994-2004 according to the link you provided.

If you say the assault weapons ban was a failure (if you define success as limiting the number of gun deaths related to mass shootings) you're being intellectually dishonest.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 01, 2018, 08:26:12 AM
If you look at the timeline in this article, you see the frequency picking up in 1999. Right in the middle of the AWB. Some years the frequency
 wanes, some years it comes back.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.5389d997ae2f

There is a clear proliferation after 2004.  To ignore it is to be willfully ignorant.

According to your link, 175 people died in mass shootings between 1994-2004, an average of 17.5 per year (the Washington Post is apparently using 4+ fatalities as their definition for a "mass shooting" whereas Klarevas used 6+).

-2005: 27 deaths
-2006: 26 deaths
-2007: 54 deaths
-2008: 29 deaths
-2009: 39 deaths
-2010: 22 deaths
-2011: 25 deaths
-2012: 72 deaths
-2013: 36 deaths
-2014: 16 deaths (the one year below the '94-'04 average)
-2015: 47 deaths
-2016: 67 deaths
-2017: 117 deaths
-2018: 22 deaths in 2 months

So in every year but one the number of deaths related to mass shootings was more (and often far more) than the 10-year average of 1994-2004 according to the link you provided.

If you say the assault weapons ban was a failure (if you define success as limiting the number of gun deaths related to mass shootings) you're being intellectually dishonest.

I can see a clear trend beginning in 1999 that continued upward until the present day. That the incidence of mass shootings continued to increase after the AWB, is consistent with the AWB not being a prime factor in mass shooting deaths. it ALSO needs to be considered that than overall gun violence continue to drop after the AWB expired.

 To ignore that the trend started almost exactly in the middle of the AWB is quite intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant as well. It points quite clearly that there are other driving factors to mass shootings.

How can you ALSO ignore that most mass shootings were committed with other types of guns?


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: asiljoy on March 01, 2018, 08:31:30 AM
Found this a bit disturbing:

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second


I'm comfortable with some gun control measures being put into place but I'm concerned that an emotional response will, as seen post 9/11, result in the this generation's PATRIOT Act with people's rights being trampled.

NRA: Do nothing (maybe expand background checks?)

Trump: Trample the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments and ban bump stocks

The Left/The kids: Some or all of - Raise age to buy to 21, ban bump stocks, ban assault weapons, lower/set magazine maximum (ban high-capacity magazines), longer wait period, universal background checks for gun and ammo buyers, ban semi-automatic weapons, ban sales to all violent criminals including domestic abusers

My hunch is that this is just another misdirection. Get everyone all hot and bothered and then do nothing/pretend it never happened. Interesting way to 'win' the news cycle I guess.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 01, 2018, 08:37:49 AM
I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.

Walmart is the nation's top retailer, practically all Americans shop there.  Why would you think their customers are more conservative - doesn't everyone want a good value?

No one in my circle of friends shops there, because of the way they treat employees. And the way their omnipresence in snall-town America has helped to decimate small businesses in them.

Your circle of friends is pretty isolated from society as a whole.  95% of Americans shop at Walmart, and they save over $2k annually on average due to the lower prices.  Walmart employs a lot of people that would otherwise have difficulty finding employment.  Their employment practices have shown massive progress over the years as well.

The elitist liberal attitude hurts your credibility.  Your circle of friends doesn't constitute a large enough sample group to say mainly conservatives shop Walmart.  When you surround yourself with people that share the same ideology, it can lead to a warped sense of reality.

Look, dude. You don't need to insult me. You asked me a specific question -- basically, doesn't everyone shop at Walmart? I gave you a specific answer: My circle of friends does not. This is why.

I have friends and associates from the entire gamut of the political spectrum. I grew up in Walmart country. I left because small towns were dying. I now live in the city. Most of my relatives are Trump voters. That doesn't make me "elitist," "isolated," or "warped".

It does, however, make you insulting and condescending.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 01, 2018, 08:45:53 AM
I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.

Walmart is the nation's top retailer, practically all Americans shop there.  Why would you think their customers are more conservative - doesn't everyone want a good value?

No one in my circle of friends shops there, because of the way they treat employees. And the way their omnipresence in snall-town America has helped to decimate small businesses in them.

Your circle of friends is pretty isolated from society as a whole.  95% of Americans shop at Walmart, and they save over $2k annually on average due to the lower prices.  Walmart employs a lot of people that would otherwise have difficulty finding employment.  Their employment practices have shown massive progress over the years as well.

The elitist liberal attitude hurts your credibility.  Your circle of friends doesn't constitute a large enough sample group to say mainly conservatives shop Walmart.  When you surround yourself with people that share the same ideology, it can lead to a warped sense of reality.

95% of Americans spent money at Walmart or through the Walmart website. That's a bit different than saying someone shops at Walmart which to me implies it is one of my regular stores, admittedly there isn't a strict definition. By that same metric 89% of Americans spent money at McDonald's but we're not all regulars. That 89% would include me because I got a single dollar menu hamburger back in December but that was the only money I spent at McDonald's all year.

A more accurate measure would be number of dollars spent by each demographic.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: fuzzy math on March 01, 2018, 08:56:04 AM
I tend to think of Walmart customers as more on the conservative side.

Walmart is the nation's top retailer, practically all Americans shop there.  Why would you think their customers are more conservative - doesn't everyone want a good value?

No one in my circle of friends shops there, because of the way they treat employees. And the way their omnipresence in snall-town America has helped to decimate small businesses in them.

Your circle of friends is pretty isolated from society as a whole.  95% of Americans shop at Walmart, and they save over $2k annually on average due to the lower prices.  Walmart employs a lot of people that would otherwise have difficulty finding employment.  Their employment practices have shown massive progress over the years as well.

The elitist liberal attitude hurts your credibility.  Your circle of friends doesn't constitute a large enough sample group to say mainly conservatives shop Walmart.  When you surround yourself with people that share the same ideology, it can lead to a warped sense of reality.

95% of Americans spent money at Walmart or through the Walmart website. That's a bit different than saying someone shops at Walmart which to me implies it is one of my regular stores, admittedly there isn't a strict definition. By that same metric 89% of Americans spent money at McDonald's but we're not all regulars. That 89% would include me because I got a single dollar menu hamburger back in December but that was the only money I spent at McDonald's all year.

A more accurate measure would be number of dollars spent by each demographic.
Word.

Bender perhaps your bias does not allow you to understand the shopping habits of liberals. Have you ever considered that instead of assuming things about others? How does shopping at Target make people uninformed?

In my house, Walmart is the absolute last place we will shop (amongst 6 other grocery stores, Target and other mass retailers). My husband will occasionally pick up an item there if it's inconvenient to go elsewhere, but then we generally have a discussion about it and how to avoid it in the future. If a single purchase every 2-3 months makes us the Wal Mart shoppers you are referencing, then so be it but do not confused that with intent. Similarly if we are travelling, we do not always have the much luck in finding a different store in small towns.

A friend whose husband works at 3M says that Walmart has a special lower quality line of products that 3M manufactures for them. It leads to waste and planned obsolescence. I will not support those business practices.

Walmart is not the cheapest place either. I actually went there recently to price check items and found them to be significantly more expensive than Aldi.

Sent from my H1623 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2018, 09:31:48 AM
Look, dude, I'm trying to be objective.  I have never owned a gun, but have gone target shooting several times.  I am not affiliated with either party, and voted for a 3rd party candidate in the last presidential election.  Aren't I the kind of voter you want to convince rather than alienate?

I see nonsense coming from both sides.  Statistics are easily manipulated by both sides and selected to support their position.  An objective, unemotional look at data from multiple sources, and an understanding of the bias from each source is needed.



One of the articles you linked showed that liberals prefer target over Walmart.  This just plays into their uninformed sense of reality.

When you claim that liberals have "an uninformed sense of reality", this is you trying to be objective and unemotional?  From what I've seen, your posts and wording have a heavy republican bias.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 01, 2018, 09:41:08 AM
Yeah, we aren't fans of WM and generally avoid it. DW never goes there. I go maybe once or twice a year. Big alternatives are drying up in many communities leaving WM, local businesses and online options. That is the case for a town a friend lives in.

In our town we have plenty of alternative shopping options.

The story about 3M: it was pointed out to me as well that discount stores have reduced quality versions of goods. A fellow told me to flip over my lawnmower and look at the crankshaft that the blade was mounted on. A quality engine would have a thick crankshaft. The same brand also might sell a thinner, weaker version to a discount store. Sure enough, I started paying attention and there were indeed examples of both. Naturally I owned the cheaper example. I have heard the same about tires.

Buyer beware. I avoid brands who play these kinds of games if I see evidence of cost cutting. Build a quality product or else.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 01, 2018, 09:44:41 AM
Look, dude, I'm trying to be objective.  I have never owned a gun, but have gone target shooting several times.  I am not affiliated with either party, and voted for a 3rd party candidate in the last presidential election.  Aren't I the kind of voter you want to convince rather than alienate?

I see nonsense coming from both sides.  Statistics are easily manipulated by both sides and selected to support their position.  An objective, unemotional look at data from multiple sources, and an understanding of the bias from each source is needed.

Look, dude. I own three firearms, and am licensed to carry in my state. We're talking about Walmart here. How am I alienating YOU, when you are the one calling me insulting names?

I see far more emotion in your need to label me as isolated, elitist, and warped. I find it interesting how often people think they are objective and unemotional when their words show differently.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 01, 2018, 10:02:39 AM
Look, dude. I own three firearms, and am licensed to carry in my state. We're talking about Walmart here. How am I alienating YOU, when you are the one calling me insulting names?

Ok my head just exploded.

You live in a city, don't shop at Walmart, own 3 firearms and licensed to carry.

This is fascinating and I want to know more.  I would bet if we talked in person we would agree on many things.  I'm off to read more posts!

You mean I'm not as isolated, elitist and warped as you originally assumed? ;)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jrhampt on March 01, 2018, 10:49:00 AM
My household also doesn’t typically shop at Wal-Mart and possesses multiple firearms :-)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 01, 2018, 10:55:45 AM
I can see a clear trend beginning in 1999 that continued upward until the present day. That the incidence of mass shootings continued to increase after the AWB, is consistent with the AWB not being a prime factor in mass shooting deaths. it ALSO needs to be considered that than overall gun violence continue to drop after the AWB expired.

 To ignore that the trend started almost exactly in the middle of the AWB is quite intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant as well. It points quite clearly that there are other driving factors to mass shootings.

How can you ALSO ignore that most mass shootings were committed with other types of guns?

1) You can "see a clear trend" but have provided nothing other than an article with an interactive graph.  I have provided studies and books by experts.

Quote
Compared with the 10-year period before the ban, the number of gun massacres during the ban period fell by 37 percent, and the number of people dying from gun massacres fell by 43 percent. But after the ban lapsed in 2004, the numbers shot up again — an astonishing 183 percent increase in massacres and a 239 percent increase in massacre deaths.

Klarevas says that the key provision of the assault weapons bill was a ban on high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. “We have found that when large capacity mags are regulated, you get drastic drops in both the incidence of gun massacres and the fatality rate of gun massacres.”

You cannot refute this point other than "Well, I see a trend."

2) Yes, not every mass shooting uses an assault weapon or bump stock.  But those make mass shootings much more likely to be worse.  That overall gun deaths are down but mass shootings are going up bears that point out.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

Quote
A number of surveys show that bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are popular among the general public. A 2017 Pew Research Center poll found that 68 percent of adults favor banning assault weapons, and 65 percent support a ban on high-capacity magazines.

More strikingly, substantial numbers of gun owners supported the measures as well: 48 percent of gun owners in that poll said they would support a ban on assault style weapons, and 44 percent said they favored a ban on high-capacity magazines.

https://psmag.com/news/assault-weapons-ban-decreases-school-shooting-deaths

Quote
"Assault weapons bans reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54.4 percent," Mark Gius of Quinnipiac University writes in the journal Applied Economics Letters. "All other gun-control laws—concealed-carry laws, private-sale background checks, and federal dealer background checks—had no statistically significant effect on school shootings."

Quote
In a 2014 study that analyzed data covering the years 1982 to 2011, he found "both state and federal assault weapon bans have statistically significant and negative effects on mass shooting fatalities."

In addition, he found the federal ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, was linked to fewer injuries from mass shootings.

And here, we see the frequency of mass shootings (four or more deaths) slowed during the 1994-2004 time frame.

(https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/AW_ban_2018-02-22-500x464.png)

And again, on a per year basis:

(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-04-20-1461173878-6982193-MassShootings1973to2015Chart.jpg)

You haven't provided any evidence beyond "seeing a trend" that the assault weapons ban didn't have an effect in bringing down the number of mass shootings in this country.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 01, 2018, 12:35:45 PM
Regardless of anyone's stance on the gun debate, this is a problem

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-boycott-delta-air/georgia-lawmaker-threatens-to-kill-delta-state-tax-breaks-over-nra-stance-idUSKCN1GA2UV

Quote
“I will kill any tax legislation that benefits @Delta unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with @NRA,”

Clearly the US has a problem with corporations influencing politics and vice versa but normally it's not openly stated on Twitter. The lieutenant governor of Georgia is offering the possibility of monetary reward to a corporation for their compliance in a political debate. I'm having trouble finding more information on the tax break for jet fuel and why it was proposed in the first place and also whether it actually had a shot at passing before or after he took this stance on Twitter, but I really don't think that enters into it.

If this is deemed acceptable, where are we headed?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 01, 2018, 01:05:23 PM
You forgot the second half of his comment “Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back.”


I didn't realize that the NRA represented all conservatives.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 01, 2018, 01:23:19 PM
You forgot the second half of his comment “Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back.”


I didn't realize that the NRA represented all conservatives.

More of the my team vs. your team mindset
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EricL on March 01, 2018, 03:17:29 PM
You forgot the second half of his comment “Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back.”


I didn't realize that the NRA represented all conservatives.

They don’t.  And less now than ever with the NRA’s strident tinfoil hat spokeswoman.  Gun owners are slowly turning to or at least diversifying into lesser known gun rights organizations.  Some of which are reputedly more effective than the NRA yet take a more reasonable stance in many respects. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 01, 2018, 03:31:10 PM
You forgot the second half of his comment “Corporations cannot attack conservatives and expect us not to fight back.”


I didn't realize that the NRA represented all conservatives.

They don’t.  And less now than ever with the NRA’s strident tinfoil hat spokeswoman.  Gun owners are slowly turning to or at least diversifying into lesser known gun rights organizations.  Some of which are reputedly more effective than the NRA yet take a more reasonable stance in many respects.

Which would be freaking awesome. As a gun owner, I will never, ever support the NRA. But a reasonable gun organization that ACTUALLY focused on gun safety, training, and knowledge? Very possibly.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 02, 2018, 07:48:07 AM

You haven't provided any evidence beyond "seeing a trend" that the assault weapons ban didn't have an effect in bringing down the number of mass shootings in this country.

I provided a link that clearly showed that mass shootings began spiking in the middle of the AWB... when assault weapons should have been least available. Ergo, assault weapon availability does not explain why mass shootings became more and more common then.

The link also shows that assault weapons are used in a very small portion of MASS SHOOTINGS.

The datacharts you have provided is designed to remove resolution to support a pre-determined hypothisis.

If you can't grasp that a weak correlation != causation,
that most mass shootings, including some of the most deadly, are perpetrated with other types of weapons
And that mass shootings because more and more common during the awb, and that therefore, an AWB will not be effective in preventing mass shootings, then you're in over your head and need to parrot other people's data less.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 02, 2018, 09:09:10 AM

You haven't provided any evidence beyond "seeing a trend" that the assault weapons ban didn't have an effect in bringing down the number of mass shootings in this country.

I provided a link that clearly showed that mass shootings began spiking in the middle of the AWB... when assault weapons should have been least available. Ergo, assault weapon availability does not explain why mass shootings became more and more common then.

The link also shows that assault weapons are used in a very small portion of MASS SHOOTINGS.

The datacharts you have provided is designed to remove resolution to support a pre-determined hypothisis.

If you can't grasp that a weak correlation != causation,
that most mass shootings, including some of the most deadly, are perpetrated with other types of weapons
And that mass shootings because more and more common during the awb, and that therefore, an AWB will not be effective in preventing mass shootings, then you're in over your head and need to parrot other people's data less.

You have provided precisely zero evidence-backed support or conclusions from experts supporting your position.

I've done the opposite.

Good luck.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 02, 2018, 09:13:41 AM
Just saw another headline. School shooting at Central Michigan University. 2 dead so far, no shooter captured yet.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2018, 09:58:25 AM
Just saw another headline. School shooting at Central Michigan University. 2 dead so far, no shooter captured yet.

Only 2 dead?  How pedestrian.  Call me back the next time we're up into more respectable double digits and people start to pretend to care again.  It'll probably only be a couple weeks to wait.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on March 02, 2018, 11:22:40 AM
This guy forgot to put his white hat on that morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/02/man-disarms-would-be-church-shooter-gets-shot-by-police.html

Quote
A man disarmed a would-be hostage shooter at a church in Amarillo, Texas, but when officers arrived, he was shot twice [by the police].

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 02, 2018, 11:27:24 AM
This guy forgot to put his white hat on that morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/02/man-disarms-would-be-church-shooter-gets-shot-by-police.html

Quote
A man disarmed a would-be hostage shooter at a church in Amarillo, Texas, but when officers arrived, he was shot twice [by the police].

One of the big points in the training modules we do at work for responding to shooters is to throw the gun in a garbage can, or otherwise contain it so that nobody is holding it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 02, 2018, 11:44:08 AM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates

Quote
A brief, partial respite from gun injuries is expected when some 80,000 gun owners descend on Dallas for the annual National Rifle Association convention. That’s because the convention has historically coincided with a temporary — and dramatic — drop in gun-related injuries, according to a new analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To come to that conclusion, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Columbia University used an insurance database of nearly 76 million claims to tally emergency department visits and hospitalizations related to firearm injuries on NRA convention dates, and during identical control days in the three weeks before and three weeks after the meeting, from 2007 through 2015.

They then estimated the rates of firearm injuries for both the NRA convention dates and the control dates, hoping to test common assumptions: that gun injuries often occur among inexperienced users, and that gun safety increases with experience and training. Groups that oppose gun control, like the NRA, often assert that education is key to keeping injury rates down — and that guns are totally safe when handled by people who know how to use them.

If that were the case, the researchers expected that the gun injury rate would hold stable or even rise during NRA conventions, when thousands of very experienced and heavy gun users were holed up in meetings.

Instead, they found the opposite seemed to be true: The gun injury rate actually fell by nearly 20 percent nationwide during NRA conventions. More precisely, on convention dates, the national gun injury rate was 1.2 per 100,000 — compared to 1.5 per 100,000 during the control dates. In the states hosting the conventions, the drop was even more dramatic — from 1.9 to 0.7 per 100,000.

Whoops!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 02, 2018, 11:53:15 AM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2018, 11:57:53 AM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?

It's almost like . . . the people who own guns cause problems with them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 02, 2018, 12:02:56 PM

You haven't provided any evidence beyond "seeing a trend" that the assault weapons ban didn't have an effect in bringing down the number of mass shootings in this country.

I provided a link that clearly showed that mass shootings began spiking in the middle of the AWB... when assault weapons should have been least available. Ergo, assault weapon availability does not explain why mass shootings became more and more common then.

The link also shows that assault weapons are used in a very small portion of MASS SHOOTINGS.

The datacharts you have provided is designed to remove resolution to support a pre-determined hypothisis.

If you can't grasp that a weak correlation != causation,
that most mass shootings, including some of the most deadly, are perpetrated with other types of weapons
And that mass shootings because more and more common during the awb, and that therefore, an AWB will not be effective in preventing mass shootings, then you're in over your head and need to parrot other people's data less.

You have provided precisely zero evidence-backed support or conclusions from experts supporting your position.

I've done the opposite.

Good luck.

You're funny. "An expert said it so I don't have to think or question his conclusions even when presented with a different take on more highly resolved data la la la la"

I posted a link to a credible source, then performed very straight forward analysis of said data. I didn't have to lump decades of data together to skew an average, or come up with strange parsing of data like "days between incidents" to force the data to confirm my conclusion.

You have done nothing to refute it or explain how it fits into your narrative. (because it doesn't, because your hypothesis is void.)

To be perfectly clear, I am sure an AWB would stop 1 or two guys from using an assault weapon in a mass shooting... because he'd probably just use a shotgun or some other weapon to do it. (because they use something besides an assault weapon most of the time anyway.) There would be no statistically detectable differnce in the incidence or deadliness of shootings.

Anyway, good luck to you as well.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2018, 12:10:04 PM
To be perfectly clear, I am sure an AWB would stop 1 or two guys from using an assault weapon in a mass shooting... because he'd probably just use a shotgun or some other weapon to do it. (because they use something besides an assault weapon most of the time anyway.) There would be no statistically detectable differnce in the incidence or deadliness of shootings.

I'm not a gun expert, but:

- A folding stock makes it easier to maneuver a gun in close quarters
- A pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon
- A flash suppressor makes it harder to locate a shooter
- A barrel shroud makes it easier to handle and aim a weapon being fired continuously

If there's nothing being banned that increases ease of use / deadliness of a weapon . . . then why does banning it matter to someone with an interest in guns?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 02, 2018, 12:12:53 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates

Quote
A brief, partial respite from gun injuries is expected when some 80,000 gun owners descend on Dallas for the annual National Rifle Association convention. That’s because the convention has historically coincided with a temporary — and dramatic — drop in gun-related injuries, according to a new analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To come to that conclusion, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Columbia University used an insurance database of nearly 76 million claims to tally emergency department visits and hospitalizations related to firearm injuries on NRA convention dates, and during identical control days in the three weeks before and three weeks after the meeting, from 2007 through 2015.

They then estimated the rates of firearm injuries for both the NRA convention dates and the control dates, hoping to test common assumptions: that gun injuries often occur among inexperienced users, and that gun safety increases with experience and training. Groups that oppose gun control, like the NRA, often assert that education is key to keeping injury rates down — and that guns are totally safe when handled by people who know how to use them.

If that were the case, the researchers expected that the gun injury rate would hold stable or even rise during NRA conventions, when thousands of very experienced and heavy gun users were holed up in meetings.

Instead, they found the opposite seemed to be true: The gun injury rate actually fell by nearly 20 percent nationwide during NRA conventions. More precisely, on convention dates, the national gun injury rate was 1.2 per 100,000 — compared to 1.5 per 100,000 during the control dates. In the states hosting the conventions, the drop was even more dramatic — from 1.9 to 0.7 per 100,000.

Whoops!

It doesn't take much of a back of the envelope calculation to realize they've screwed up the data somehow (or maybe more likely, the reporter completely screwed up the reporting).  With a 300M population, you're talking about avoiding around 900 firearm injuries.  That'd be roughly one of out every 89 convention participants who otherwise would have been a contributor to or victim of a firearm related incident.  That's just not plausible. 

Maybe that .3 per 100,000 is really over the entire 9 year period or something but it seems pretty clear that what they are reporting cannot be right. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 02, 2018, 12:14:46 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?

It's almost like . . . the people who own guns cause problems with them.

That's a truism that doesn't give us anything meaningful to work with. 100% of knife injuries are caused by people who have knives!  100% of drunk driving injuries are cause by people who drive drunk!
Its still an interesting correllation. Strange. I cant' beleive 80,000 of 100+ million gun users could move the needle like that, even if 100% of the attendees were irresponsible users. (they're like, .08% of gun owners)

What else is happening in early may?

"And Jena, the NEJM study author, said it’s possible the 20 percent average estimated reduction is too high. In the study, their confidence interval ranged widely, from 6.7 to 34 percent, meaning the decline in gun injuries could be smaller or larger than 20 percent — but he noted that it always trended in the direction of a decline. "

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2018, 12:19:47 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates

Quote
A brief, partial respite from gun injuries is expected when some 80,000 gun owners descend on Dallas for the annual National Rifle Association convention. That’s because the convention has historically coincided with a temporary — and dramatic — drop in gun-related injuries, according to a new analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To come to that conclusion, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Columbia University used an insurance database of nearly 76 million claims to tally emergency department visits and hospitalizations related to firearm injuries on NRA convention dates, and during identical control days in the three weeks before and three weeks after the meeting, from 2007 through 2015.

They then estimated the rates of firearm injuries for both the NRA convention dates and the control dates, hoping to test common assumptions: that gun injuries often occur among inexperienced users, and that gun safety increases with experience and training. Groups that oppose gun control, like the NRA, often assert that education is key to keeping injury rates down — and that guns are totally safe when handled by people who know how to use them.

If that were the case, the researchers expected that the gun injury rate would hold stable or even rise during NRA conventions, when thousands of very experienced and heavy gun users were holed up in meetings.

Instead, they found the opposite seemed to be true: The gun injury rate actually fell by nearly 20 percent nationwide during NRA conventions. More precisely, on convention dates, the national gun injury rate was 1.2 per 100,000 — compared to 1.5 per 100,000 during the control dates. In the states hosting the conventions, the drop was even more dramatic — from 1.9 to 0.7 per 100,000.

Whoops!

It doesn't take much of a back of the envelope calculation to realize they've screwed up the data somehow (or maybe more likely, the reporter completely screwed up the reporting).  With a 300M population, you're talking about avoiding around 900 firearm injuries.  That'd be roughly one of out every 89 convention participants who otherwise would have been a contributor to or victim of a firearm related incident.  That's just not plausible. 

Maybe that .3 per 100,000 is really over the entire 9 year period or something but it seems pretty clear that what they are reporting cannot be right.

The study is here:  http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1712773 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1712773).  Full appendix here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc1712773/suppl_file/nejmc1712773_appendix.pdf (http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc1712773/suppl_file/nejmc1712773_appendix.pdf).  Please feel free to check for inconsistency.

Part of the appendix does address your concerns though:
Quote
Our study was observational and therefore we cannot conclude that reductions in
population-level firearm injuries observed during dates of NRA annual meetings were
directly due to reductions in overall firearm use by gun owners during these meetings.
Several factors support this hypothesis, however. First, NRA annual meetings are large
and attract attendees from across the U.S., making it plausible that such an effect might
be identifiable in large, national data. In 2017, for instance, 81,000 NRA members
attended the NRA annual meeting, with 60% of those attending traveling from more than
200 miles away.13 Importantly, reductions in firearm injuries during NRA annual meeting
dates need not necessarily stem from gun owners themselves attending NRA conventions.
9
For instance, if some venues of firearm use (e.g., ranges or hunting grounds) are closed
during dates of NRA annual meetings, reductions in overall firearm injuries during
meeting dates could also be observed. Similarly, if individuals are more likely to engage
in recreational firearm use in groups, then the absence of some group members due to
NRA meeting attendance may reduce the likelihood of remaining group members to use
firearms during the dates of NRA meetings. Second, we accounted for seasonal factors
that might spuriously lead to lower firearm injury rates on the specific dates of NRA
annual meetings. Third, reductions in firearm injuries during dates of NRA annual
meetings were only observed among men, which would be expected given that men
account for nearly 85% of meeting attendees.13 Fourth, reductions in firearm injuries
during dates of NRA annual meetings were largest in areas where gun ownership is
highest. If attendees of NRA annual meetings disproportionately live in areas with high
gun ownership, we would expect reductions in firearm injuries during dates of NRA
annual meetings to be largest in these areas if meeting attendance leads to a transient
reduction in firearm use locally. Fifth, we demonstrated that overall reductions in firearm
injury rates during NRA annual meeting dates were larger for individuals residing in the
same state where the annual convention was held in a given year. If individuals are more
likely to attend NRA annual meetings when meetings are closer to home, we would
expect larger reductions in firearm injuries during dates of meetings that occur locally.
Sixth, an implication of our findings is that even among experienced gun owners – who
might be more likely to attend NRA annual conventions – the rate of firearm injury
directly relates to the amount of firearm use. This is consistent with prior evidence that
firearm training is inconsistently received by firearm owners and that the length of
firearm training or how recently it was conducted bears little relationship with firearm
storage practices, one measure of firearm safety
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 02, 2018, 12:35:06 PM
To be perfectly clear, I am sure an AWB would stop 1 or two guys from using an assault weapon in a mass shooting... because he'd probably just use a shotgun or some other weapon to do it. (because they use something besides an assault weapon most of the time anyway.) There would be no statistically detectable differnce in the incidence or deadliness of shootings.

Anyway, good luck to you as well.

And again, ALL analysis (that I can find...again feel free to cite an actual study showing the opposite) from prior to 1994, 1994-2004, and in the years after bear out the exact opposite of what you are saying.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 02, 2018, 12:54:58 PM
I'm not a gun expert, but:

- A folding stock makes it easier to maneuver a gun in close quarters
- A pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon
- A flash suppressor makes it harder to locate a shooter
- A barrel shroud makes it easier to handle and aim a weapon being fired continuously

No.

A folding stock may make it easier to maneuver, but you know what’s even easier to maneuver?  A pistol.

If a pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon, why do almost all hunting and long range rifles not have one?

A flash suppressor directs the flash to the sides, as opposed to up; it merely makes it so the flash doesn’t blind the shooter

A barrel shroud just makes it less likely the shooter will burn his hand on a barrel since most ARs don’t have a full length stock.

It’s all literally just style and cosmetics. It’s like claiming a 2dr car is faster than a 4dr car simply for having less doors. Not the way it works.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 02, 2018, 12:59:26 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates

Quote
A brief, partial respite from gun injuries is expected when some 80,000 gun owners descend on Dallas for the annual National Rifle Association convention. That’s because the convention has historically coincided with a temporary — and dramatic — drop in gun-related injuries, according to a new analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

To come to that conclusion, researchers from Harvard Medical School and Columbia University used an insurance database of nearly 76 million claims to tally emergency department visits and hospitalizations related to firearm injuries on NRA convention dates, and during identical control days in the three weeks before and three weeks after the meeting, from 2007 through 2015.

They then estimated the rates of firearm injuries for both the NRA convention dates and the control dates, hoping to test common assumptions: that gun injuries often occur among inexperienced users, and that gun safety increases with experience and training. Groups that oppose gun control, like the NRA, often assert that education is key to keeping injury rates down — and that guns are totally safe when handled by people who know how to use them.

If that were the case, the researchers expected that the gun injury rate would hold stable or even rise during NRA conventions, when thousands of very experienced and heavy gun users were holed up in meetings.

Instead, they found the opposite seemed to be true: The gun injury rate actually fell by nearly 20 percent nationwide during NRA conventions. More precisely, on convention dates, the national gun injury rate was 1.2 per 100,000 — compared to 1.5 per 100,000 during the control dates. In the states hosting the conventions, the drop was even more dramatic — from 1.9 to 0.7 per 100,000.

Whoops!

It doesn't take much of a back of the envelope calculation to realize they've screwed up the data somehow (or maybe more likely, the reporter completely screwed up the reporting).  With a 300M population, you're talking about avoiding around 900 firearm injuries.  That'd be roughly one of out every 89 convention participants who otherwise would have been a contributor to or victim of a firearm related incident.  That's just not plausible. 

Maybe that .3 per 100,000 is really over the entire 9 year period or something but it seems pretty clear that what they are reporting cannot be right.

The study is here:  http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1712773 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1712773).  Full appendix here: http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc1712773/suppl_file/nejmc1712773_appendix.pdf (http://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMc1712773/suppl_file/nejmc1712773_appendix.pdf).  Please feel free to check for inconsistency.

Part of the appendix does address your concerns though:
Quote
Our study was observational and therefore we cannot conclude that reductions in
population-level firearm injuries observed during dates of NRA annual meetings were
directly due to reductions in overall firearm use by gun owners during these meetings.
Several factors support this hypothesis, however. First, NRA annual meetings are large
and attract attendees from across the U.S., making it plausible that such an effect might
be identifiable in large, national data. In 2017, for instance, 81,000 NRA members
attended the NRA annual meeting, with 60% of those attending traveling from more than
200 miles away.13 Importantly, reductions in firearm injuries during NRA annual meeting
dates need not necessarily stem from gun owners themselves attending NRA conventions.
9
For instance, if some venues of firearm use (e.g., ranges or hunting grounds) are closed
during dates of NRA annual meetings, reductions in overall firearm injuries during
meeting dates could also be observed. Similarly, if individuals are more likely to engage
in recreational firearm use in groups, then the absence of some group members due to
NRA meeting attendance may reduce the likelihood of remaining group members to use
firearms during the dates of NRA meetings. Second, we accounted for seasonal factors
that might spuriously lead to lower firearm injury rates on the specific dates of NRA
annual meetings. Third, reductions in firearm injuries during dates of NRA annual
meetings were only observed among men, which would be expected given that men
account for nearly 85% of meeting attendees.13 Fourth, reductions in firearm injuries
during dates of NRA annual meetings were largest in areas where gun ownership is
highest. If attendees of NRA annual meetings disproportionately live in areas with high
gun ownership, we would expect reductions in firearm injuries during dates of NRA
annual meetings to be largest in these areas if meeting attendance leads to a transient
reduction in firearm use locally. Fifth, we demonstrated that overall reductions in firearm
injury rates during NRA annual meeting dates were larger for individuals residing in the
same state where the annual convention was held in a given year. If individuals are more
likely to attend NRA annual meetings when meetings are closer to home, we would
expect larger reductions in firearm injuries during dates of meetings that occur locally.
Sixth, an implication of our findings is that even among experienced gun owners – who
might be more likely to attend NRA annual conventions – the rate of firearm injury
directly relates to the amount of firearm use. This is consistent with prior evidence that
firearm training is inconsistently received by firearm owners and that the length of
firearm training or how recently it was conducted bears little relationship with firearm
storage practices, one measure of firearm safety

If I am understanding it (and I'm not sure I am because this seems like a somewhat ridiculous way to report it), the study is not claiming a 20% drop in injuries.  It is reporting a 20% drop in the proportion of emergency room and hospitalizations due to fire arm injuries.  So it's not .3 incidents per 100,000 persons, but .3 incidents per 100,000 emergency room visits or hospitalizations. 

That would imply that something like 32.41 fire arm related emergency room visits or hospitalizations were avoided because 80,000 gun owners at a convention.  So one in 2,468 of the convention goers would have somehow contributed to a fire arm related injury (either by having a range shoot, or keeping their range open, or having an accident themselves, etc). 

That still seems high to me.  Out of all the gunowners I know, some of whom shoot regularly, some of whom only handle a gun when they are hunting, I only know of two people basically 30 years apart that were hospitalized due to a fire arm accident.  But it's not obviously wrong like the number would be if they are really reporting .3 per 100,000 people reduction in the population at large during the NRA convention. 

Still not sure that's what they are trying to report though.  However good their methodology is or is not, it doesn't seem like they're doing a great job of communicating their findings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 02, 2018, 01:04:37 PM
I'm not a gun expert, but:

- A folding stock makes it easier to maneuver a gun in close quarters
- A pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon
- A flash suppressor makes it harder to locate a shooter
- A barrel shroud makes it easier to handle and aim a weapon being fired continuously

No.

A folding stock may make it easier to maneuver, but you know what’s even easier to maneuver?  A pistol.

If a pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon, why do almost all hunting and long range rifles not have one?

A flash suppressor directs the flash to the sides, as opposed to up; it merely makes it so the flash doesn’t blind the shooter

A barrel shroud just makes it less likely the shooter will burn his hand on a barrel since most ARs don’t have a full length stock.

It’s all literally just style and cosmetics. It’s like claiming a 2dr car is faster than a 4dr car simply for having less doors. Not the way it works.

Oh, come on man. I would sort of give you the third point. The rest of this is super-disingenuous.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2018, 01:29:03 PM
I'm not a gun expert, but:

- A folding stock makes it easier to maneuver a gun in close quarters
- A pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon
- A flash suppressor makes it harder to locate a shooter
- A barrel shroud makes it easier to handle and aim a weapon being fired continuously

No.

A folding stock may make it easier to maneuver, but you know what’s even easier to maneuver?  A pistol.

If a pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon, why do almost all hunting and long range rifles not have one?

A flash suppressor directs the flash to the sides, as opposed to up; it merely makes it so the flash doesn’t blind the shooter

A barrel shroud just makes it less likely the shooter will burn his hand on a barrel since most ARs don’t have a full length stock.

It’s all literally just style and cosmetics. It’s like claiming a 2dr car is faster than a 4dr car simply for having less doors. Not the way it works.

If it's all just style and cosmetics . . . why does it matter if it's banned?  Just get the less stylish/cosmetic guns and prove all the gun control people wrong and go about your day.  If however it does make it easier to use a weapon, then how are you possibly arguing that it's all 'style and cosmetics'?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 02, 2018, 01:50:27 PM
I'm not a gun expert, but:

- A folding stock makes it easier to maneuver a gun in close quarters
- A pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon
- A flash suppressor makes it harder to locate a shooter
- A barrel shroud makes it easier to handle and aim a weapon being fired continuously

No.

A folding stock may make it easier to maneuver, but you know what’s even easier to maneuver?  A pistol.

If a pistol grip makes it easier to aim a weapon, why do almost all hunting and long range rifles not have one?

A flash suppressor directs the flash to the sides, as opposed to up; it merely makes it so the flash doesn’t blind the shooter

A barrel shroud just makes it less likely the shooter will burn his hand on a barrel since most ARs don’t have a full length stock.

It’s all literally just style and cosmetics. It’s like claiming a 2dr car is faster than a 4dr car simply for having less doors. Not the way it works.

If it's all just style and cosmetics . . . why does it matter if it's banned?  Just get the less stylish/cosmetic guns and prove all the gun control people wrong and go about your day.  If however it does make it easier to use a weapon, then how are you possibly arguing that it's all 'style and cosmetics'?

An AR type weapon certainly is more deadly.
-Folding stock makes it easier to swing around. A handgun is even easier, but the folding stock long barrel gives you alot more accuracy. A mass shooter, with about 2 minutes, could cut off a stock and sand it smooth and have this advantage.

-A pistol grip makes it easier to aim: Not totally sure. Some people I know with RSI would be unable to shoot without a pistol grip though.

-A flash suppressor and barrel shroud help an operator move more lead with less blindness or burnt hands. Both things could be done to a standard weapon with little creativity.

I won't augue that an AR is designed to be easy to use and effective. I will aurgue that banning them, as proven by a basic analysis of data (I mean, how hard is to look at a chart and see a trend? How expert do you really need to be), and the studied below, the previous AWB didn't make much or any differnce in mass shootings or gun violence as a whole.

It would result in a serious weaking of the intent of the second amendment: the public's ability to resist tyranny.

For Dark And Stormy:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html

That bar chart you show not only trys to skew averages by lumping the data, it defines mass shooting differently to skew what it's measuring. (Read his footnotes.)


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2018, 02:06:42 PM
It would result in a serious weaking of the intent of the second amendment: the public's ability to resist tyranny.

Yeah, banning fully automatic weapons also does this.  The best weapons to resist your hypothetical tyranny are going to be able to murder lots of kids in a school quickly.  I guess it comes down to whether you think it's better to live under the certain tyranny of those with free access to firearms, or the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 02, 2018, 02:31:36 PM
For Dark And Stormy:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stokes-assault-weapon-ban-20180301-story.html

That bar chart you show not only trys to skew averages by lumping the data, it defines mass shooting differently to skew what it's measuring. (Read his footnotes.)

The article addresses the decade prior to 1994 and 1994-2004 and for some reason leaves out what has happened since the expiration of the AWB.

This chart seems to indicate that mass shootings at least stalled in frequency during the AWB while the frequency was increasing both before and after the 1994-2004 ban.

https://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/index.html

The 13 deadliest shootings in U.S. history since 1949 all occurred before or after the AWB.  Of the 34 deadliest shootings since then, only 3 occurred in that decade.  That's 70 years (69 technically)...so on a per decade basis you would expect about 5 per decade, all things being equal like gun laws, population, magazine size, etc. etc.  Guess which decade dominates the list? 2007-2017.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 02, 2018, 02:33:50 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?

But we were told that large crowds of unarmed people are sitting ducks. Just like schools and churches. Why wouldn't the NRA want everyone armed. Their conventions might be the safest places in history on par with sitting on the moon alone with plenty of oxygen. /s
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 02, 2018, 02:38:26 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?

But we were told that large crowds of unarmed people are sitting ducks. Just like schools and churches. Why wouldn't the NRA want everyone armed. Their conventions might be the safest places in history on par with sitting on the moon alone with plenty of oxygen. /s

Obviously the NRA doesn't trust a bunch of yahoos with guns.  (Unless they're in a school.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 02, 2018, 03:05:21 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?

But we were told that large crowds of unarmed people are sitting ducks. Just like schools and churches. Why wouldn't the NRA want everyone armed. Their conventions might be the safest places in history on par with sitting on the moon alone with plenty of oxygen. /s

Obviously the NRA doesn't trust a bunch of yahoos with guns.  (Unless they're in a school.)

Or maybe the NRA has conventions at, I don't know, maybe at convention centers and hotels that, as property owners, get to enforce their own rules? 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 02, 2018, 03:18:50 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?

But we were told that large crowds of unarmed people are sitting ducks. Just like schools and churches. Why wouldn't the NRA want everyone armed. Their conventions might be the safest places in history on par with sitting on the moon alone with plenty of oxygen. /s

Obviously the NRA doesn't trust a bunch of yahoos with guns.  (Unless they're in a school.)

Or maybe the NRA has conventions at, I don't know, maybe at convention centers and hotels that, as property owners, get to enforce their own rules?

If they stuck true to their principles, they would refuse to do business at those libtard snowflake venues.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 02, 2018, 03:26:54 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?

But we were told that large crowds of unarmed people are sitting ducks. Just like schools and churches. Why wouldn't the NRA want everyone armed. Their conventions might be the safest places in history on par with sitting on the moon alone with plenty of oxygen. /s

Obviously the NRA doesn't trust a bunch of yahoos with guns.  (Unless they're in a school.)

Or maybe the NRA has conventions at, I don't know, maybe at convention centers and hotels that, as property owners, get to enforce their own rules?

If they stuck true to their principles, they would refuse to do business at those libtard snowflake venues.

I'm going to take a stab in teh dark and guess you've never been to an NRA convention?

Is there a reason you think they don't have armed security? 

I have no clue whether they do or not, but it would not surprise me that an organization that gets as many threats as it does to spring for armed security for an 80k person convention.

I'm also not sure how many options they have for their conventions.  I would assume that an 80k person convention could get some concessions to allow carrying in compliance with state law if they tried hard enough, but if they are providing armed security anyway, I'm not sure why it'd be high on their priority list.   

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 02, 2018, 03:30:45 PM
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/3/2/17070662/nra-convention-gun-injury-rates
Whoops!

Guns aren't allowed at the NRA convention. Presumably the people at the convention left their guns at home, no?

But we were told that large crowds of unarmed people are sitting ducks. Just like schools and churches. Why wouldn't the NRA want everyone armed. Their conventions might be the safest places in history on par with sitting on the moon alone with plenty of oxygen. /s

Obviously the NRA doesn't trust a bunch of yahoos with guns.  (Unless they're in a school.)

Or maybe the NRA has conventions at, I don't know, maybe at convention centers and hotels that, as property owners, get to enforce their own rules?

If they stuck true to their principles, they would refuse to do business at those libtard snowflake venues.

I'm going to take a stab in teh dark and guess you've never been to an NRA convention?

Is there a reason you think they don't have armed security? 

I have no clue whether they do or not, but it would not surprise me that an organization that gets as many threats as it does to spring for armed security for an 80k person convention.

I'm also not sure how many options they have for their conventions.  I would assume that an 80k person convention could get some concessions to allow carrying in compliance with state law if they tried hard enough, but if they are providing armed security anyway, I'm not sure why it'd be high on their priority list.   

Okay, Jrr85, it was kind of a joke.

But as you haven't taken it as such, I don't think the armed security thing makes any difference at all. My point was, if the NRA stuck to their principles, they'd choose a venue where people could all carry. You know. On principle.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: LeRainDrop on March 02, 2018, 04:10:28 PM
Just saw another headline. School shooting at Central Michigan University. 2 dead so far, no shooter captured yet.

Yes, a student shot and killed his parents when they came to his dorm room to pick him up for spring break.  As of now, he is still at large:  http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2018/03/02/shooting-at-central-michigan-university/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on March 02, 2018, 09:30:36 PM
We heard how the magazine ban would have stopped this Florida shooting too. Small problem when the shooter was using 10 round magazines. Seems like the media has continued to ignore this part.

And for those that actually read the weapon ban bill, it has some nice caveats. If the weapon type is or was made as fully automatic, it is banned. So, the guy that converts a normal handgun to full auto as part of a movie production, then that entire type of weapon is banned for the rest of the people. (Machineguns can still be made for certain reasons and for the companies with a correct license). Because a pistol was offered to the government in a full auto version, it is now illegal to possess a semi-auto version.

If you look at the FBI NICS check record, we should correlate a mass increase in violent crime. Over 280 million background checks in the last 20 years. These could be done for one gun per check or 10. These numbers also don't include the states that use their own background system. If guns are the problem, why would having sales that have easily exceeded the US population not caused the type of crime expected?

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jrhampt on March 03, 2018, 07:15:11 AM
It would result in a serious weaking of the intent of the second amendment: the public's ability to resist tyranny.

Yeah, banning fully automatic weapons also does this.  The best weapons to resist your hypothetical tyranny are going to be able to murder lots of kids in a school quickly.  I guess it comes down to whether you think it's better to live under the certain tyranny of those with free access to firearms, or the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders.

In order to better resist tyranny maybe we all need access to nukes.  I’m sure if the founding fathers knew about nukes they would have included them in the second amendment.  🙄
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EricL on March 03, 2018, 01:19:50 PM
It would result in a serious weaking of the intent of the second amendment: the public's ability to resist tyranny.

Yeah, banning fully automatic weapons also does this.  The best weapons to resist your hypothetical tyranny are going to be able to murder lots of kids in a school quickly.  I guess it comes down to whether you think it's better to live under the certain tyranny of those with free access to firearms, or the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders.

Ahh yes.  The "the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders."  The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":

- Was NOT elected by popular vote.  The blond android was.  The electoral college made HIM president.
- Wants to confiscate guns without due process.
- Wants to sell US public lands to the highest bidder for fracking, strip mining, etc.
- Wants to reverse regulations on banks and other financial institutions so they can victimize small account holders/investors and endanger the economy.
- Wants to ban immigrants based on race/religion and continue policies of indefinite incarceration.  (Talk about a slippery slope we should never go down.)
- Wants to privatize our public works program for corporate gain
- Endorses privatized prison systems
- Continues the militarization of our police forces
- Endorses unlawful use of force by those forces
- Continues a surveillance state apparatus
- Wants to destroy what social safety nets we have
- Endorses torture
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
- Seems beholden to repressive, even murderous Russian oligarchs
- Denies the rights of LBQT citizens
- Considers women second class citizens

And that’s the short list.  Or maybe you don't consider all that at least the making of tyranny?

I know it's just the opinion of a single guy.  But I agree with George Carlin's attitude on the Cult of the Child.  But if I did have kids I'd rather have free children at risk from occasional gunfire (and cars and flu, etc.) than have them live in an authoritarian society. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on March 03, 2018, 03:23:35 PM
I think you forgot taxes:

- will tax the poor to pay the wealthy


It was taxation that started the revolution against the British wasn't it?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jrhampt on March 03, 2018, 04:20:49 PM
You do make a fair point about tyranny ^^^^
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 03, 2018, 06:42:52 PM
It would result in a serious weaking of the intent of the second amendment: the public's ability to resist tyranny.

Yeah, banning fully automatic weapons also does this.  The best weapons to resist your hypothetical tyranny are going to be able to murder lots of kids in a school quickly.  I guess it comes down to whether you think it's better to live under the certain tyranny of those with free access to firearms, or the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders.

Ahh yes.  The "the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders."  The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":

- Was NOT elected by popular vote.  The blond android was.  The electoral college made HIM president.
- Wants to confiscate guns without due process.
- Wants to sell US public lands to the highest bidder for fracking, strip mining, etc.
- Wants to reverse regulations on banks and other financial institutions so they can victimize small account holders/investors and endanger the economy.
- Wants to ban immigrants based on race/religion and continue policies of indefinite incarceration.  (Talk about a slippery slope we should never go down.)
- Wants to privatize our public works program for corporate gain
- Endorses privatized prison systems
- Continues the militarization of our police forces
- Endorses unlawful use of force by those forces
- Continues a surveillance state apparatus
- Wants to destroy what social safety nets we have
- Endorses torture
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
- Seems beholden to repressive, even murderous Russian oligarchs
- Denies the rights of LBQT citizens
- Considers women second class citizens

And that’s the short list.  Or maybe you don't consider all that at least the making of tyranny?

I know it's just the opinion of a single guy.  But I agree with George Carlin's attitude on the Cult of the Child.  But if I did have kids I'd rather have free children at risk from occasional gunfire (and cars and flu, etc.) than have them live in an authoritarian society.

Be consistent man.  You've classified Trump as a tyrant in your post, and have mentioned that it's important to keep weapons because you fear his tyranny and need to fight it.  So, when is the revolution?

The problem seems to be that you're totally willing to accept a tyrant rather than take up the arms that you've said are needed specifically for this occurrence . . . and at the same time you're using that to prevent protection for your 'free children'.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EricL on March 03, 2018, 08:08:55 PM
It would result in a serious weaking of the intent of the second amendment: the public's ability to resist tyranny.

Yeah, banning fully automatic weapons also does this.  The best weapons to resist your hypothetical tyranny are going to be able to murder lots of kids in a school quickly.  I guess it comes down to whether you think it's better to live under the certain tyranny of those with free access to firearms, or the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders.

Ahh yes.  The "the theoretical tyranny that might one day come about from democratically electing your leaders."  The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":

- Was NOT elected by popular vote.  The blond android was.  The electoral college made HIM president.
- Wants to confiscate guns without due process.
- Wants to sell US public lands to the highest bidder for fracking, strip mining, etc.
- Wants to reverse regulations on banks and other financial institutions so they can victimize small account holders/investors and endanger the economy.
- Wants to ban immigrants based on race/religion and continue policies of indefinite incarceration.  (Talk about a slippery slope we should never go down.)
- Wants to privatize our public works program for corporate gain
- Endorses privatized prison systems
- Continues the militarization of our police forces
- Endorses unlawful use of force by those forces
- Continues a surveillance state apparatus
- Wants to destroy what social safety nets we have
- Endorses torture
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
- Seems beholden to repressive, even murderous Russian oligarchs
- Denies the rights of LBQT citizens
- Considers women second class citizens

And that’s the short list.  Or maybe you don't consider all that at least the making of tyranny?

I know it's just the opinion of a single guy.  But I agree with George Carlin's attitude on the Cult of the Child.  But if I did have kids I'd rather have free children at risk from occasional gunfire (and cars and flu, etc.) than have them live in an authoritarian society.

Be consistent man.  You've classified Trump as a tyrant in your post, and have mentioned that it's important to keep weapons because you fear his tyranny and need to fight it.  So, when is the revolution?

The problem seems to be that you're totally willing to accept a tyrant rather than take up the arms that you've said are needed specifically for this occurrence . . . and at the same time you're using that to prevent protection for your 'free children'.

Holding on to my guns isn't my primary fallback.  I'm still holding out hope we can flip the House this year.  Maybe even impeach and convict.  Just because I want guns to insure our freedoms doesn't mean I want to shift straight into a revolution.  I've fought in a war.  I'm not under any illusions it's gonna be in any ways fun. 

I'm pointing out that you should be consistent.  You mock people's seemingly unreasonable fears of that a democracy could ever transition to an authoritarian regime.  Right when one of the greatest democracies is transitioning to an authoritarian regime.  I'm gonna venture a guess you don't approve of the current administration any more than I do. 

You can cite all the statistics and findings you want.  I'll even agree with you on most of them.  I lived several years in a Euro socialist country.  In the right circumstances (wealthy countries with a orderly, homogeneous cultures) gun control can be wonderful.  And I'm more than willing to bend on additional US regulation where needed if applied by people who know something about guns.  But I'm one of those fuckers Obama says won't let go of his God or his guns.  Except I'm more flexible about God and I like Obama a whole lot more than he likes me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2018, 06:46:02 AM
I don't like Trump.  He's an awful human being, a terrible leader, and below average intelligence.  I disagree with you that the US is transitioning to an authoritarian regime though.  Despite the hyperbolic language, you obviously don't believe this either, or you would (allegedly) be starting a revolution with your small arms.

A tyranny might be fought off with a disorganized rabble with a few guns, but it virtually always institutes a new, slightly different tyranny to the it's place.  If you have some small arms going up against bio-weapons, tanks, air strikes, and a well trained army you are radically underpowered.  The kind of leader who is capable of performing regular terrorist/guerrilla tactics for decades at a time inevitably ends up assuming the role of dictator at the end of the conflict.  This leadership gives birth to groups like Al-Qaeda, the Khmer Rouge, ISIS, etc.  This has been true in every revolution I can think of for the past hundred years.  The whole concept of what you're arguing for is fundamentally flawed, and while it's unlikely (but theoretically possible) that you could overthrow an oppressive regime . . . you're just going to replace it with another one.


FYI - I don't live in a euro homogenous society, and Canada is certainly no more wealthy than the US . . . but gun control works pretty well here.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on March 04, 2018, 07:53:08 AM
I think EricL means countries with less poverty rather than countries with high total wealth...

Why don't you think the US is becoming more authoritarian, may I ask?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 04, 2018, 09:28:01 AM
I think EricL means countries with less poverty rather than countries with high total wealth...

Why don't you think the US is becoming more authoritarian, may I ask?

For his many faults and problems, I don't see much (if anything) that Trump has done to subvert the democratic process.  People are more free today than they were in the 30s, where racism was common place in government agencies/policy and out in the open.  People are more free to be gay than in the 70s.  Heck, people are more free to use pot today than they were in the 90s.  Gerrymandering, voter ID laws, small groups in control of large news/communications organizations, and unlimited political donations from corporate entities are all weakenings of democracy that started long before the great orange president came around, and they are concerns . . . But you're not going to fight them with small arms.  Even the most strident anti-Trumpist is hard pressed to argue that his Russian collaboration won Trump the election.

As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to.  The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate.  They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant.  They're also harder to shoot.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 04, 2018, 11:43:31 AM
His Dad was a police officer as well, so sad...  What went wrong for this kid to kill his own parents.

The article I saw said he was having mental distress (dellusions, etc) and his parents came to take him home.

Father was not legally allowed to have a gun on campus but perhaps left it in their car where the son retrieved it and took it back to his room and killed his parents.

Other items: I very much resent these leaders taunting each other about war and nuclear destruction. The majority of the rest of us have worked hard for what we have in life. There is truly nothing valid worth starting a war about involving the USA. To me it is akin to screaming "FIRE!" in a theater or airplane. These political blowhards need to leave people alone and stop CAUSING problems on the international stage.

I will very much be voting against the GOP for the foreseeable future. They spend far too much time worrying about little tyrant dictators, gay people and other people's religions than normal people do.

This is 2018. In the USA we ought to be on easy street. We ought to be worry free so we can dream up new ideas and new businesses (aka jobs) to keep us all employed. We ought to be building parks, polishing up our infrastructure, and adding quality of life features to our cities. Instead it seems like our society is ever more an empty shell despite plenty of money available.

The DC people leadership needs to quit taunting the international neighbors. Clearly what Putin, Trump and Kim knows is that war and conflict is very profitable to the wealthy who both benefit from defense spending and society's reconstruction afterwards. They are immune to the terrors and miseries of war anyhow so they don't worry. The rest of us will be coajoled into sending our children to the war machine b/c of themes relating to patriotism and duty to one's country. We risk seeing our families destroyed, our cities and home ruined.

We have serious problems in our country and the leadership want to ignore them and create more. The politicians carry far too much weight in our society. Bring out the engineers and scientists, the doctors and the teachers. Plenty of other people that ought to be in the spotlight than the idiot POTUS.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on March 04, 2018, 02:14:30 PM
As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to.  The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate.  They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant.  They're also harder to shoot.
So very true.The whole "Trump is trying to become dictator for life and turn the USA into a totalitarian regime" theme is laughable.

Dreams of overthrowing an oppressive government with nothing more than a gun and the good ol' American attitude of "liberty or death" are far more satisfying to the ego than the reality of motivating, engaging and educating the electorate though. 

So long as those dreams of revolution remain dreams, no one really wants the reality of engaging in long guerrilla war, that's no fun at all!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EricL on March 04, 2018, 08:41:20 PM
As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to.  The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate.  They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant.  They're also harder to shoot.
So very true.The whole "Trump is trying to become dictator for life and turn the USA into a totalitarian regime" theme is laughable.

Dreams of overthrowing an oppressive government with nothing more than a gun and the good ol' American attitude of "liberty or death" are far more satisfying to the ego than the reality of motivating, engaging and educating the electorate though. 

So long as those dreams of revolution remain dreams, no one really wants the reality of engaging in long guerrilla war, that's no fun at all!

Again, the blond android, i.e. Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote.  And no, war is not fun.  I think I said that too.  Perhaps I should have mentioned my plan is not to sit on the couch and eat Cheet-Ohs 'till something changes? 

As for the US government's ability to put down an insurrection: Yes, No and Yes.  Yes, it has huge resources to repress the people and more every day.  No, it's not going to be easy, since many servicemen and police will side with the population and the US overall has a poor record at putting down insurgencies.  And yes, it's still not a done deal because there are resources available to the government that go beyond mere force to sway the population. 

Finally, even if I'm wrong - and I have been on a great many subjects - I'll not relent in the face of the same smug, superior liberalism that did as much to aid Trump as the NRA.  Just like I didn't start searching for an exit when he was elected like so many of them but resolved to stay in the US to use hindsight to torture republicans.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on March 05, 2018, 12:35:37 AM
Well, back on topic here, my school has received credible threats of violence and morning classes are cancelled. The tightness in my stomach and I'm sure in the stomachs of parents around the country are surely worth putting political divides aside. The tears of dead children's friends and family will follow otherwise. The crass and stupid comments time is over. Time to back meaningful and responsible solutions. I really wish the NRA would stand up, grow a spine and either lead or get the heck out of the way.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: nnls on March 05, 2018, 01:15:38 AM
Well, back on topic here, my school has received credible threats of violence and morning classes are cancelled. The tightness in my stomach and I'm sure in the stomachs of parents around the country are surely worth putting political divides aside. The tears of dead children's friends and family will follow otherwise. The crass and stupid comments time is over. Time to back meaningful and responsible solutions. I really wish the NRA would stand up, grow a spine and either lead or get the heck out of the way.

thats scary!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 05, 2018, 07:44:05 AM
As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to.  The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate.  They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant.  They're also harder to shoot.
So very true.The whole "Trump is trying to become dictator for life and turn the USA into a totalitarian regime" theme is laughable.

Dreams of overthrowing an oppressive government with nothing more than a gun and the good ol' American attitude of "liberty or death" are far more satisfying to the ego than the reality of motivating, engaging and educating the electorate though. 

So long as those dreams of revolution remain dreams, no one really wants the reality of engaging in long guerrilla war, that's no fun at all!

Again, the blond android, i.e. Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote.

Yep.

55% of Americans bothered to vote in 2016.  Of those voters, 49% voted for Clinton.  See previous 'voter complacency' comment.



As for the US government's ability to put down an insurrection

Hold your horses.

You can only get half of Americans off their asses to vote, but you believe it's going to be possible to organize enough people to stage an armed revolution with small arms against the most powerful modern military in the world?  These are the same people who couldn't be arsed to even learn what Snowden revealed regarding common place government surveillance of every citizen.  The same ones who meekly take off their shoes, get nekkid body scanned, and happily bend over every time they want to board an airplane.  C'mon man, even you must see how goofy the revolution idea is.  There's no need to discuss military strategy if the people don't have the will to fight.

That said, let's discuss some military strategy!  It's a fun thought experiment.  A truly tyrannical government doesn't give a shit about casualties (see Stalin's Soviet Union).  They would just quarantine the problem area, release a bio or chemical weapon, and then wait a couple years for the problem to be solved.  The problem with the Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy is that it depends on a non-tyrannical government that's going to use kid gloves and allow guerrilla forces to become active, and isn't simply going to make towns disappear without a shot fired.

So, you need a government that is oppressive and tyrannical enough to cause a resistance to rise up . . . but at the same time they have to care enough about their people to avoid using the full might of their military power.  And the government has to have been voted in by the very people who you're expecting to rise up against them.  Surely you can see how goofy this whole line of reasoning is, and why it's a terrible justification to accept the deaths of tens of thousands every year by gun violence?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: partgypsy on March 05, 2018, 08:18:08 AM
How do you prevent a tyranny? It's not from owning a gun. It's by having an educated, informed public, by providing and funding a good public education for all. It's by having free press. It's bringing back the Fairness doctrine. It's NOT having citizen's United. Our true enemy is complacency, not voting, not being informed. Having the general public having access to small arms, is not going to do bupkus. For example, a dictactorship orders the local police to suppress people, take their arms. The police/national guard/military are going to win out over mr John Q. Public. They can always escalate. The only way to win, is for the police, etc to not be brainwashed, and be informed and educated, and moral enough to know, what they are doing is against our democracy and stand down.
 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EricL on March 05, 2018, 10:29:21 AM
As long as the people are freely picking their leaders, it's hard to argue that they're living under authoritarian rule - because they're still able to change the rules if they really want to.  The problem in the US is not tyranny, it's voter complacency and an uninformed electorate.  They're much more likely to result in your loss of freedoms than a tyrant.  They're also harder to shoot.
So very true.The whole "Trump is trying to become dictator for life and turn the USA into a totalitarian regime" theme is laughable.

Dreams of overthrowing an oppressive government with nothing more than a gun and the good ol' American attitude of "liberty or death" are far more satisfying to the ego than the reality of motivating, engaging and educating the electorate though. 

So long as those dreams of revolution remain dreams, no one really wants the reality of engaging in long guerrilla war, that's no fun at all!

Again, the blond android, i.e. Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote.

Yep.

55% of Americans bothered to vote in 2016.  Of those voters, 49% voted for Clinton.  See previous 'voter complacency' comment.



As for the US government's ability to put down an insurrection

Hold your horses.

You can only get half of Americans off their asses to vote, but you believe it's going to be possible to organize enough people to stage an armed revolution with small arms against the most powerful modern military in the world?  These are the same people who couldn't be arsed to even learn what Snowden revealed regarding common place government surveillance of every citizen.  The same ones who meekly take off their shoes, get nekkid body scanned, and happily bend over every time they want to board an airplane.  C'mon man, even you must see how goofy the revolution idea is.  There's no need to discuss military strategy if the people don't have the will to fight.

That said, let's discuss some military strategy!  It's a fun thought experiment.  A truly tyrannical government doesn't give a shit about casualties (see Stalin's Soviet Union).  They would just quarantine the problem area, release a bio or chemical weapon, and then wait a couple years for the problem to be solved.  The problem with the Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy is that it depends on a non-tyrannical government that's going to use kid gloves and allow guerrilla forces to become active, and isn't simply going to make towns disappear without a shot fired.

So, you need a government that is oppressive and tyrannical enough to cause a resistance to rise up . . . but at the same time they have to care enough about their people to avoid using the full might of their military power.  And the government has to have been voted in by the very people who you're expecting to rise up against them.  Surely you can see how goofy this whole line of reasoning is, and why it's a terrible justification to accept the deaths of tens of thousands every year by gun violence?

Only 1/3 of the citizens of the 13 colonies supported the Revolution. 1/3 we’re Loyalists who actively supported the British.  The last 1/3 didn’t feel they had a dog in the fight. 

I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality.  Minus the emotional over blown “tens of thousands killed” every year rhetoric.  We easily lose much more to traffic accidents every year.  I’m much more interested in regulating SUVs. And more and more I’m convinced opioids are a safer, surer bet for American hating terrorists than guns, bombs or WMD.

I’ve stated my opinions.  I’m gonna declare victory.  Not because I “won.”  I’m convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because I’m not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic.  That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on March 05, 2018, 02:12:02 PM
Only 1/3 of the citizens of the 13 colonies supported the Revolution. 1/3 we’re Loyalists who actively supported the British.  The last 1/3 didn’t feel they had a dog in the fight.
Yep, and if the UK had WMDs and the willingness to use them against your musket bearing ancestors, you'd still be a colony of the UK.  The reality is your war of independence was fought at a time and in a way that ensured a relatively equal balance of power.  That balance of power is no longer the case.  In the USA of today there is no way an armed insurrection by the civilian populace would overthrow the government unless a clear majority of the armed forces were to side with the populace and if that were the case the armed populace would make little difference to the outcome anyway.
Quote from: EricL
I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality.  Minus the emotional over blown “tens of thousands killed” every year rhetoric.  We easily lose much more to traffic accidents every year.  I’m much more interested in regulating SUVs. And more and more I’m convinced opioids are a safer, surer bet for American hating terrorists than guns, bombs or WMD.

I’ve stated my opinions.  I’m gonna declare victory.  Not because I “won.”  I’m convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because I’m not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic.  That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.
That's fine.  Keep your guns.  Just don't delude yourself about the reasons.  Guns are fun.  That's it.  And that's all it needs to be because your constitution protects your right to play with your toys.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 05, 2018, 02:24:17 PM
Anyone who still believes small arms are an effective defense against tyranny REALLY needs to look at what happened in Syria. That war started because of exactly the same thing. People in the Syrian military refused to bomb and kill their own people. None of it mattered because other countries got involved.

If you want to convince those of us who don't want guns to kill our kids not to pass gun control laws, you need to focus on target shooting, hunting, and sport. This "tyranny" argument holds no water anymore.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 06, 2018, 08:48:09 AM
Anyone who still believes small arms are an effective defense against tyranny REALLY needs to look at what happened in Syria. That war started because of exactly the same thing. People in the Syrian military refused to bomb and kill their own people. None of it mattered because other countries got involved.

If you want to convince those of us who don't want guns to kill our kids not to pass gun control laws, you need to focus on target shooting, hunting, and sport. This "tyranny" argument holds no water anymore.

Not every conflict is nuclear or even involves heavy weapons.  You don't think the presence or lack of guns matters to South african land owners now?  To Venezuelans?  Or to Iranians? 

It's unlikely to be an issue in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, but we're not that far removed from the days of Jim Crow and lynchings.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 06, 2018, 09:10:43 AM
It's unlikely to be an issue in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, but we're not that far removed from the days of Jim Crow and lynchings.

It is important to note that neither problem was solved by easy access to firearms.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 06, 2018, 12:34:53 PM
It's unlikely to be an issue in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, but we're not that far removed from the days of Jim Crow and lynchings.

It is important to note that neither problem was solved by easy access to firearms.

Very true. What did a black person with a weapon get? A bigger posse running them down. A Eason might stop someone in one instance, but it's hardly a solution. I also think it makes people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise. A guy in my county recently was arrested after he murdered someone who had accidentally broken into a house on his property while drunk (not one he was occupying, by the way). Intruder got into the shower, homeowner is alerted and finds him there. Does homeowner call the police? Nope. He gets his gun, sneaks in, and kills him naked in the shower.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 06, 2018, 01:10:10 PM
It's unlikely to be an issue in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, but we're not that far removed from the days of Jim Crow and lynchings.

It is important to note that neither problem was solved by easy access to firearms.

Very true. What did a black person with a weapon get? A bigger posse running them down.
  To live another day.  It's easy to say that's not a big deal when you're not the one about to be beaten to death or hung. 

A Eason might stop someone in one instance, but it's hardly a solution. I also think it makes people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise. A guy in my county recently was arrested after he murdered someone who had accidentally broken into a house on his property while drunk (not one he was occupying, by the way). Intruder got into the shower, homeowner is alerted and finds him there. Does homeowner call the police? Nope. He gets his gun, sneaks in, and kills him naked in the shower.
  What in the world does that have to do with gun rights or gun control?  If the guy decided to kill a person who was not a threat, he is a guy that decided to kill another person who was not a threat.  Whether he decided to do it with a baseball bat or a gun is secondary and no gun control or bat control law is going to address the fact that he decided to kill a person who was not a threat.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 06, 2018, 01:14:58 PM
It's unlikely to be an issue in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, but we're not that far removed from the days of Jim Crow and lynchings.

It is important to note that neither problem was solved by easy access to firearms.

Very true. What did a black person with a weapon get? A bigger posse running them down.
  To live another day.  It's easy to say that's not a big deal when you're not the one about to be beaten to death or hung. 

A Eason might stop someone in one instance, but it's hardly a solution. I also think it makes people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise. A guy in my county recently was arrested after he murdered someone who had accidentally broken into a house on his property while drunk (not one he was occupying, by the way). Intruder got into the shower, homeowner is alerted and finds him there. Does homeowner call the police? Nope. He gets his gun, sneaks in, and kills him naked in the shower.
  What in the world does that have to do with gun rights or gun control?  If the guy decided to kill a person who was not a threat, he is a guy that decided to kill another person who was not a threat.  Whether he decided to do it with a baseball bat or a gun is secondary and no gun control or bat control law is going to address the fact that he decided to kill a person who was not a threat.   

Totally. He totally would have killed the guy with a baseball bat if he didn't have a gun, guys.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 06, 2018, 10:48:41 PM
It's unlikely to be an issue in the U.S. in the foreseeable future, but we're not that far removed from the days of Jim Crow and lynchings.

It is important to note that neither problem was solved by easy access to firearms.

Very true. What did a black person with a weapon get? A bigger posse running them down.
  To live another day.  It's easy to say that's not a big deal when you're not the one about to be beaten to death or hung. 

A Eason might stop someone in one instance, but it's hardly a solution. I also think it makes people do things they wouldn't have done otherwise. A guy in my county recently was arrested after he murdered someone who had accidentally broken into a house on his property while drunk (not one he was occupying, by the way). Intruder got into the shower, homeowner is alerted and finds him there. Does homeowner call the police? Nope. He gets his gun, sneaks in, and kills him naked in the shower.
  What in the world does that have to do with gun rights or gun control?  If the guy decided to kill a person who was not a threat, he is a guy that decided to kill another person who was not a threat.  Whether he decided to do it with a baseball bat or a gun is secondary and no gun control or bat control law is going to address the fact that he decided to kill a person who was not a threat.   

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was mostly trying to explain why taking the "fighting tyranny" angle isn't going to work to win over advocates for gun control. Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.

Basically, if I don't trust the gun owners around me to keep weapons properly secured or not kill someone because they are angry, how am I supposed to trust you'll be a good judge of tyranny and support that "right" as something that is supposed to be good for me?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 07, 2018, 07:33:50 AM
...Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.
I'd like to take issue with the bolded statement above, because the statistics simply don't support such a concern.  It's in the range of 500 people per year who are killed accidentally by firearms.  Out of the 100 million gun owners in the country, that's a vanishingly small possibility.  Given that 99.9995% (did I get the right number of 9's?) of gun owners appear to have no issue with the safety of their firearms, this post really sounds like you are projecting your distaste for guns onto their owners.

What would it take for you to trust a gun owner enough to let your kids go to their house?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 07, 2018, 08:20:56 AM
...Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.

I'd like to take issue with the bolded statement above, because the statistics simply don't support such a concern.  It's in the range of 500 people per year who are killed accidentally by firearms.  Out of the 100 million gun owners in the country, that's a vanishingly small possibility.  Given that 99.9995% (did I get the right number of 9's?) of gun owners appear to have no issue with the safety of their firearms, this post really sounds like you are projecting your distaste for guns onto their owners.

What would it take for you to trust a gun owner enough to let your kids go to their house?

Any gun owner who does not secure his firearms in a locked cabinet or safe, and allows children in the house is behaving in a reckless way that can get others hurt or killed.  Most gun owners in the US fit this description.

"More than half of U.S. gun owners store at least one firearm without any locks or other measures to prevent its theft or use by an unauthorized person"  - http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html)



If you believe it's an acceptable risk, that's your choice.  If TrudgingAlong doesn't, that's hers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 07, 2018, 08:42:53 AM
...Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.

I'd like to take issue with the bolded statement above, because the statistics simply don't support such a concern.  It's in the range of 500 people per year who are killed accidentally by firearms.  Out of the 100 million gun owners in the country, that's a vanishingly small possibility.  Given that 99.9995% (did I get the right number of 9's?) of gun owners appear to have no issue with the safety of their firearms, this post really sounds like you are projecting your distaste for guns onto their owners.

What would it take for you to trust a gun owner enough to let your kids go to their house?

Any gun owner who does not secure his firearms in a locked cabinet or safe, and allows children in the house is behaving in a reckless way that can get others hurt or killed.  Most gun owners in the US fit this description.

"More than half of U.S. gun owners store at least one firearm without any locks or other measures to prevent its theft or use by an unauthorized person"  - http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html)



Yup. And I would suspect the number is even higher than that. I'd bet a lot of people who don't secure their guns would be reluctant to admit it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 07, 2018, 09:13:14 AM
...Most of us do not trust gun owners to be as responsible as they claim to be because of too many legal gun owners behaving in reckless ways that get others killed. When someone tells me they have guns all over their house to keep them safe, I make sure my kids are never allowed to go there. I also do not allow my kids to be around them without me present because I don't trust they are serious about gun safety.
I'd like to take issue with the bolded statement above, because the statistics simply don't support such a concern.  It's in the range of 500 people per year who are killed accidentally by firearms.  Out of the 100 million gun owners in the country, that's a vanishingly small possibility.  Given that 99.9995% (did I get the right number of 9's?) of gun owners appear to have no issue with the safety of their firearms, this post really sounds like you are projecting your distaste for guns onto their owners.

What would it take for you to trust a gun owner enough to let your kids go to their house?
I agree with TrudgingAlong's conclusion, if not necessarily their reasoning. To me it's not so much about owners being reckless or irresponsible (although I think your 99.9995% is overly optomistic*) as it is about knowing when the situation justifies the use of weapons.

As an example, right now a significant portion of the US population believes the special investigation by Robert Mueller is a politically motivated witchhunt to remove the president or something along those lines. If he were caught red-handed, guilty beyond doubt, there would still be doubters. If those doubters believed that a corrupt government had framed the president and was actively undermining the executive branch, would it be time for them to pick up arms? This is just a hypothetical example but when the general population tends to hold very strong opinions about issues they have little understanding of, or in some cases believes things that are completely false, do you really feel safer giving them the option to "fight back"?

Pizzagate comes to mind...

*The 500 accidental deaths figure ignores accidental injuries and more importantly, irresponsible gun owners who did not have an accident.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 07, 2018, 10:24:14 AM
So "guns not locked up, and children in the home" is your metric?  Fair enough.  But what if the guns are unloaded and not locked up, with ammunition stored elsewhere?  Do you consider that to be reckless/irresponsible as well?
"More than half of U.S. gun owners store at least one firearm without any locks or other measures to prevent its theft or use by an unauthorized person"  - http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html)

If you believe it's an acceptable risk, that's your choice.  If TrudgingAlong doesn't, that's hers.
Let's stack the deck in your favor, and assume that all 500 deaths resulted from a child finding an unsecured gun (i.e. ignoring accidents by adults, negligent discharge, at the range, etc).  We *still* only have a few hundred deaths from accidental discharge, out of 50 million "irresponsible" gun owners.  Fine, we're down to 99.999%.  Still a *very* low probability.  And that's with everything stacked in your favor.  If you want to be more realistic, and only include children from age 0-18, you're looking at *maybe* 120 deaths per year.  Or in the realm of 1 per 1,000,000 gun owners.

Your point about people's differing tolerance of risk is a good one (see also: rear-facing car seats until age 4).  However, that does not account for the relative levels of various types of risk.  For example, a whole lot more kids die from drowning and poisoning than from firearms accidents.  If TrudgingAlong takes the same level of care with regard to those risks (e.g. cleaning supplies not locked up?  Kids won't go there!), that's fine.  Otherwise, it exposes an emotionally-driven bias against guns and gun owners.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 07, 2018, 10:46:07 AM
It has already been mentioned . . . but you keep ignoring all incidents with a firearm that haven't resulted in death.  Minor and major injury, close calls that weren't reported.

But there's something else you're overlooking.  Houses need to be cleaned, and therefore there's a reason to keep cleaning supplies.  Swimming is a normal activity that children learn, and not knowing to swim can be quite limiting to a person.  It's necessary to transport children from place to place, and thus car seats are required.  These risks are accepted (although most parents take steps to minimize them) because they are necessary to raising a child.

There exists no reason or benefit of any kind to expose children to firearms.  I compare it to a pregnant woman having an occasional small drink of alcohol.  The risk may be very small  . . .  but why take it unnecessarily?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 07, 2018, 11:12:07 AM
It has already been mentioned . . . but you keep ignoring all incidents with a firearm that haven't resulted in death.  Minor and major injury, close calls that weren't reported.

But there's something else you're overlooking.  Houses need to be cleaned, and therefore there's a reason to keep cleaning supplies.  Swimming is a normal activity that children learn, and not knowing to swim can be quite limiting to a person.  It's necessary to transport children from place to place, and thus car seats are required.  These risks are accepted (although most parents take steps to minimize them) because they are necessary to raising a child.

There exists no reason or benefit of any kind to expose children to firearms.  I compare it to a pregnant woman having an occasional small drink of alcohol.  The risk may be very small  . . .  but why take it unnecessarily?

It’s my hobby and I’d like to enjoy it with my kid, just like I enjoyed it with my dad?  Would you let your kid ride his/her bike on the street?  A lot of risk there, no?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 07, 2018, 11:34:27 AM
It’s my hobby and I’d like to enjoy it with my kid, just like I enjoyed it with my dad?  Would you let your kid ride his/her bike on the street?  A lot of risk there, no?

There's nothing wrong with showing your kid a hobby of yours.  I learned to shoot with my dad too.  I also learned to ride a bike without wearing a helmet.  My kid wears a helmet while learning to ride his.  Why?  Even though there's little chance of him dying, there's no benefit to the less safe option.  Knowing that most gun owners are careless with their firearms (greater than 50% chance that unsecured guns are lying around) there's just no reason to expose your kid to that kind of risk.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: calimom on March 07, 2018, 11:41:09 AM
If owning a weapon for self defense, it's hard to understand the logic of locking guns and then keeping ammo in another location. If you have a fear of home invasion, is the potential 'bad man' going to wait while you unlock the gun cabinet and get the ammo out of the cabinet over the sink?

Consider this woman in Idaho who was so terrified at the thought of shopping at Walmart that she took a loaded gun with her while she shopped with her toddler. It didn't end well:

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-story-of-how-an-idaho-toddler-shot-his-mom-at-wal-mart/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 07, 2018, 11:43:14 AM
I can see why you'd blame my concern ona distaste for firearms, but that isn't the case at all. I have a strong mistrust of gun owners, yes, but I have good reasons. We're a military family. I hear military members thrown out as some kind of paragons of safe gun use.

Over the last 5 years or so, we've seen one guy my dh served with kill himself with his firearm (that one was a suicide), one guy accidentally kill himself while cleaning his loaded weapon, one guy shoot a roommate while drunk because he thought he was breaking in, and, most recently, a watchstander (person guarding a ship with a loaded weapon) be masted because he decided it was a great idea to pull a YouTube stunt and point his gun at someone in jest. They also had to do a whole lecture to everyone that this was not in any way acceptable behavior.

Oh, and outside the military, there was the neighbor who gave his kid a weapon and the kid thought target shooting in a very urban area in his backyard was a proper use of said weapon. That happened several times, once while I was outside with my kids in their pool. They were terrified and the only reason the cops weren't called is because my next door neighbor ran over to scream at him and it finally stopped happening.

I know I've said this before, but we've talked about owning a gun. I was barred from learning how to shoot as a kid because I'm a girl and from a religious family. I'd still really like to learn how to shoot in a safe environment. We decided against it because we have kids. It was a risk we weren't willing to take with them. Their lives are more important than some fun with a gun. We have let our son learn to shoot at Boy Scout camp on a controlled range. I had no problem with that.

What would it take to trust gun owners with my kids? An assurance the weapons are always locked up, whether loaded or unloaded, because how is anyone supposed to know the difference? I don't trust concealed carry because of a friend who thought putting the gun in her purse was reasonable. A purse that is often put down. All it takes to destroy my kid's life is one bullet, one moment of inattention and one bad decision. One bullet can do terrible things.

Also, as gun owners, I would have so much more respect if you all would advocate for those irresponsible parents to face stiff repercussions! Right now, we throw all that responsibility on our kids. We're supposed to be teaching them about gun safety because that's supposed to be enough. We put zero onus on owners to secure their weapons. ZERO. it's actually the number one thing I'd like to see when it comes to gun control, and it wouldn't keep any of your favorite guns out of your hands. Where, after all, do these school shooters generally get their weapons from? Their irresponsible parents.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on March 07, 2018, 11:48:43 AM
It is entirely possible to keep guns safely and to train children to be safe around them too. I have a friend whose dad had guns and I know that he stored them safely, locked up, and I never saw them when I went to her house. If you have guns for hunting or target shooting, you can keep them stored unloaded in a locked gun safe and only taken out to be safely transported for their intended purpose. But - if you believe the guns are for self defense and must be kept loaded and easily accessible, that's when you'll have issues. Those are the guns that kids find and play with and have accidents with. It's also the guns that people use to shoot themselves, which is another rarely discussed side effect of owning a gun.. It's not that gun owners are more suicidal, but that they have a highly effective method readily available, and it's often an impulse decision so locks can deter or delay suicide enough to change someone's mind or get help. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1763337/pdf/v058p00841.pdf)
Also, riding a bike is not comparable to playing with a gun. That's just a ridiculous statement.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 07, 2018, 01:11:33 PM
It’s my hobby and I’d like to enjoy it with my kid, just like I enjoyed it with my dad?  Would you let your kid ride his/her bike on the street?  A lot of risk there, no?

818 people died on bicycles from motor vehicle accidents in 2015.  More than 36,000 people were killed by guns in 2015.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 07, 2018, 01:37:12 PM
It’s my hobby and I’d like to enjoy it with my kid, just like I enjoyed it with my dad?  Would you let your kid ride his/her bike on the street?  A lot of risk there, no?

818 people died on bicycles from motor vehicle accidents in 2015.  More than 36,000 people were killed by guns in 2015.

See why your comparison doesn’t make sense?  The issue on the table right now is accidents due to kids finding guns in the home. What’s THAT death rate?

Wikipedia says in 2013 it’s 505. So, maybe letting your kid ride on the street is 60% dumber than letting them go to a friends house where the parent owns guns?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 07, 2018, 02:39:00 PM
It’s my hobby and I’d like to enjoy it with my kid, just like I enjoyed it with my dad?  Would you let your kid ride his/her bike on the street?  A lot of risk there, no?

818 people died on bicycles from motor vehicle accidents in 2015.  More than 36,000 people were killed by guns in 2015.

See why your comparison doesn’t make sense?  The issue on the table right now is accidents due to kids finding guns in the home. What’s THAT death rate?

Wikipedia says in 2013 it’s 505. So, maybe letting your kid ride on the street is 60% dumber than letting them go to a friends house where the parent owns guns?

I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about the number of school shootings in the U.S.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 07, 2018, 02:47:17 PM
The US population is roughly 300 million.  About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)).  That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

Given that there's no logical reason to keep a gun in the home for self defense, why do it?  Maybe because you think that the small chance of being home during a burglary is worth it?  How is that any different from a parent who doesn't want to have their kid go to a home with guns because of the small chance that an accident could happen?

If you're going to rail against logical inconsistencies, be consistent.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 07, 2018, 03:07:55 PM
Quote
Over the last 5 years or so, we've seen one guy my dh served with kill himself with his firearm (that one was a suicide), one guy accidentally kill himself while cleaning his loaded weapon, one guy shoot a roommate while drunk because he thought he was breaking in, and, most recently, a watchstander (person guarding a ship with a loaded weapon) be masted because he decided it was a great idea to pull a YouTube stunt and point his gun at someone in jest. They also had to do a whole lecture to everyone that this was not in any way acceptable behavior.

...

What would it take to trust gun owners with my kids? An assurance the weapons are always locked up, whether loaded or unloaded, because how is anyone supposed to know the difference? I don't trust concealed carry because of a friend who thought putting the gun in her purse was reasonable. A purse that is often put down. All it takes to destroy my kid's life is one bullet, one moment of inattention and one bad decision. One bullet can do terrible things. 
Wow, you've certainly had more than your fair share of negative experiences, and thank you for sharing.  However, I'd like to point out that all of the incidents you pointed out have everything to do with people making poor decisions, and nothing to do with locking up guns.  Now, I suppose that if the guns were locked up, that might have solved some of those situations....except they wouldn't have.  The suicidal man would have just pulled it out.  Cleaning a gun is important for safety reasons.  The watchstander is supposed to be armed.

How is someone to know the difference between loaded and unloaded?  I have a two-step answer for that:
1) ALWAYS assume the gun is loaded (seriously, this is like rule #1 for using a gun)
2a) if you know how to check and clear the weapon, do it every time you pick it up (unless you're picking it up in order to fire it)
2b) if you don't know how to check and clear the weapon, leave it alone and ask someone else (preferably the owner) to clear it and show you

With regards to the stiff repercussions for irresponsible parents, those already exist.  Manslaughter, negligence, etc.
Quote
There exists no reason or benefit of any kind to expose children to firearms.
That's quite the absolute you're stating there.  I see one benefit for all children, no matter what your stance on gun control:  it is good to expose children to firearms so that when they come across them in real life, as they are certain to do, they can handle it appropriately.  We can readily see what happens when people grow up without exposure or understanding--just look at various politicians running around trying to ban "assault weapons" or talking about "shoulder thing that go up," or schools that suspend kids for making a gun gesture with their hands or nibbling their pop tart into the shape of a gun, or even generals who say things like "full semi-automatic." 

I'd like to turn around your question: What harm or detriment comes from exposing kids to firearms (in a safe, controlled way, of course)?
I'm sorry, I thought this was a thread about the number of school shootings in the U.S.
He was pointing out your inconsistency in comparing all gun deaths (including the 98.6% of gun deaths which are intentional) with fatal bike/car accidents.  You were comparing apples to oranges.  He was trying to show you which were the more appropriate datapoints to use for your comparison.

The US population is roughly 300 million.  About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)).  That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.
I'm afraid you're off by two orders of magnitude--270k out of 300M is 0.09% (about 1/1000) :D
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 07, 2018, 03:58:51 PM
The US population is roughly 300 million.  About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)).  That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

Given that there's no logical reason to keep a gun in the home for self defense, why do it?  Maybe because you think that the small chance of being home during a burglary is worth it?  How is that any different from a parent who doesn't want to have their kid go to a home with guns because of the small chance that an accident could happen?

If you're going to rail against logical inconsistencies, be consistent.

This is a big step up from the callous attitude of "I don't need a gun, so I don't care whether you need a gun" that you see a lot of upper income people exhibit, but it's still a pretty amazing statement.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 07, 2018, 05:36:54 PM
The US population is roughly 300 million.  About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)).  That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.
I'm afraid you're off by two orders of magnitude--270k out of 300M is 0.09% (about 1/1000) :D

Yep.  My mistake, I forgot to move the decimal over.  0.09% is the correct number.



The US population is roughly 300 million.  About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)).  That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

Given that there's no logical reason to keep a gun in the home for self defense, why do it?  Maybe because you think that the small chance of being home during a burglary is worth it?  How is that any different from a parent who doesn't want to have their kid go to a home with guns because of the small chance that an accident could happen?

If you're going to rail against logical inconsistencies, be consistent.

This is cherry picking the data a bit to fit your desired conclusion.  Also the data is inaccurate.

There are 126M households.
3.7M are burglarized.
That's about 3% chance your home will be burglarized. 
28% of the time, someone is home during the burglary.
My numbers show that there's almost a 1% chance your home will burglarized AND someone will be home - maybe your whole family. 

I think this is the number people should use when deciding how they should protect themselves, if at all.  Your .00009% number is flawed.

We should also note that crime is concentrated, so based on your location your odds could be much higher or lower.  I can understand why people in higher crime areas would want to arm themselves.

Using the odds of your being violently victimized by a robbery isn't cherry picking the data any more than ignoring all the accidental injuries that happen and using only the firearms deaths.




It would seem however, that my point was missed.  Which is that despite low odds of being victimized by a home invader, a lot of people choose to keep guns because of the risk.  It's not significantly more unreasonable to want to keep your kid out of a home that likely has unsecured firearms lying around somewhere.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 07, 2018, 08:37:26 PM
If you know of any parents arrested and convicted after their kid accidentally killed someone, I'd love to read it. I've read exactly zero stories of this. I do think it's possible there is a law somewhere in some state, but it seems to be disregarded.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 07, 2018, 09:01:07 PM
The US population is roughly 300 million.  About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)).  That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.
I'm afraid you're off by two orders of magnitude--270k out of 300M is 0.09% (about 1/1000) :D

Yep.  My mistake, I forgot to move the decimal over.  0.09% is the correct number.



The US population is roughly 300 million.  About 270,000 people are violently victimized in some way due to being home during a burglary each year (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt)).  That means that you have roughly a 0.0009% chance of needing a gun to protect your home.

Given that there's no logical reason to keep a gun in the home for self defense, why do it?  Maybe because you think that the small chance of being home during a burglary is worth it?  How is that any different from a parent who doesn't want to have their kid go to a home with guns because of the small chance that an accident could happen?

If you're going to rail against logical inconsistencies, be consistent.

This is cherry picking the data a bit to fit your desired conclusion.  Also the data is inaccurate.

There are 126M households.
3.7M are burglarized.
That's about 3% chance your home will be burglarized. 
28% of the time, someone is home during the burglary.
My numbers show that there's almost a 1% chance your home will burglarized AND someone will be home - maybe your whole family. 

I think this is the number people should use when deciding how they should protect themselves, if at all.  Your .00009% number is flawed.

We should also note that crime is concentrated, so based on your location your odds could be much higher or lower.  I can understand why people in higher crime areas would want to arm themselves.

Using the odds of your being violently victimized by a robbery isn't cherry picking the data any more than ignoring all the accidental injuries that happen and using only the firearms deaths.




It would seem however, that my point was missed.  Which is that despite low odds of being victimized by a home invader, a lot of people choose to keep guns because of the risk.  It's not significantly more unreasonable to want to keep your kid out of a home that likely has unsecured firearms lying around somewhere.
you are still using averages as a substitute for the actual risk people face. You are also using averages of only burglaries, when burglaries aren't the only risk. Plenty of people love in very safe areas but occasionally have to work in or drive through a much more dangerous area.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 08, 2018, 07:35:54 AM
you are still using averages as a substitute for the actual risk people face. You are also using averages of only burglaries, when burglaries aren't the only risk. Plenty of people love in very safe areas but occasionally have to work in or drive through a much more dangerous area.

You mean like using average numbers of death as a substitute for the risk that a child faces when entering the home of a gun owner?  FYI - about 16 kids are hospitalized for firearms injuries every day, and that the majority of the injuries for under 15 years old are unintentional.  - http://www.aappublications.org/news/2017/05/04/PASFirearmInjuries050417

I was talking about the more than half of all gun owners who keep unsecured guns in the home.  Working/driving through a dangerous area doesn't require that the gun remain unsecured in a home.


If you know of any parents arrested and convicted after their kid accidentally killed someone, I'd love to read it. I've read exactly zero stories of this. I do think it's possible there is a law somewhere in some state, but it seems to be disregarded.

I found this one of a father convicted of man slaughter after his 11 year old son shot and killed his 3 year old.  Sad story.  Also note this type of conviction is extremely rare.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/04/father_guilty_of_manslaughter.amp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/04/father_guilty_of_manslaughter.amp)

The conviction is rare.  Toddlers shooting themselves and others due to gun owner negligence is not . . . these incidents happen roughly one per week.

This kind of event is miserably hard for all people involved.  I don't think that jail time is really going to be of benefit to the families or to society.  Anyone who has proven that they cannot be trusted with firearms in this way should immediately receive a permanent and lifetime ban on owning a firearm though.  Most gun owners oppose this idea because they hate the idea of anyone taking personal responsibility for their actions though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 08, 2018, 09:54:56 AM
you are still using averages as a substitute for the actual risk people face. You are also using averages of only burglaries, when burglaries aren't the only risk. Plenty of people love in very safe areas but occasionally have to work in or drive through a much more dangerous area.

You mean like using average numbers of death as a substitute for the risk that a child faces when entering the home of a gun owner?  FYI - about 16 kids are hospitalized for firearms injuries every day, and that the majority of the injuries for under 15 years old are unintentional.  - http://www.aappublications.org/news/2017/05/04/PASFirearmInjuries050417

I was talking about the more than half of all gun owners who keep unsecured guns in the home.  Working/driving through a dangerous area doesn't require that the gun remain unsecured in a home.
 

Well, I would expect people to make their own determinations based on their actual knowledge, and not an average that may or may not reflect anything close to the actual risk. 

But also note that of the 16 "kids" are hospitalized for firearms everyday, it doesn't give the breakdown of how many were unintentional injuries versus how many were victims of assault.  I suspect that a huge number of that 16 will be victims of gang members (and also a large number of those will actually be gang members, not just innocent bystanders). They're intentionally conflating two different issues, and using the major problem with gang violence to over inflate the also real, but much smaller problem, of accidental firearm injuries to children. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 08, 2018, 11:02:56 AM
Well, I would expect people to make their own determinations based on their actual knowledge, and not an average that may or may not reflect anything close to the actual risk. 

People are generally pretty bad at doing this.  The human brain is a poor judge of risk by design.  You've got an intuitive risk analyzer running all the time that tends to preempt more logical thinking.  You're hardwired to over-react to perceived 'immediate threats' and under-react to more theoretical potential threats.  You're hardwired to over-react to intentional actions and to under-react to accidents.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 08, 2018, 03:34:12 PM
If you know of any parents arrested and convicted after their kid accidentally killed someone, I'd love to read it. I've read exactly zero stories of this. I do think it's possible there is a law somewhere in some state, but it seems to be disregarded.

I found this one of a father convicted of man slaughter after his 11 year old son shot and killed his 3 year old.  Sad story.  Also note this type of conviction is extremely rare.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/04/father_guilty_of_manslaughter.amp (https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/04/father_guilty_of_manslaughter.amp)

Okay, there is one! I'd agree jail time is probably just a compounding of the situation, though. A record for him, yes, banning of firearms for life, yes, community service, etc, better solutions. Jailing and charging the kid is problematic, and is an example of how I feel the kids are unfairly gaining the blame. It says he did it "without malice" which implies he was playing around. If he didn't intend to hurt anyone, why should he be saddled not only with the terrible knowlege he killed his brother, but also a prison term?

I do wonder if gun owners don't advocate for personal responsibility laws with weapons because they worry they will eventually get burned by their own behavior. Easier to throw the blame on the child shooter.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 13, 2018, 12:42:16 PM
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/973604854244327424/photo/1

Quote
The lawn outside the US Capitol is covered with empty shoes to represent the 7,000 children killed by gun violence since the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: t185 on March 14, 2018, 08:24:45 AM
If you want to change the 2nd amendment have at it."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 14, 2018, 08:39:51 AM
If you want to change the 2nd amendment have at it."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB

The overwhelming majority of illegal guns in Canada come from the US.  Anyone can buy guns from a private seller without any kind of check i(or even ID) in the US.  When buying from a registered firearms retailer, there is no registry of guns . . . which means that it's next to impossible to catch straw purchasers.  These guns are then easily smuggled across the border and the vast majority of crimes using firearms in Canada include guns from the US (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6)).

The problem is even worse in Mexico (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s)).

Your failure to get your own shit together and hold gun owners responsible for their actions impacts me and my country.  When you arm criminals in my country, the US gun fetish becomes my business.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 14, 2018, 09:24:43 AM
If you want to change the 2nd amendment have at it."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB

The overwhelming majority of illegal guns in Canada come from the US.  Anyone can buy guns from a private seller without any kind of check i(or even ID) in the US.  When buying from a registered firearms retailer, there is no registry of guns . . . which means that it's next to impossible to catch straw purchasers.  These guns are then easily smuggled across the border and the vast majority of crimes using firearms in Canada include guns from the US (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6)).

The problem is even worse in Mexico (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s)).

Your failure to get your own shit together and hold gun owners responsible for their actions impacts me and my country.  When you arm criminals in my country, the US gun fetish becomes my business.

Maybe you should construct some sort of, I dunno, barrier or wall on your border....
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 14, 2018, 09:29:04 AM
If you want to change the 2nd amendment have at it."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB

The overwhelming majority of illegal guns in Canada come from the US.  Anyone can buy guns from a private seller without any kind of check i(or even ID) in the US.  When buying from a registered firearms retailer, there is no registry of guns . . . which means that it's next to impossible to catch straw purchasers.  These guns are then easily smuggled across the border and the vast majority of crimes using firearms in Canada include guns from the US (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6)).

The problem is even worse in Mexico (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s)).

Your failure to get your own shit together and hold gun owners responsible for their actions impacts me and my country.  When you arm criminals in my country, the US gun fetish becomes my business.

Maybe you should construct some sort of, I dunno, barrier or wall on your border....

. . . yeah, and the US would pay for it.  :P
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: t185 on March 14, 2018, 10:28:00 AM
If you want to change the 2nd amendment have at it."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB

The overwhelming majority of illegal guns in Canada come from the US.  Anyone can buy guns from a private seller without any kind of check i(or even ID) in the US.  When buying from a registered firearms retailer, there is no registry of guns . . . which means that it's next to impossible to catch straw purchasers.  These guns are then easily smuggled across the border and the vast majority of crimes using firearms in Canada include guns from the US (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6)).

The problem is even worse in Mexico (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s)).

Your failure to get your own shit together and hold gun owners responsible for their actions impacts me and my country.  When you arm criminals in my country, the US gun fetish becomes my business.

Blah, Blah, Blah....

Do something about it.

You can. (Choose only one)
A. Tighten border security
B. Build a wall
C. Whine on the internet

Change what you can influence in your country. Otherwise MYOFB

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 14, 2018, 10:44:41 AM
If you want to change the 2nd amendment have at it."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB

The overwhelming majority of illegal guns in Canada come from the US.  Anyone can buy guns from a private seller without any kind of check i(or even ID) in the US.  When buying from a registered firearms retailer, there is no registry of guns . . . which means that it's next to impossible to catch straw purchasers.  These guns are then easily smuggled across the border and the vast majority of crimes using firearms in Canada include guns from the US (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6)).

The problem is even worse in Mexico (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s)).

Your failure to get your own shit together and hold gun owners responsible for their actions impacts me and my country.  When you arm criminals in my country, the US gun fetish becomes my business.

Maybe you should construct some sort of, I dunno, barrier or wall on your border....

. . . yeah, and the US would pay for it.  :P

Don't worry, GuitarStv, the kids will save us (and you).
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 14, 2018, 11:09:55 AM
If you want to change the 2nd amendment have at it."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB

The overwhelming majority of illegal guns in Canada come from the US.  Anyone can buy guns from a private seller without any kind of check i(or even ID) in the US.  When buying from a registered firearms retailer, there is no registry of guns . . . which means that it's next to impossible to catch straw purchasers.  These guns are then easily smuggled across the border and the vast majority of crimes using firearms in Canada include guns from the US (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/an-american-export-canadians-dont-want-illegal-guns/2016/02/19/b65d7b72-d69a-11e5-be55-2cc3c1e4b76b_story.html?utm_term=.bcb01c5ec8e6)).

The problem is even worse in Mexico (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462781469/in-mexico-tens-of-thousands-of-illegal-guns-come-from-the-u-s)).

Your failure to get your own shit together and hold gun owners responsible for their actions impacts me and my country.  When you arm criminals in my country, the US gun fetish becomes my business.

Maybe you should construct some sort of, I dunno, barrier or wall on your border....

. . . yeah, and the US would pay for it.  :P

Don't worry, GuitarStv, the kids will save us (and you).
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....


Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too.  None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this.  They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 14, 2018, 11:21:03 AM
Change what you can influence in your country. Otherwise MYOFB

Yep, that's what I'm doing.  Unfortunately your shithole* country is causing problems with my business.  Hence the comments.


[Mod note: Dude ... easy, now.  I get the reference, but still.]


* Hopefully this language is not too presidential for you.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Samuel on March 14, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
If you want to change the 2nd amendment have at it."

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

If you don't like it change it.

If you don't live in the USA. B$tch all your want but.... MYOFB

Technically you don't even have to change it. You just have to change the interpretation of it at the Supreme Court.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The second amendment is only 27 words long, and ambiguous in many ways. It's very open to interpretation, which is what the hardliners who staged a hostile takeover of the NRA in 1977 recognized. Since then they've successfully reshaped public perception, influenced (to put it politely) lawmakers and pushed judges favorable to their interpretation (hint: they didn't even bother to inscribe the first half of the amendment on their DC headquarters but they did the second half).

The Supreme Court didn't formally affirm an individual right to own a gun until 2008. This is what it looks like when you're losing a game you didn't even realize you were playing. I think people are starting to notice.


And for the record I am an American citizen. And a gun owner. But not an NRA member.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: t185 on March 14, 2018, 12:00:22 PM
Change what you can influence in your country. Otherwise MYOFB

Yep, that's what I'm doing.  Unfortunately your shithole* country is causing problems with my business.  Hence the comments.


Canada $1.5 trillion GDP   

USA $18.6 trillion GDP

Whatever.....Just in case you didn't hear me the first two times  MYOFB
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 14, 2018, 12:09:02 PM
Whatever.....Just in case you didn't hear me the first two times  MYOFB

Stop interfering in my business, so I can mind it and we'll both be happy.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 14, 2018, 12:09:30 PM
Change what you can influence in your country. Otherwise MYOFB

Yep, that's what I'm doing.  Unfortunately your shithole* country is causing problems with my business.  Hence the comments.


Canada $1.5 trillion GDP   

USA $18.6 trillion GDP

Whatever.....Just in case you didn't hear me the first two times  MYOFB

Who the fuck are you? Seriously.

Get out of here with that bullshit.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 14, 2018, 12:22:23 PM
Change what you can influence in your country. Otherwise MYOFB

Yep, that's what I'm doing.  Unfortunately your shithole* country is causing problems with my business.  Hence the comments.


Canada $1.5 trillion GDP   

USA $18.6 trillion GDP

Whatever.....Just in case you didn't hear me the first two times  MYOFB

Are you a fake account by someone trying to undermine the credibility of those who support the right to bear arms? Because that's what you're doing.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 14, 2018, 12:35:33 PM
And here's a fantastic example of why I don't wan teachers (or any other random school employee) carrying guns in school:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-class-students-injured-53733773

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 14, 2018, 12:41:13 PM
And here's a fantastic example of why I don't wan teachers (or any other random school employee) carrying guns in school:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-class-students-injured-53733773

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

A school resource officer (as in full-time professional law enforcement officer) in Virginia also had an AD today
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 14, 2018, 01:07:20 PM
Change what you can influence in your country. Otherwise MYOFB

Yep, that's what I'm doing.  Unfortunately your shithole* country is causing problems with my business.  Hence the comments.


Canada $1.5 trillion GDP   

USA $18.6 trillion GDP

Whatever.....Just in case you didn't hear me the first two times  MYOFB

This is seriously just embarrassing.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 14, 2018, 01:15:29 PM
And here's a fantastic example of why I don't wan teachers (or any other random school employee) carrying guns in school:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-class-students-injured-53733773

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

A school resource officer (as in full-time professional law enforcement officer) in Virginia also had an AD today

There are always going to be accidental discharges and injuries.  The question is whether people are willing to accept those accidental discharges and injuries in exchange for having an armed presence on campus in the event of a school shooting.  I suspect that if you look at it on an aggregate basis, they are both so rare that neither moves the needle much, and people's opinion on whether it's worth it will just depend on how "frequent" one or the other "feels" to them. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 14, 2018, 01:22:20 PM
And here's a fantastic example of why I don't wan teachers (or any other random school employee) carrying guns in school:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-class-students-injured-53733773

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

A school resource officer (as in full-time professional law enforcement officer) in Virginia also had an AD today

I'm on the fence about arming teachers, but the well trained and armed Broward County Sheriff's officer(s) sat outside while an unarmed and untrained coach went into the school in Florida.  He might have had a chance with a firearm.

Maybe the schools/police forces should institute the no playing with your gun during school hours rule.  That certainly appear to be what happened in CA.  Not calling the parents on that one is a huge WTF.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 14, 2018, 01:41:06 PM
Maybe the schools/police forces should institute the no playing with your gun during school hours rule.  That certainly appear to be what happened in CA.  Not calling the parents on that one is a huge WTF.

Not to mention the insane legal liability from A. having a teacher messing with a gun in class without parental consent and B. not informing parents in a timely manner that an incident occurred. They can fire him all they want, but the district is going to be paying through the nose on this one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: calimom on March 14, 2018, 05:26:50 PM
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386
[/quote]

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....


Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too.  None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this.  They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.
[/quote]

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 14, 2018, 05:43:49 PM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....


Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too.  None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this.  They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.
[/quote]

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.
[/quote]

Yeah, it's TERRIBLE to teach a teenager that it's good to exercise his right to peaceful assembly and protest. Just terrible, and un-American.

FFS...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 14, 2018, 09:08:52 PM
I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a child's arugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun control measures... but I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consequences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

(Edited to fix cell-phone keyboard induced spelling errors)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 14, 2018, 11:14:40 PM
And here's a fantastic example of why I don't wan teachers (or any other random school employee) carrying guns in school:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/teacher-accidentally-fires-gun-class-students-injured-53733773

This guy was a reserve police officer who thought it a great idea to demonstrate with a loaded gun how to be "safe" around one. Also, WTF about the school not notifying anyone, including the parent whose kid had bullet fragments in his neck?! This was in CA, too, somewhere like Texas. Will other schools try to sweep shit like this under the rug, too?

A school resource officer (as in full-time professional law enforcement officer) in Virginia also had an AD today

There are always going to be accidental discharges and injuries.  The question is whether people are willing to accept those accidental discharges and injuries in exchange for having an armed presence on campus in the event of a school shooting.  I suspect that if you look at it on an aggregate basis, they are both so rare that neither moves the needle much, and people's opinion on whether it's worth it will just depend on how "frequent" one or the other "feels" to them.

I personally do not want the risk of my child being accidentally killed or injured in school. If we start arming thousands of teachers, these accidents WILL increase. School shootings are horrid, yes, but still much rarer than accidents with guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: t185 on March 15, 2018, 05:36:22 AM
Change what you can influence in your country. Otherwise MYOFB

Yep, that's what I'm doing.  Unfortunately your shithole* country is causing problems with my business.  Hence the comments.


Canada $1.5 trillion GDP   

USA $18.6 trillion GDP

Whatever.....Just in case you didn't hear me the first two times  MYOFB

This is seriously just embarrassing.

Embarrassing how excatley? I simply asked the poster to fix what he sees as a problem in his counrty and to leave our "shithole" country out of his grand plan. Pretty simple concept.

On a side note. I hope that all of you intellectual do gooders are not invested in an index fund. You might own shares in Colt, Smith & Wesson Etc. How scary could that be!!!!!!!!

I see that I've touched a few nerves based on the personal attacks and derogatory comments. "Shrug"

Sorry if I invaded your safe zone. LOL Funny when how when someone has no real argument they resort to name calling. You know. Like in second grade.

With that being said. I'll let all you snow flakes get on with whatever you do....Carry on

[MOD NOTE:  The old "safe zone" insult, huh?  Goodbye.]
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 15, 2018, 06:13:16 AM
I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adult’s talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what you’re positing.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 15, 2018, 06:17:38 AM
Change what you can influence in your country. Otherwise MYOFB

Yep, that's what I'm doing.  Unfortunately your shithole* country is causing problems with my business.  Hence the comments.


Canada $1.5 trillion GDP   

USA $18.6 trillion GDP

Whatever.....Just in case you didn't hear me the first two times  MYOFB

This is seriously just embarrassing.

Embarrassing how excatley? I simply asked the poster to fix what he sees as a problem in his counrty and to leave our "shithole" country out of his grand plan. Pretty simple concept.

On a side note. I hope that all of you intellectual do gooders are not invested in an index fund. You might own shares in Colt, Smith & Wesson Etc. How scary could that be!!!!!!!!

I see that I've touched a few nerves based on the personal attacks and derogatory comments. "Shrug"

Sorry if I invaded your safe zone. LOL Funny when how when someone has no real argument they resort to name calling. You know. Like in second grade.

With that being said. I'll let all you snow flakes get on with whatever you do....Carry on

You are further embarrassing yourself with comments like these. You might note above that not only liberals but conservatives expressed disdain for your ridiculous remarks.

But you definitely hit the nail on the head by identifying yourself as someone who has no real argument  and therefore resorts to name calling. You know, like in second grade.

By the way, I already own a Smith and Wesson. And a Beretta. And a Remington.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 15, 2018, 06:18:55 AM
I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adult’s talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what you’re positing.

So much this.

I've seen parents put bumper stickers on their small children at political rallies. It really bothers me and I disagree with it on principle, but it's their right as parents.

Most of the student protesters will be eligible to vote in the next presidential election (many even sooner). They're allowed to speak for themselves. Just like the troll a few posts up.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 15, 2018, 07:31:44 AM
I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adult’s talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what you’re positing.

Kris -

My child's high school held a special assembly to talk about school safety and honor the dead.  My child specifically stated she did not want to make a political statement and the event was designed to avoid doing that.  Despite that, the media reported her school as participating. 

In addition, the event was advertised in the media as ending gun violence and honoring the dead.  I'm all for both of those goals, but don't agree with some of the methods being advocated to prevent gun violence.  I suspect many high schooler's didn't see the nuance there. 

MW
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 15, 2018, 08:16:54 AM
I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adult’s talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what you’re positing.

Even at 18 I held a lot of views that turned out not to be valid or required significant nuance, and was very unduely influences by peer pressure. But fair enough, in high school I was developing my opinions, however wrong they were.

If my child were participating in this I would prepare them that their actual views will be misused by political actors, (See Midwest's post, and a number of other examples) and I'd give them information that they aren't hearing from the media. I'd show them how a lot of the statistics they see are manipulated to portray a preordained conclusion, then let them make their choice.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 15, 2018, 08:23:03 AM
There are always going to be accidental discharges and injuries.  The question is whether people are willing to accept those accidental discharges and injuries in exchange for having an armed presence on campus in the event of a school shooting.  I suspect that if you look at it on an aggregate basis, they are both so rare that neither moves the needle much, and people's opinion on whether it's worth it will just depend on how "frequent" one or the other "feels" to them.

I personally do not want the risk of my child being accidentally killed or injured in school. If we start arming thousands of teachers, these accidents WILL increase. School shootings are horrid, yes, but still much rarer than accidents with guns.
I'd like to challenge that premise ("much rarer than accidents with guns"), because you need to compare the accident rate of people while carrying concealed.  I couldn't, in a quick search, find such a specific number.  But we can at least get in the ballpark.  We *do* know the total accidental death rate, which is around 500 per year.  About a third of those are kids, who wouldn't be eligible to carry concealed in the first place, so that takes down to a maximum possibility of 450 or so.  If we take this data (https://www.concealedcarry.com/safety/300-negligent-discharges-comprehensive-data-science-reveals-gun-grabbers-and-gun-owners-are-both-wrong/) as a proxy (it's the best I could come up with on short notice), and assume that all 450 deaths happened while carrying concealed, that leaves about 35% of all those deaths happening outside the home, gun show, gun shop, gun range, etc.  That takes us down to 150 deaths per year.  That's roughly twice the rate of deaths in actual school shootings, and that's with every assumption leaning in that direction.  More realistically, however, you're looking at double-digit accidental deaths per year while carrying concealed, and therefore in the same range as school shootings.

If that's not a risk you're willing to take, fair enough.  But it's important to assess the actual rather than perceived risk.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 15, 2018, 08:41:46 AM
I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adult’s talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what you’re positing.

Kris -

My child's high school held a special assembly to talk about school safety and honor the dead.  My child specifically stated she did not want to make a political statement and the event was designed to avoid doing that.  Despite that, the media reported her school as participating. 

In addition, the event was advertised in the media as ending gun violence and honoring the dead.  I'm all for both of those goals, but don't agree with some of the methods being advocated to prevent gun violence.  I suspect many high schooler's didn't see the nuance there. 

MW

That is the media. There is a hell of a lot to criticize about the media. They use everything they can to get ratings.

You will notice I was responding to Ncornilsen's first paragraph/point. Not the second. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 15, 2018, 08:44:12 AM
I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adult’s talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what you’re positing.

Even at 18 I held a lot of views that turned out not to be valid or required significant nuance, and was very unduely influences by peer pressure. But fair enough, in high school I was developing my opinions, however wrong they were.

If my child were participating in this I would prepare them that their actual views will be misused by political actors, (See Midwest's post, and a number of other examples) and I'd give them information that they aren't hearing from the media. I'd show them how a lot of the statistics they see are manipulated to portray a preordained conclusion, then let them make their choice.

Even at 50+, I would say there are a lot of people who hold a lot of views that turn out not to be valid or require significant nuance. And are very unduly influenced by peer pressure.

Teaching one's children about the larger context of one's actions, including the fact that the media, special interest lobbies, politicians, and the like, are likely to try to use their actions for their own ends is an important part of teaching one's children about the world.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 15, 2018, 08:58:56 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....


Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too.  None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this.  They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class?  They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post. 

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 15, 2018, 09:03:47 AM
I think its cheap to use children to further political agendas, as its a clear appeal to emotion, as any criticism of a childs aurugment turns into a discussion of how its mean to do so... and i disagree with some portions of proposed gun contr measures, I would allow my child to walk out of school as part of this protest. I would also let them suffer any consewuences that came from it though.

And it seems like the media is misconstruing alot of the walk outs, as many students interviewed, locally anyway, said they were honoring the dead, not marching for gun control.

I think an argumet can definitely be made that hauling a six year-old out into the spotlight before he or she know what she is doing, and teaching her to parrot the adult’s talking points, is cheap.

These are high school students. Who made their own decisions, based on the fact that their own peers are getting shot to death and their elected representatives seem so in the pockets of the gun lobby that they are determined to take no real measures to stop it.

At seventeen years old, I was able to see injustice and hypocrisy for what they were. This is hardly an example of what you’re positing.

Kris -

My child's high school held a special assembly to talk about school safety and honor the dead.  My child specifically stated she did not want to make a political statement and the event was designed to avoid doing that.  Despite that, the media reported her school as participating. 

In addition, the event was advertised in the media as ending gun violence and honoring the dead.  I'm all for both of those goals, but don't agree with some of the methods being advocated to prevent gun violence.  I suspect many high schooler's didn't see the nuance there. 

MW

That is the media. There is a hell of a lot to criticize about the media. They use everything they can to get ratings.

You will notice I was responding to Ncornilsen's first paragraph/point. Not the second.

The organizers were adept at using the media (who willingly obliged) to promote their gun control agenda.  If this had been advertised strictly as a walkout to support gun control, it wouldn't have had near the support it had. 

Support for the stated goals or even participation is alternative events is being implied as support for the cause.  That's on both the media and the organizers.

Incidentally, I thought this was a great opportunity for discussion with my child about the issues involved.  Hopefully many other parents took that opportunity as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: calimom on March 15, 2018, 09:17:49 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....


Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too.  None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this.  They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class?  They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post. 

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

You're stuck on the consequences and sacrifice issue; that's fine you get to be. Many schools have events during the school day which have nothing to do with academics, such as rallies to cheer on the football team's win and things like that. A widespread one-time walkout as a call for stricter gun laws, for our elected officials to actually do their jobs, getting international press, is going to be far more effective t than a Facebook post. It could also be argued there's lots to learn about civic engagement, political process that might be best learned doing than spending that hour in a classroom.

The young people from Parkland are very articulate. It's embarrassing that a 16 or 17 year old is a far more engaged and informed speaker than the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 15, 2018, 09:38:19 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....


Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too.  None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this.  They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class?  They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post. 

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

LOL

The sacrifice is seeing your peers getting shot to death and worrying that it could happen to you.

I get that you can't possibly bring yourself to allow that these kids are anything but lazy dumbshits, but seriously...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 15, 2018, 10:21:53 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....


Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too.  None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this.  They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class?  They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post. 

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

LOL

The sacrifice is seeing your peers getting shot to death and worrying that it could happen to you.

I get that you can't possibly bring yourself to allow that these kids are anything but lazy dumbshits, but seriously...

Where did I say that anybody was a lazy dumbshit. 

I just pointed out that walking out of class doesn't show any kind of commitment. Obviously it's a fair inference that I don't think it merits much attention, which is why the parents I know wouldn't condone it. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: FrugalToque on March 15, 2018, 10:27:55 AM

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/national-school-walkout-marks-month-parkland-mass-shooting-n856386

Nothing shows a high schoolers commitment to a cause better than being willing to walk out of class over it....


Seriously, kids in my area are doing this too.  None of my friends with high schoolers are terrible enough to consent to their high school aged kids doing this.  They all have enough sense to point out if you want to show you're committed, show up for something an hour before or after school, of god forbid, on a saturday.

I guess I am a terrible parent in that I did give consent for my teenaged son to participate in a peaceful walkout from his school today. It's something we talked about and he was passionate enough about the topic - along with millions of other high school students around the country - to take action. Last year he took part in an immigration protest. This terrible parent is very proud!

Overall, the hope of this country comes from young people rising up. It's been hard not to feel despondent this past year. Let's hope we are seeing the end of the dinosaurs and will to let peace and sanity take place.

Passionate enough to walk out of a class?  They could have showed the same passion by just putting up a facebook post. 

When they are passionate enough to actually sacrifice, even if it's just showing up to school an hour earlier or staying an hour later, that will be something.

LOL

The sacrifice is seeing your peers getting shot to death and worrying that it could happen to you.

I get that you can't possibly bring yourself to allow that these kids are anything but lazy dumbshits, but seriously...

Where did I say that anybody was a lazy dumbshit. 

I just pointed out that walking out of class doesn't show any kind of commitment. Obviously it's a fair inference that I don't think it merits much attention, which is why the parents I know wouldn't condone it.

I suppose it depends on how cold it is outside, how many people are threatening you with suspension, and what what your parents might think.

Regardless, it's still young people speaking their minds, which is a good start, and it means they're starting to recognize their power as citizens.

Toque.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 15, 2018, 10:27:58 AM
I just pointed out that walking out of class doesn't show any kind of commitment. Obviously it's a fair inference that I don't think it merits much attention, which is why the parents I know wouldn't condone it.

Many kids risked suspension, detention, or 0's on tests...and still walked out.

You're greatly misjudging what's going on.  But it's fine.  The kids will keep going.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on March 15, 2018, 11:28:24 AM
Availability bias is causing people to perceive a much larger danger than actually exists.  It's unfortunate that any student goes to school in fear.  The "Am I next" mentality - particularly the sign I saw a student holding that was prominent in media coverage and some statements above is not healthy.  It's understandable to be concerned and reasonable to seek solutions.  The fear part is irrational however and concerned students should be comforted by faculty and parents who are aware of the facts and statistics.

Soon you'll be telling me something like crazy, like I don't have to worry about Ebola or terrorists or having a crockpot at a Super Bowl party, and instead should be concerned with my weight and lack of exercise.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 15, 2018, 11:29:45 AM
Availability bias is causing people to perceive a much larger danger than actually exists.  It's unfortunate that any student goes to school in fear.  The "Am I next" mentality - particularly the sign I saw a student holding that was prominent in media coverage and some statements above is not healthy.  It's understandable to be concerned and reasonable to seek solutions.  The fear part is irrational however and concerned students should be comforted by faculty and parents who are aware of the facts and statistics.

7,000 kids have been killed by a gun since Sandy Hook in the U.S.  That's a little more than 5 years.  SEVEN THOUSAND KIDS.

There have been more than 1,600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook.  That's nearly one per day.

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/cdkaXaKSy31w58-aGKb8qIUx85s=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10228297/gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg)

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Ee9XHTn2BTaQnGIv5DifwpzH0ew=/600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10328765/GUN_SCATTERPLOT_2x.png)

Tell me more about these facts and statistics.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 15, 2018, 11:38:33 AM
Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire?  7000 kids weren’t killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 15, 2018, 11:45:00 AM
http://www.businessinsider.com/oecd-homicide-rates-chart-2015-6

North America has 3 of the top 10 for homicides per 100k (not firearm homicides but homicides in general).  Both Canada and Mexico have much stricter gun laws than the US, but still have higher than average murder rates as compared to the rest of the world.

In addition, per your chart the US's homicide by firearm rate is 6x that of Canada but the overall homicide rate is about 2.5x that of Canada. 

Based on that, it appears Canadian murderers are more likely to use means other than firearms to kill their victims.  I'm sure Canadian style gun laws might save some lives in the US, but certainly not what your chart would initially lead one to believe.

MW
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 15, 2018, 11:50:06 AM
Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire?  7000 kids weren’t killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems

But hey, at least it's a nice change from Jrr85's use of a variation of the Perfect Solution Fallacy: "if you care so much, why aren't you doing something about it?" where the "something" is implied to be a magic solution that involves "actual" sacrifice on the part of these demonstrators (and that could apparently be implemented by a bunch of kids still too young to vote and without the financial power and influence of the NRA and their minions in government).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 15, 2018, 11:53:02 AM
Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 15, 2018, 11:53:07 AM
Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire?  7000 kids weren’t killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

Meh.  This seems like a goofy response.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem.  While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.  The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are.  There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem.  That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 15, 2018, 12:01:39 PM
Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours.  Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts.  For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries. 

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 15, 2018, 12:02:07 PM
Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire?  7000 kids weren’t killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

Meh.  This seems like a goofy response.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem.  While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.  The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are.  There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem.  That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.

If you are arguing for gun confiscation, that's fine.  In reality, that probably impacts mass shootings more than the type of violence actually driving our numbres, but under an idealized version of how it would work, that would address both types of problems (while creating more, as part of what you've done is just shift the balance of power to gang people who are more effective at using other means of violence). 

But usually after mass shootings, people argue for things that would not have stopped the mass shooting in question (or most mass shootings).  Things like background checks when a background check was passed (or wouldn't have applied regardless because the guns were stolen), assault rifle bans, limits on clips, or whatever. 

The reality is that there is some low hanging fruit that we could grab that would impact things like gang violence but that would do little to nothing to address mass shootings.  There just a different and more much more difficult nut to crack. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 15, 2018, 12:04:44 PM
Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours.  Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts.  For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries. 

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

We're part of North America last I checked.  :P
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 15, 2018, 12:06:29 PM
Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours.  Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts.  For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries. 

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

We're part of North America last I checked.  :P

Thanks for clarifying.  LOL. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 15, 2018, 12:10:45 PM
Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours.  Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts.  For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries. 

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

We're part of North America last I checked.  :P

Thanks for clarifying.  LOL.

My point being, that the violence unique to North America doesn't have to be as bad if you were to implement some sensible gun regulations and controls.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 15, 2018, 12:13:03 PM
Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire?  7000 kids weren’t killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

Meh.  This seems like a goofy response.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem.  While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.  The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are.  There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem.  That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.

It’s an important distinction because mixing all shootings together disguises the real risk of each type individually. We’ve established over and over again that ALL rifles/shotguns account for around 2% (~700/~30,000) firearms deaths annually. So clearly AR-15s are not a statistically valid issue. But if you want to ban them, which the left seems to have an inexplicable hardon to do, you must muddy the waters up by throwing unrelated statistics out there as seen above.

We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 15, 2018, 12:17:20 PM
Just to pile on the "manipulated statistics" train, the definition of "children" is often stretched up to 18 years (or higher) in order to inflate the number.  The term "minors" just doesn't have the same emotional impact.  Also, they add up all the numbers across an arbitrary (though significant) time period, so that it's a bigger number.

Also, the "mass shootings" statistic is also inflated by using any incident where four or more people were injured or killed, regardless of the circumstances.  It includes police-involved shootings, too.  Just like the title of this thread "11 school shootings in 26 days," it's intentionally misleading.
Of that 7000, how many were as a result of gang affiliation or gang crossfire?  7000 kids weren’t killed in school shootings a la Columbine and Parkland.

7000 is a problem, but if, I dunno, 6800 were killed by gangbangers with illegally bought/stolen handguns it begs a different conversation and solution than if they were killed in Columbine-style school shootings with AR-15s.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems
That's not the argument he's making.  He's pointing out that this specific statistic is rather misleading and makes a poor foundation for public policy.

School shootings are a small but important part of a larger problem.  While there might be a targeted solution that is 'optimal' for school shootings, the solutions for gangbangers with illegal weapons will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.  The solutions for AR-15 style massacres will benefit people who happen to die of firearms who aren't in schools.

You know what the solutions are.  There's no point in optimizing them for school shootings, you should be trying to optimize them for the entire nationwide gun problem.  That includes accidental deaths, suicides, gang/criminal related deaths, and mass shootings.
The bolded part is a great example of why the discussion is unlikely to go anywhere.  You see it as a "gun problem," while gun owners see it as a whole range of problems (mental health, gang activity, bullying, accidents, etc) which are exacerbated by guns.  If you see it as a "gun problem," then it's understandable that you'd want to reduce the availability of guns.  Gun owners, on the other hand, see gun control as something that can only marginally improve on the problems at best, while stripping the law-abiding of the right to self-defense (and other things, but let's stick with that for now), so they would prefer to attack the root causes of the problems.  Gun control is much more politically marketable, and easier to write legislation for, than trying to address root causes like mental health, economics, drug trafficking, and culture.  It's a lazy shortcut that makes for splashy headlines.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 15, 2018, 12:17:46 PM
Per 1 million people, there are 14.4 murders in Canada, 5.1 by firearm(s) so 9.3 by other means.

Per 1 million, there are 38.2 murders in the U.S., 29.7 by firearm(s) so 8.5 by other means.

I would take Canada's firearm (and overall) homicide rate over the U.S., yes.

Agree wholeheartedly that Canada has lower murder rate and would prefer theirs to ours.  Focusing on homicide by firearm, however, distorts the facts.  For some reason, North America (not just the US) is more violent than other first world countries. 

That's not simply related to access to firearms and rifles (the focus of the latest outrage), are a blip in those statistics.

We're part of North America last I checked.  :P

Thanks for clarifying.  LOL.

My point being, that the violence unique to North America doesn't have to be as bad if you were to implement some sensible gun regulations and controls.

With all due respect, your definition of sensible and mine may vary.  Without rehashing the last 14 or 15 pages, I've heard some ideas I agree with and some I don't.

It also bugs me to no end when the focus is on the firearm homicide rate rather than the homicide rate. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 15, 2018, 12:46:44 PM
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/15/593799322/sister-of-charleston-shooter-dylann-roof-arrested-after-menacing-social-media-po

Here is hoping that she never reproduces. That must be one fun family to hang with.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on March 15, 2018, 12:54:17 PM
We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

We don't have higher rates of mental health or attempted suicides than other developed countries.  We have the easiest access to firearms which is a much surer way to kill oneself.

If you care about the suicide epidemic, then you have to support measures that make it harder to have access to guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 15, 2018, 01:47:28 PM
We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

We don't have higher rates of mental health or attempted suicides than other developed countries.  We have the easiest access to firearms which is a much surer way to kill oneself.

If you care about the suicide epidemic, then you have to support measures that make it harder to have access to guns.

Our suicide rate is almost identical to Canada and on lower than many first world countries (many of whom have very strict gun control)

http://www.businessinsider.com/world-suicide-rate-map-2014-4

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: calimom on March 15, 2018, 01:57:54 PM
We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

We don't have higher rates of mental health or attempted suicides than other developed countries.  We have the easiest access to firearms which is a much surer way to kill oneself.

If you care about the suicide epidemic, then you have to support measures that make it harder to have access to guns.

Our suicide rate is almost identical to Canada and on lower than many first world countries (many of whom have very strict gun control)

http://www.businessinsider.com/world-suicide-rate-map-2014-4

So what's the harm in giving them guns if they're just going to kill themselves anyway, right?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 15, 2018, 02:13:20 PM
We have a gun violence problem in this country, but it is traceable to two main issues: 1 suicide and 2 urban gang fighting. Remove those two factors and the numbers go way way way down.

We don't have higher rates of mental health or attempted suicides than other developed countries.  We have the easiest access to firearms which is a much surer way to kill oneself.

If you care about the suicide epidemic, then you have to support measures that make it harder to have access to guns.

Our suicide rate is almost identical to Canada and on lower than many first world countries (many of whom have very strict gun control)

http://www.businessinsider.com/world-suicide-rate-map-2014-4

So what's the harm in giving them guns if they're just going to kill themselves anyway, right?

The poster above implies firearms are driving up the suicide rate in the US.  I'm not sure that's true.  We have a lower level of suicide than many other countries and a similar level to Canada.  It doesn't seem like access to firearms is the primary driver in suicide (ie people kill themselves with our without firearms.  Look at Japan which has almost no access to firearms and 2x our rate of suicide. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on March 15, 2018, 04:50:28 PM
You see it as a "gun problem," while gun owners see it as a whole range of problems (mental health, gang activity, bullying, accidents, etc) which are exacerbated by guns.  If you see it as a "gun problem," then it's understandable that you'd want to reduce the availability of guns.  Gun owners, on the other hand, see gun control as something that can only marginally improve on the problems at best, while stripping the law-abiding of the right to self-defense (and other things, but let's stick with that for now), so they would prefer to attack the root causes of the problems.  Gun control is much more politically marketable, and easier to write legislation for, than trying to address root causes like mental health, economics, drug trafficking, and culture.  It's a lazy shortcut that makes for splashy headlines.

Zolotiyeruki has a very good point here.   The US has something likes 7 times the rate of incarceration as Canada.   Poverty is much more endemic in US cities as well.     And since there are already so many guns out there, the US needs a more holistic solution than just gun control by itself.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: southern granny on March 15, 2018, 05:45:06 PM
Compare the above chart on homicides by firearms to a chart on poverty rates in developed countries and they line up almost perfectly. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 16, 2018, 07:32:04 AM
You see it as a "gun problem," while gun owners see it as a whole range of problems (mental health, gang activity, bullying, accidents, etc) which are exacerbated by guns.  If you see it as a "gun problem," then it's understandable that you'd want to reduce the availability of guns.  Gun owners, on the other hand, see gun control as something that can only marginally improve on the problems at best, while stripping the law-abiding of the right to self-defense (and other things, but let's stick with that for now), so they would prefer to attack the root causes of the problems.  Gun control is much more politically marketable, and easier to write legislation for, than trying to address root causes like mental health, economics, drug trafficking, and culture.  It's a lazy shortcut that makes for splashy headlines.

Zolotiyeruki has a very good point here.   The US has something likes 7 times the rate of incarceration as Canada.   Poverty is much more endemic in US cities as well.     And since there are already so many guns out there, the US needs a more holistic solution than just gun control by itself.

Absolutely, that's a legitimate point.  There are underlying problems in the US that need additional time spent to fix.

This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 16, 2018, 08:00:11 AM
Holistic solution = do nothing

I think that's what's infuriating to some on the left side of the debate.  And, to me, it is comical that the Republican party, which is not exactly hallmarked for having a nuanced view of any issue, all of a sudden sees nuance all around when someone wants to control their guns.

+1.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 09:14:51 AM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 16, 2018, 09:36:23 AM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 09:44:09 AM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 16, 2018, 09:53:18 AM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 16, 2018, 09:54:01 AM
Thank you for a thoughtful response.

You're welcome.

Thank you for refusing to consider the possibility that your opinion about guns and how much you like them isn't fact.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 10:00:29 AM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 16, 2018, 10:12:17 AM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 10:20:59 AM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

Give private sellers the ability to call the NICS system, and when it comes back Yay give me a confirmation number to record. I already need to keep a copy of the serial number, lic # of the person I sold to, etc, for 10 years, so recording this number on the paperwork is no biggie.  If my sold gun is used in a crime, I produce paperwork with confirmation number that corresponds with date I called and clear background check, I’m in clear. If I can’t produce the confirmation number, charges.

Done.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 16, 2018, 10:26:38 AM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 16, 2018, 10:31:00 AM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

One would hope he would at least be civilly liable, but probably not.  The sheriff down there seems like a real piece of work as well.

Maybe he'll rot in hell with the shooter.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 16, 2018, 10:35:57 AM

One would hope he would at least be civilly liable, but probably not.  The sheriff down there seems like a real piece of work as well.

Maybe he'll rot in hell with the shooter.

Police officers are protected from personal liability for work actions in most situations, which I actually think is pretty reasonable provided the department takes responsibility.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 10:37:58 AM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 16, 2018, 10:44:36 AM

One would hope he would at least be civilly liable, but probably not.  The sheriff down there seems like a real piece of work as well.

Maybe he'll rot in hell with the shooter.

Police officers are protected from personal liability for work actions in most situations, which I actually think is pretty reasonable provided the department takes responsibility.

I wonder where the supreme court stands on dereliction of duty.  The bolded part is interesting considering the overall incompetence showed by his department in that situation and the departments failure to enter the school while other departments did.  Not a lawyer nor a law enforcement officer BTW nor do I claim to be. 

To clarify something, I don't expect every officer to jump in front of a gun to save the children but standing outside and watching the situation unfold is pretty amazing.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 16, 2018, 10:46:11 AM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.
[/b]

The Broward County Sheriff's department dropped the ball.  Other departments entered the school and criticized the BCSD for their incompetence at the scene.  Don't throw all the cops in the area under the bus.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 16, 2018, 10:47:04 AM
Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

Agree that these measures may be more effective than restricting certain guns in reducung gun deaths, but I don't think the % of gun deaths caused by a specific gun like the AR-15 tells us much. Chris22 has drawn a straight line from <2%= not a problem but I don't see the logic there. I'm more concerned with the capacity to kill more people in less time which I think most of us would agree the AR-15 is superior to semi-auto handguns in certain scenarios, like the Las Vegas shooting.

If we're talking about number of people killed in mass shootings I absolutely think restricting AR-15 like weapons would be addressing the problem. If we're talking about overall gun violence, then these restrictions would still be addressing the problem but in a much smaller way. Perhaps the AR-15 hasn't been used in many shootings but is has been one of the deadliest weapons used.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 16, 2018, 10:50:10 AM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Samuel on March 16, 2018, 10:56:36 AM
Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

Ignoring that there are multiple overlapping problems is also intellectually lazy, though. Street level gang violence relies on an ocean of cheap handguns, while the modern spree killer favors AR-15's and other "sporting" rifles for their ability to deliver more death per minute. Not all potential interventions will address all problems.

I am against both the well intended but uninformed "we have to do something" faction and the dug in "gun rights are sacred and not one inch will be yielded" factions. Unless you think anyone with enough money should be able to own a surface to air missile then you agree we're talking about where on the slippery slope of "right to bear arms" the line should be drawn that best respects the rights of all involved.

Unfortunately I am 99% certain that our political process is incapable of the nuance required to intelligently find this balancing point.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 16, 2018, 10:58:39 AM
Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

Agree that these measures may be more effective than restricting certain guns in reducung gun deaths, but I don't think the % of gun deaths caused by a specific gun like the AR-15 tells us much. Chris22 has drawn a straight line from <2%= not a problem but I don't see the logic there. I'm more concerned with the capacity to kill more people in less time which I think most of us would agree the AR-15 is superior to semi-auto handguns in certain scenarios, like the Las Vegas shooting.

If we're talking about number of people killed in mass shootings I absolutely think restricting AR-15 like weapons would be addressing the problem. If we're talking about overall gun violence, then these restrictions would still be addressing the problem but in a much smaller way. Perhaps the AR-15 hasn't been used in many shootings but is has been one of the deadliest weapons used.

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 10:59:11 AM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.
[/b]

The Broward County Sheriff's department dropped the ball.  Other departments entered the school and criticized the BCSD for their incompetence at the scene.  Don't throw all the cops in the area under the bus.

There was also the “investigation” done with the 37 (or whatever) times they went to the guys house and the FBI’s failure to investigate after being notified.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 11:00:29 AM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Precisely.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 16, 2018, 11:24:19 AM

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

I had this discussion with a friend recently who was advocating for an AR-15 ban.  He thought rifles were more accurate and could fire more shots per minute than a handgun.  I disagreed and pointed to the fish in a barrel argument - accuracy doesn't matter much in a crowd.  On the first point we couldn't agree if a rifle could fire faster or not.  I think fire rates are as fast as you can pull the trigger in both cases.  There are huge capacity clips available for both.  Also there is the possibility that a shooter could wield 2 pistols for more firepower.  Maybe that's just in the movies...

Are AR-15 rifle rounds more or less lethal than a 9mm round from a standard pistol?  Probably hard to get a definitive answer because there are a lot of types of rounds.  I've read that the AR round travels faster but delivers less power overall.  Which one typically causes more damage?

Can someone with knowledge of both chime in on these questions?

You make a good argument for stricter control of hand guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Samuel on March 16, 2018, 11:27:34 AM

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

I'll take nearly as bad any day. A 5.56 round is much more lethal than a 9mm, wound for wound. If we can figure out a reasonable way to reduce the latter's availability to killers it'll save lives, even if it's 1 or 2 per event.

Gun people* will endlessly debate whether .380 has enough "stopping power" for a daily concealed carry or if 9mm is the minimum effective round, yet when the debate is about how effectively a spree killer can kill somehow an AR-15 with a 100 round drum mag and a .22 LR pistol are capable of equivalent destruction in the same amount of time. I find that a bit disingenuous. Ask the law enforcement officers charged with confronting these shooters if they see a meaningful difference.

We should be talking about stacking a series of 5% improvements (that respect while perhaps slightly inconveniencing legit gun owners) that add up to significant progress. Again, I'm skeptical our process is capable of it, but I'm willing to give it a try.


*which I don't mean pejoratively, I partially am one...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Samuel on March 16, 2018, 11:31:06 AM

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

I had this discussion with a friend recently who was advocating for an AR-15 ban.  He thought rifles were more accurate and could fire more shots per minute than a handgun.  I disagreed and pointed to the fish in a barrel argument - accuracy doesn't matter much in a crowd.  On the first point we couldn't agree if a rifle could fire faster or not.  I think fire rates are as fast as you can pull the trigger in both cases.  There are huge capacity clips available for both.  Also there is the possibility that a shooter could wield 2 pistols for more firepower.  Maybe that's just in the movies...

Are AR-15 rifle rounds more or less lethal than a 9mm round from a standard pistol?  Probably hard to get a definitive answer because there are a lot of types of rounds.  I've read that the AR round travels faster but delivers less power overall.  Which one typically causes more damage?

Can someone with knowledge of both chime in on these questions?

A doctor who treated the Parkland victims recently chimed in: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

(Spoiler: Yes, there is a significance difference in lethality)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 16, 2018, 11:37:08 AM
Ask the law enforcement officers charged with confronting these shooters if they see a meaningful difference.

While we're on the subject ... body armor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_armor#Performance_standards

I was under the impression that typical daily-wear armor for American police is IIIA. Is that still the case? I assume these ratings are for the textile-only (doesn't include drop-in steel or ceramic trauma plates)?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 16, 2018, 11:54:38 AM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Precisely.

So, what about the kids? He brought up Parkland as the example of why people should defend themselves because law enforcement "shat the bed." If what he was doing was advocating for a person's right to defend him- or herself in that case, then... is he saying all the kids should be armed?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 16, 2018, 11:59:19 AM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

You are not counting the psychological benefits of being able to consider yourself the type of person who was willing to do something.  That's a lot of value even if it's not related to the problem you are ostensibly trying to address. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 16, 2018, 12:00:41 PM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Precisely.

So, what about the kids? He brought up Parkland as the example of why people should defend themselves because law enforcement "shat the bed." If what he was doing was advocating for a person's right to defend him- or herself in that case, then... is he saying all the kids should be armed?

Are you under the impression that law enforcement have a duty to defend adults but not kids??? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 16, 2018, 12:05:02 PM

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

I had this discussion with a friend recently who was advocating for an AR-15 ban.  He thought rifles were more accurate and could fire more shots per minute than a handgun.  I disagreed and pointed to the fish in a barrel argument - accuracy doesn't matter much in a crowd.  On the first point we couldn't agree if a rifle could fire faster or not.  I think fire rates are as fast as you can pull the trigger in both cases.  There are huge capacity clips available for both.  Also there is the possibility that a shooter could wield 2 pistols for more firepower.  Maybe that's just in the movies...

Are AR-15 rifle rounds more or less lethal than a 9mm round from a standard pistol?  Probably hard to get a definitive answer because there are a lot of types of rounds.  I've read that the AR round travels faster but delivers less power overall.  Which one typically causes more damage?

Can someone with knowledge of both chime in on these questions?

A doctor who treated the Parkland victims recently chimed in: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

(Spoiler: Yes, there is a significance difference in lethality)

I don't claim to be a ballistics expert, but it would seem there is a point at close range where you are likely dead from either one.  To take this to an extreme, I'd rather get shot at 10 feet by a 9mm than a 50 caliber, but there's a good chance of dying from either. 

Virginia tech killer killed 32 and injured 17 without a rifle.  The fort lauderdale killer referenced in the article killed 5 people in 90 seconds with just a pistol.  The situation in parkdale went on for 6 minutes.

We would save a lot more lives if we would focus on keeping guns (not just ar-15's) from people like the parkland shooter and from criminals in general.

This tragedy could have been prevented if the sheriff or FBI had taken this kid seriously.  In addition, I wonder how many bled to death while the sheriff's dept waited for backup.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 16, 2018, 12:13:30 PM
Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

The Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers don't have an obligation to protect citizens from active threats.

I think it's stupid, but they have "supreme" in their name.

Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection. Literally every level of law enforcement shat the bed on that one.

See, what I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

I think Chris is advocating for a persons right to defend themselves, particularly when government is unable or unwilling to do so.

Precisely.

So, what about the kids? He brought up Parkland as the example of why people should defend themselves because law enforcement "shat the bed." If what he was doing was advocating for a person's right to defend him- or herself in that case, then... is he saying all the kids should be armed?

Are you under the impression that law enforcement have a duty to defend adults but not kids???

No. I'm trying to figure out what Chris is saying here, and what he's implying is the solution. As far as I can follow:

1) Chris said, in response to law enforcement not having an obligation to protect people, "Which is why us gun nuts roll our eyes when we hear we don’t “need guns” because “the police will protect you.”  Parkland was incredibly tragic for the loss of life, but it was also a sterling example all up and down the chain why many gun owners simply don’t trust law enforcement with our protection."

2) Since his example of this was Parkland, I found it odd to choose an example in which trained officers were too chicken to go into the school to take down the assailant, and then say that this is why "gun nuts" (his words) want their own guns -- because it seemed that he was implying that other people (presumably teachers) who are even less well trained than law enforcement would be less chicken. But:

3) I was corrected by Bender (and then Chris22) agreed with him that what Chris was saying was that people should be able to defend "themselves." So, I'm wondering who the "themselves" are in this case, and I can only conclude that they are the children. So I'm trying to understand.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 16, 2018, 12:26:15 PM
We took it as a general example of law enforcement's inability to adequately protect citizens.  Not specifically children.  It makes a good general argument for gun rights supporters in many other situations.  To be clear - no one supports arming children.  Arming teachers is a separate, much more controversial issue that I don't think was part of that particular sub thread.

Okay. I just couldn't figure out why Chris brought that particular example up. I don't really get why one would bring up a situation where law enforcement fucked up, as an example of why ordinary people need to defend themselves because cops suck at it, but then offer no explanation as to how, in that situation, arming ordinary people so they could defend themselves would have made it better.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 16, 2018, 12:26:26 PM
Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

^

Since pistols are used in the majority of murders and murders by people under 21 (and other prohibited persons) represent a disproportionate amount of murders in general, why wouldn't you focus your efforts on keeping pistols away from people under 21 (who can't buy them at a FFL dealer already)?

If the source of those pistols is straw purchasers and you don't have enough agents to investigate, hire some damn agents and/or improve the straw purchase laws. 

Allow/compel private sellers to run a background check on purchasers w/o creating a registry.

If those reforms are instituted properly, even the NRA might agree with them.

Added - One other thing, if you are a sworn law enforcement officer and stand outside while children are murdered, there should be some consequences and I don't mean collecting your pension.

Agree that these measures may be more effective than restricting certain guns in reducung gun deaths, but I don't think the % of gun deaths caused by a specific gun like the AR-15 tells us much. Chris22 has drawn a straight line from <2%= not a problem but I don't see the logic there. I'm more concerned with the capacity to kill more people in less time which I think most of us would agree the AR-15 is superior to semi-auto handguns in certain scenarios, like the Las Vegas shooting.

If we're talking about number of people killed in mass shootings I absolutely think restricting AR-15 like weapons would be addressing the problem. If we're talking about overall gun violence, then these restrictions would still be addressing the problem but in a much smaller way. Perhaps the AR-15 hasn't been used in many shootings but is has been one of the deadliest weapons used.

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

It certainly doesn't require it but I think we have reason to believe that in certain stuations a rifle can be more deadly. In close quarters a handgun may be more deadly. More than rifle vs pistol I think we should be talking about ammunition type, magazine size and the ability to customize weapons. I'll admit it's a very difficult topic to debate and I'd take the opinion of someone trained in the use of assault weapons or active shooter scenarios over my own.

In regards to citing previous accounts like Newtown, VA Tech and Las Vegas*, I just don't think there are enough data points (let's hope there never will be) to make any meaningful conlusions about the potential deadliness of different weapons. In the right situation any gun can be deadly and the number killed can be largely up to the ability of the shooter and chance. When debating the deadliness of weapons I think arguments should rely on what could potentially happen rather than what has happened in the past.

*I realize I cited Las Vegas but I was referring more to the scenario than the fact that it actually happened. The deadliness of that event can probably be attributed to the bump stock as much as the weapon.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 12:41:33 PM
We took it as a general example of law enforcement's inability to adequately protect citizens.  Not specifically children.  It makes a good general argument for gun rights supporters in many other situations.  To be clear - no one supports arming children.  Arming teachers is a separate, much more controversial issue that I don't think was part of that particular sub thread.

Okay. I just couldn't figure out why Chris brought that particular example up. I don't really get why one would bring up a situation where law enforcement fucked up, as an example of why ordinary people need to defend themselves because cops suck at it, but then offer no explanation as to how, in that situation, arming ordinary people so they could defend themselves would have made it better.

It’s twofold. One, as mentioned, it’s an example of law enforcements unwillingness or unableness o protect the public. Second, I would simply lift the Gun Free Zone currently in place in schools. If a CCW-holding teacher, coach, administrator, visiting parent, etc, wants to carry their CCW, they’d be welcome to, with all the same rights and responsibilities they have everywhere else.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 12:45:57 PM
Quote from: GuitarStv
This argument is typically used to defend gun rights and then ignore those underlying problems though.  Doing this is worse than implementing gun controls which, while certainly not perfect, will result in some safety improvement.  If the person arguing this belongs to a political party that is for increasing incarceration, and against measures that reduce income inequality it's simply a cynical ploy to ensuring that no solution to the problem will ever occur.

Disagree in two different ways.

1) I disagree that most gun control “solutions” offered will improve safety in any measurable or significant way.

2) I disagree that in order to protect my Constitutional and inherent right to bear arms I need to solve others’ problems.

Basically what you are advocating is “do something!-ism” where we acknowledge we have a complex and multi-faceted problem and then claim that we need to “just do something” to fix it and that “something” is gun control on law-abiding citizens which historically are not the problem and it doesn’t address the problem. Yes, suicide is a problem. Yes, gang violence is a problem. No, the answer to both of those isn’t make it harder for law abiding people to purchase a weapon.

"Fuck you, I like guns."

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

In fairness, everybody knows we need to do something.  You can't deny that gun control qualifies as something.  So you are simply arguing against what everybody knows must be done.

Uh, no. We need to do something that addresses the problem. Not just do any old thing.  So for instance, if we know that AR-15s are used in <2% of the gun deaths in this country, banning AR-15s is not addressing the problem.  Saying “well banning them at least does SOMETHING” is intellectually lazy in the extreme.

You are not counting the psychological benefits of being able to consider yourself the type of person who was willing to do something.  That's a lot of value even if it's not related to the problem you are ostensibly trying to address.

You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 16, 2018, 12:48:12 PM
We took it as a general example of law enforcement's inability to adequately protect citizens.  Not specifically children.  It makes a good general argument for gun rights supporters in many other situations.  To be clear - no one supports arming children.  Arming teachers is a separate, much more controversial issue that I don't think was part of that particular sub thread.

Okay. I just couldn't figure out why Chris brought that particular example up. I don't really get why one would bring up a situation where law enforcement fucked up, as an example of why ordinary people need to defend themselves because cops suck at it, but then offer no explanation as to how, in that situation, arming ordinary people so they could defend themselves would have made it better.

It’s twofold. One, as mentioned, it’s an example of law enforcements unwillingness or unableness o protect the public. Second, I would simply lift the Gun Free Zone currently in place in schools. If a CCW-holding teacher, coach, administrator, visiting parent, etc, wants to carry their CCW, they’d be welcome to, with all the same rights and responsibilities they have everywhere else.

Okay, then you are saying that the civilians with guns would be better at protecting themselves than the law enforcement would.

So, then, I go back to what I wrote before:

What I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 16, 2018, 12:49:32 PM
You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.

You do realize the inverse of this is "I don't believe guns make anybody safer than no guns, therefore your pro-gun arguments are invalid" right?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 16, 2018, 12:52:51 PM

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

It certainly doesn't require it but I think we have reason to believe that in certain stuations a rifle can be more deadly. In close quarters a handgun may be more deadly. More than rifle vs pistol I think we should be talking about ammunition type, magazine size and the ability to customize weapons. I'll admit it's a very difficult topic to debate and I'd take the opinion of someone trained in the use of assault weapons or active shooter scenarios over my own.

I regards to citing previous accounts like Newtown, VA Tech and Las Vegas*, I just don't think there are enough data points (let's hope there never will be) to make any meaningful conlusions about the potential deadliness of different weapons. In the right situation any gun can be deadly and the number killed can be largely up to the ability of the shooter and chance. When debating the deadliness of weapons I think arguments should rely on what could potentially happen rather than what has happened in the past.

*I realize I cited Las Vegas but I was referring more to the scenario than the fact that it actually happened. The deadliness of that event can probably be attributed to the bump stock as much as the weapon.

With the exception of Vegas, mass shootings have happened mainly in close quarters and most homicides by guns happen with pistols. 

Given that, it would make more sense (to me anyway) to focus on a) preventing a weapon (of any kind) from getting to someone who is mentally unstable or has criminal intent b) strengthening security at likely targets and c) fixing law enforcement tactics versus the focus on the ar-15.  That kind of approach will save a lot more lives than a banning a firearm that is involved in less than 4% of all homicides despite its wide availability.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 12:57:26 PM
We took it as a general example of law enforcement's inability to adequately protect citizens.  Not specifically children.  It makes a good general argument for gun rights supporters in many other situations.  To be clear - no one supports arming children.  Arming teachers is a separate, much more controversial issue that I don't think was part of that particular sub thread.

Okay. I just couldn't figure out why Chris brought that particular example up. I don't really get why one would bring up a situation where law enforcement fucked up, as an example of why ordinary people need to defend themselves because cops suck at it, but then offer no explanation as to how, in that situation, arming ordinary people so they could defend themselves would have made it better.

It’s twofold. One, as mentioned, it’s an example of law enforcements unwillingness or unableness o protect the public. Second, I would simply lift the Gun Free Zone currently in place in schools. If a CCW-holding teacher, coach, administrator, visiting parent, etc, wants to carry their CCW, they’d be welcome to, with all the same rights and responsibilities they have everywhere else.

Okay, then you are saying that the civilians with guns would be better at protecting themselves than the law enforcement would.

So, then, I go back to what I wrote before:

What I hear in this argument is, "We can't trust the trained people with guns to protect you, so we should train some more people with guns, less thoroughly, to protect you -- and it will all be awesome."

No. I’m saying give people a fighting chance, if they want it. I’m also of the belief that there is a deterrent factor as well. I’m under no illusion that it’s a perfect foolproof 100% effective solution. I just think people should have the opportunity to defend themselves if they want it, and the whole “well someone might be fighting back” may deter some potential bad guys, the same way I believe a robber not knowing whether or not a homeowner has a firearm acts as a deterrent.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 01:05:35 PM
You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.

You do realize the inverse of this is "I don't believe guns make anybody safer than no guns, therefore your pro-gun arguments are invalid" right?

Aren’t we on a board that is supposed to prize facts and math over feelings and fairy dust?  Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that the psychological feeling of doing something that is demonstrably worthless is to be given weight?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 16, 2018, 01:20:50 PM
You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.

You do realize the inverse of this is "I don't believe guns make anybody safer than no guns, therefore your pro-gun arguments are invalid" right?

Aren’t we on a board that is supposed to prize facts and math over feelings and fairy dust?  Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that the psychological feeling of doing something that is demonstrably worthless is to be given weight?

I'm saying you're presenting your un-fact-supported opinion ("guns add safety") as fact.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 01:28:11 PM
You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.

You do realize the inverse of this is "I don't believe guns make anybody safer than no guns, therefore your pro-gun arguments are invalid" right?

Aren’t we on a board that is supposed to prize facts and math over feelings and fairy dust?  Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that the psychological feeling of doing something that is demonstrably worthless is to be given weight?

I'm saying you're presenting your un-fact-supported opinion ("guns add safety") as fact.

I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”  Which is true. I also do not understand the feeling of “we know this is pretty much ineffective but we should do it anyways”.  At best it’s naiive. At worst it plays to gun owners’ fears that it isn’t really about safety as it is disarmament. I try not to put on that tinfoil hat but I see the appeal.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 16, 2018, 01:31:38 PM
I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”

This is true.

"Guns give you an opportunity to hurt someone else through negligence or malice" is also true.

What is far from settled is the questions of whether guns add safety.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 01:38:44 PM
I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”

This is true.

"Guns give you an opportunity to hurt someone else through negligence or malice" is also true.


So do many other things. In the United States, we don’t have “precrime”. We don’t punish you and remove your rights for what you “could” do.  We remove your rights based your demonstrated inability to use them responsibly.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 16, 2018, 01:53:02 PM

With the exception of the vegas shooter, most of the recent mass shooters would have been as bad or nearly as bad with a pistol and/or used a pistol with or without a rifle. 

The VA tech shooter used pistols exclusively, the newtown shooter used both pistols and a rifle, and the orlando shooter used both pistols and a rifle.

Unfortunately killing unarmed people in close quarters doesn't require a rifle.

It certainly doesn't require it but I think we have reason to believe that in certain stuations a rifle can be more deadly. In close quarters a handgun may be more deadly. More than rifle vs pistol I think we should be talking about ammunition type, magazine size and the ability to customize weapons. I'll admit it's a very difficult topic to debate and I'd take the opinion of someone trained in the use of assault weapons or active shooter scenarios over my own.

I regards to citing previous accounts like Newtown, VA Tech and Las Vegas*, I just don't think there are enough data points (let's hope there never will be) to make any meaningful conlusions about the potential deadliness of different weapons. In the right situation any gun can be deadly and the number killed can be largely up to the ability of the shooter and chance. When debating the deadliness of weapons I think arguments should rely on what could potentially happen rather than what has happened in the past.

*I realize I cited Las Vegas but I was referring more to the scenario than the fact that it actually happened. The deadliness of that event can probably be attributed to the bump stock as much as the weapon.

With the exception of Vegas, mass shootings have happened mainly in close quarters and most homicides by guns happen with pistols. 

Given that, it would make more sense (to me anyway) to focus on a) preventing a weapon (of any kind) from getting to someone who is mentally unstable or has criminal intent b) strengthening security at likely targets and c) fixing law enforcement tactics versus the focus on the ar-15.  That kind of approach will save a lot more lives than a banning a firearm that is involved in less than 4% of all homicides despite its wide availability.

My comments have been from a perspective of what the ideal laws would look like and are focused on mass shootings. Your comments focus on what actions should be taken given our existing laws and having limited resources to change them. I would absolutely agree that more lives can be saved by focusing on something other than assault weapons (like drug laws and the prison system) but I think both conversations are worth having.

If we were starting from a clean slate writing new laws and the question was, "Should assault rifles be sold to the general public?" would you feel differently? And I'm not asking for an answer to the first question, I realize it's not specific enough. I'm just trying to give an idea of where my comments are coming from.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 16, 2018, 01:59:19 PM
You are correct. I don’t believe in that so it doesn’t enter my calculus.

You do realize the inverse of this is "I don't believe guns make anybody safer than no guns, therefore your pro-gun arguments are invalid" right?

Aren’t we on a board that is supposed to prize facts and math over feelings and fairy dust?  Am I misunderstanding you, or are you really saying that the psychological feeling of doing something that is demonstrably worthless is to be given weight?

I'm saying you're presenting your un-fact-supported opinion ("guns add safety") as fact.

I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”  Which is true. I also do not understand the feeling of “we know this is pretty much ineffective but we should do it anyways”.  At best it’s naiive. At worst it plays to gun owners’ fears that it isn’t really about safety as it is disarmament. I try not to put on that tinfoil hat but I see the appeal.

What is ineffective and how do we know that is ineffective?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 16, 2018, 02:31:43 PM

My comments have been from a perspective of what the ideal laws would look like and are focused on mass shootings. Your comments focus on what actions should be taken given our existing laws and having limited resources to change them. I would absolutely agree that more lives can be saved by focusing on something other than assault weapons (like drug laws and the prison system) but I think both conversations are worth having.

If we were starting from a clean slate writing new laws and the question was, "Should assault rifles be sold to the general public?" would you feel differently? And I'm not asking for an answer to the first question, I realize it's not specific enough. I'm just trying to give an idea of where my comments are coming from.

To your second question, no.  I think a semi-auto pistol is as deadly or nearly as deadly as a semi-auto rifle in most mass shooter situations and at most are responsible for at most 500-700 homicides a year.  In my opinion, banning semi-auto detachable magazine rifles would save very few lives.  Shooters would simply use semi-auto pistols or shotguns in these situations.

Let's turn this around - Thousands are killed by guns of all kinds each year.  The majority of those are pistols.  Many of the killers are prohibited persons (either by age or past convictions) including some of the recent mass shooters (San Bernadino/Charleston).  Let's focus on keeping guns of all kinds out the hands of these people rather than the guns themselves.  It will be a lot more effective and will win the support of legal gun owners if implemented properly.

Banning the AR-15 is like wack a mole.  If you ban the AR, another mole will simply take it's place.  I'd prefer to shut the wack a mole machine off to people who shouldn't play with minimal impact to the majority who don't cause a problem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 16, 2018, 02:44:55 PM
I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”

This is true.

"Guns give you an opportunity to hurt someone else through negligence or malice" is also true.


So do many other things. In the United States, we don’t have “precrime”. We don’t punish you and remove your rights for what you “could” do.  We remove your rights based your demonstrated inability to use them responsibly.

Really?

- You don't have the right to drive on the left side of the road, even if your lightning fast reflexes could prevent disaster while doing so.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to own a nuke, even if you promise not to set it off.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to practice medicine without a medical license.  No demonstration necessary.

I could go on and on with many examples that prove your statement incorrect.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 02:50:08 PM
I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”

This is true.

"Guns give you an opportunity to hurt someone else through negligence or malice" is also true.


So do many other things. In the United States, we don’t have “precrime”. We don’t punish you and remove your rights for what you “could” do.  We remove your rights based your demonstrated inability to use them responsibly.

Really?

- You don't have the right to drive on the left side of the road, even if your lightning fast reflexes could prevent disaster while doing so.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to own a nuke, even if you promise not to set it off.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to practice medicine without a medical license.  No demonstration necessary.

I could go on and on with many examples that prove your statement incorrect.

The examples given are not inherent rights.  My point is, for instance, we do not make you wear a muzzle to go into a theater on the oft chance you might yell “fire!” 

You’ve been told the nuke thing is an absurd fallacy so many times in this and other threads it really isn’t worth addressing any more.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 16, 2018, 03:03:12 PM
I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”

This is true.

"Guns give you an opportunity to hurt someone else through negligence or malice" is also true.


So do many other things. In the United States, we don’t have “precrime”. We don’t punish you and remove your rights for what you “could” do.  We remove your rights based your demonstrated inability to use them responsibly.

Really?

- You don't have the right to drive on the left side of the road, even if your lightning fast reflexes could prevent disaster while doing so.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to own a nuke, even if you promise not to set it off.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to practice medicine without a medical license.  No demonstration necessary.

I could go on and on with many examples that prove your statement incorrect.

The examples given are not inherent rights.  My point is, for instance, we do not make you wear a muzzle to go into a theater on the oft chance you might yell “fire!” 

You’ve been told the nuke thing is an absurd fallacy so many times in this and other threads it really isn’t worth addressing any more.

OK, can you give a list of what you believe are inherent rights?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 03:08:53 PM
I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”

This is true.

"Guns give you an opportunity to hurt someone else through negligence or malice" is also true.


So do many other things. In the United States, we don’t have “precrime”. We don’t punish you and remove your rights for what you “could” do.  We remove your rights based your demonstrated inability to use them responsibly.

Really?

- You don't have the right to drive on the left side of the road, even if your lightning fast reflexes could prevent disaster while doing so.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to own a nuke, even if you promise not to set it off.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to practice medicine without a medical license.  No demonstration necessary.

I could go on and on with many examples that prove your statement incorrect.

The examples given are not inherent rights.  My point is, for instance, we do not make you wear a muzzle to go into a theater on the oft chance you might yell “fire!” 

You’ve been told the nuke thing is an absurd fallacy so many times in this and other threads it really isn’t worth addressing any more.

OK, can you give a list of what you believe are inherent rights?

Here’s a start.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 16, 2018, 03:10:40 PM
I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”

This is true.

"Guns give you an opportunity to hurt someone else through negligence or malice" is also true.


So do many other things. In the United States, we don’t have “precrime”. We don’t punish you and remove your rights for what you “could” do.  We remove your rights based your demonstrated inability to use them responsibly.

Really?

- You don't have the right to drive on the left side of the road, even if your lightning fast reflexes could prevent disaster while doing so.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to own a nuke, even if you promise not to set it off.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to practice medicine without a medical license.  No demonstration necessary.

I could go on and on with many examples that prove your statement incorrect.

The examples given are not inherent rights.  My point is, for instance, we do not make you wear a muzzle to go into a theater on the oft chance you might yell “fire!” 

You’ve been told the nuke thing is an absurd fallacy so many times in this and other threads it really isn’t worth addressing any more.

OK, can you give a list of what you believe are inherent rights?

Here’s a start.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Can you point to the part where it says that someone with no connection to a militia has the inherent right to own a semi-automatic weapon?  Or where it says that you don't have the right to own a nuke?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 16, 2018, 03:15:39 PM
I don’t believe I’ve presented that. If I did I didn’t intend to. I’ve presented “guns give you an opportunity to defend yourself.”

This is true.

"Guns give you an opportunity to hurt someone else through negligence or malice" is also true.


So do many other things. In the United States, we don’t have “precrime”. We don’t punish you and remove your rights for what you “could” do.  We remove your rights based your demonstrated inability to use them responsibly.

Really?

- You don't have the right to drive on the left side of the road, even if your lightning fast reflexes could prevent disaster while doing so.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to own a nuke, even if you promise not to set it off.  No demonstration necessary.
- You don't have the right to practice medicine without a medical license.  No demonstration necessary.

I could go on and on with many examples that prove your statement incorrect.

The examples given are not inherent rights.  My point is, for instance, we do not make you wear a muzzle to go into a theater on the oft chance you might yell “fire!” 

You’ve been told the nuke thing is an absurd fallacy so many times in this and other threads it really isn’t worth addressing any more.

OK, can you give a list of what you believe are inherent rights?

Here’s a start.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Can you point to the part where it says that someone with no connection to a militia has the inherent right to own a semi-automatic weapon?  Or where it says that you don't have the right to own a nuke?

I would if you were interested in discussing in good faith.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Have a nice weekend.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RangerOne on March 16, 2018, 05:08:25 PM
It is not an argument every time someone brings up gun deaths as a problem to note that car accidents kill a lot of people and we don't take away cars. Or some other event leads to so many deaths that we are able to live with, so whats the big deal with a few kids getting shot in a school so I can own a gun.

All arguments should be centered around, do you think we are doing enough to prevent kids from being randomly murdered by terrorists in our schools. The reality is the majority of other 1st world countries avoid this problem, at least on our scale, by restricting gun ownership.

Its probably not the only means to accomplish a reduction in deaths but to insinuate that no action is needed is ridiculous.

The NRA's sometimes ridiculous stances are clearly founded in their need to market for higher gun ownership. Which is no small feat in a market completely saturated with guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 16, 2018, 09:41:49 PM
It is not an argument every time someone brings up gun deaths as a problem to note that car accidents kill a lot of people and we don't take away cars. Or some other event leads to so many deaths that we are able to live with, so whats the big deal with a few kids getting shot in a school so I can own a gun.

All arguments should be centered around, do you think we are doing enough to prevent kids from being randomly murdered by terrorists in our schools. The reality is the majority of other 1st world countries avoid this problem, at least on our scale, by restricting gun ownership.

Its probably not the only means to accomplish a reduction in deaths but to insinuate that no action is needed is ridiculous.

The NRA's sometimes ridiculous stances are clearly founded in their need to market for higher gun ownership. Which is no small feat in a market completely saturated with guns.
Just going to leave this here:

Don't be misled by the publicity on shootings: For kids, schools actually are the safest refuges from gun violence (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-school-safety-20180316-story.html)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 18, 2018, 06:47:27 AM
It is not an argument every time someone brings up gun deaths as a problem to note that car accidents kill a lot of people and we don't take away cars. Or some other event leads to so many deaths that we are able to live with, so whats the big deal with a few kids getting shot in a school so I can own a gun.

All arguments should be centered around, do you think we are doing enough to prevent kids from being randomly murdered by terrorists in our schools. The reality is the majority of other 1st world countries avoid this problem, at least on our scale, by restricting gun ownership.

Its probably not the only means to accomplish a reduction in deaths but to insinuate that no action is needed is ridiculous.

The NRA's sometimes ridiculous stances are clearly founded in their need to market for higher gun ownership. Which is no small feat in a market completely saturated with guns.
Just going to leave this here:

Don't be misled by the publicity on shootings: For kids, schools actually are the safest refuges from gun violence (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-school-safety-20180316-story.html)

I agree very much with that article.  Gun violence in schools is very noticible, but it's a symptom of a larger problem.  That's why real gun nation-wide controls are necessary, not wasted measures like arming teachers and turning schools into hardened bunkers of learning.


It is not an argument every time someone brings up gun deaths as a problem to note that car accidents kill a lot of people and we don't take away cars. Or some other event leads to so many deaths that we are able to live with, so whats the big deal with a few kids getting shot in a school so I can own a gun.

All arguments should be centered around, do you think we are doing enough to prevent kids from being randomly murdered by terrorists in our schools. The reality is the majority of other 1st world countries avoid this problem, at least on our scale, by restricting gun ownership.

Its probably not the only means to accomplish a reduction in deaths but to insinuate that no action is needed is ridiculous.

The NRA's sometimes ridiculous stances are clearly founded in their need to market for higher gun ownership. Which is no small feat in a market completely saturated with guns.


It's hard to look at other countries gun control and transpose their success to the US. 
  • The US has more guns than the rest of the world combined
  • The US has the largest military in the world
  • The US has an incredibly diverse population
  • The US has a problem with violent crime using illegal guns in urban communities
That's just a few of the major cultural differences that make the US unique.  There is no other country like this.  Even US sports like our 'football' are ridiculously violent compared to real fubol played by the rest of the world.

It's unlikely to replicate the success of Australia or any other country because they started 90% closer to the goal than where we are today.  The culture is changing (slowly), and incremental progress over time will be most productive.  Trying to change too much too soon will backfire with the opposing side digging in their heels.

The US has more guns than the rest of the world combined.  Yep.  It's the easy access to these weapons that is (at least partly) driving the problem.

The US has the largest military in the world.  Yeah, but I'm not seeing a clear link between this and nationwide gun violence.

The US has an incredibly diverse population.  Uh, nope.  Most world studies put the US somewhere in the middle for diversity, typically well below Canada for example.  Despite what Fox rants about, you are still a predominantly white, Christian, English speaking nation.

The US has a problem with violent crime using illegal guns in urban areas.  This isn't unique at all.  Most urban areas have problems with violent crime.  What's unique about the ?US is the way that you've made it extremely easy for criminals to get guns, and extremely hard to prosecute those who supply them.

You say that things are slowly changing over time, but I'm not sure that's true.  Restrictions around guns have only been loosened in my lifetime.  Can you point to what you consider movement in the right direction?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 18, 2018, 12:44:52 PM
The US has an incredibly diverse population.  Uh, nope.  Most world studies put the US somewhere in the middle for diversity, typically well below Canada for example.  Despite what Fox rants about, you are still a predominantly white, Christian, English speaking nation.

Canada is more diverse?  I guess if you include all the different shades of white people, lol.  You lob an insult at me about Fox News - thanks for that.

You misunderstood my other points as well, I'll try to clarify later.

I guess it depends on how you define diverse.  There is a lot of different "white" out there.  My Anglophone College (Montreal) did a survey once and we had students from 42 different ethnic backgrounds.  I am sure a Francophone College would have had higher numbers.

From http://canadianimmigrant.ca/guides/moving-to-canada/diversity-in-canada-an-overview (http://canadianimmigrant.ca/guides/moving-to-canada/diversity-in-canada-an-overview)

Diversity by the Numbers

Today, immigrants represent over 20 percent of the total Canadian population, the highest proportion among G8 countries.  According to Statistics Canada, the majority of Canada’s foreign-born population reside in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta, and most in the nation’s largest urban centres.  Over 200 ethnic origins were reported in the 2011 National Household Survey and 13 of those had surpassed the one million population mark.

Language Diversity

Walk down the street in one of Canada’s major cities and you won’t be surprised to hear a dozen languages spoken.  Although Canada has two official languages (English and French), more than 200 languages were reported in the 2011 Census of Population as a home language or mother tongue.  17.5 percent reported speaking at least two languages at home, compared to 14.2 percent in 2006.  In 2011, 80 percent of the population who reported speaking a language other than English, French or an Aboriginal language lived in one of Canada’s six largest census metropolitan areas (Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 18, 2018, 01:03:37 PM
The US has an incredibly diverse population.  Uh, nope.  Most world studies put the US somewhere in the middle for diversity, typically well below Canada for example.  Despite what Fox rants about, you are still a predominantly white, Christian, English speaking nation.

Canada is more diverse?  I guess if you include all the different shades of white people, lol.  You lob an insult at me about Fox News - thanks for that.

(https://s14.postimg.org/5lsxt9tzl/20706023-3_CE0-49_A7-8_ACF-_C872_B92_A378_C.png)

You misunderstood my other points as well, I'll try to clarify later.

I'm not sure exactly where the data for the graph you produced is coming from.  There do seem to be problems with it though . . . in 2006 (the date on it) about 20% of Canada's population identified as a non-white visible minority and about 4% identified as aboriginal.  The numbers have increased steadily since then.  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Ethnicity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada#Ethnicity)

Canada's rated higher than the US on both Fearson's ethnic and cultural diversity index, and on Alesina's Ethnic, Linguistic and Religious Fractionalization index.  -
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level)

Pew research ranked Canada in the top 20 diverse countries, while "The United States ranks near the middle, slightly more diverse than Russia but slightly less diverse than Spain." - http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/)

As has been mentioned, we are ranked in the top 8 countries in the world for hosting immigrants.  - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-immigrant-population-in-the-world.html (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/highest-immigrant-population-in-the-world.html)


So yeah . . . the US does have the largest population of immigrants in the world.  It's difficult to argue that it's the most diverse country in the world, or even that it's very high up there for diversity.  (I certainly wouldn't say that Canada is the most diverse either . . . although the evidence would appear to point to greater diversity than south of the border.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 19, 2018, 07:34:17 AM
You need to take a closer look at the data as the measurements for Canada are apples to oranges.  US measures black, white, Asian, etc.  The challenge that US is not 'incredibly diverse' is tangential.  US has 10x the population of Canada in I'm not sure any comparisons are valid.

Ah, we look at ethnic background, which gives much more detailed information.  Someone from Syria and someone from Lebanon would be 2 groups, whereas in the US they would just go under 'white'.

When population sizes very so much, I think it is more informative to use %.  Given its huge population size compared to ours, I would hope the US would have more immigrants as a number than we do.  % will give more information about demographics, how many new people to a country who will need to be integrated, educated, etc.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 19, 2018, 09:37:38 AM
It is not an argument every time someone brings up gun deaths as a problem to note that car accidents kill a lot of people and we don't take away cars. Or some other event leads to so many deaths that we are able to live with, so whats the big deal with a few kids getting shot in a school so I can own a gun.

All arguments should be centered around, do you think we are doing enough to prevent kids from being randomly murdered by terrorists in our schools. The reality is the majority of other 1st world countries avoid this problem, at least on our scale, by restricting gun ownership.

Its probably not the only means to accomplish a reduction in deaths but to insinuate that no action is needed is ridiculous.

The NRA's sometimes ridiculous stances are clearly founded in their need to market for higher gun ownership. Which is no small feat in a market completely saturated with guns.
Just going to leave this here:

Don't be misled by the publicity on shootings: For kids, schools actually are the safest refuges from gun violence (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-school-safety-20180316-story.html)

I agree very much with that article.  Gun violence in schools is very noticible, but it's a symptom of a larger problem.  That's why real gun nation-wide controls are necessary, not wasted measures like arming teachers and turning schools into hardened bunkers of learning.


It is not an argument every time someone brings up gun deaths as a problem to note that car accidents kill a lot of people and we don't take away cars. Or some other event leads to so many deaths that we are able to live with, so whats the big deal with a few kids getting shot in a school so I can own a gun.

All arguments should be centered around, do you think we are doing enough to prevent kids from being randomly murdered by terrorists in our schools. The reality is the majority of other 1st world countries avoid this problem, at least on our scale, by restricting gun ownership.

Its probably not the only means to accomplish a reduction in deaths but to insinuate that no action is needed is ridiculous.

The NRA's sometimes ridiculous stances are clearly founded in their need to market for higher gun ownership. Which is no small feat in a market completely saturated with guns.


It's hard to look at other countries gun control and transpose their success to the US. 
  • The US has more guns than the rest of the world combined
  • The US has the largest military in the world
  • The US has an incredibly diverse population
  • The US has a problem with violent crime using illegal guns in urban communities
That's just a few of the major cultural differences that make the US unique.  There is no other country like this.  Even US sports like our 'football' are ridiculously violent compared to real fubol played by the rest of the world.

It's unlikely to replicate the success of Australia or any other country because they started 90% closer to the goal than where we are today.  The culture is changing (slowly), and incremental progress over time will be most productive.  Trying to change too much too soon will backfire with the opposing side digging in their heels.

The US has more guns than the rest of the world combined.  Yep.  It's the easy access to these weapons that is (at least partly) driving the problem.

The US has the largest military in the world.  Yeah, but I'm not seeing a clear link between this and nationwide gun violence.

The US has an incredibly diverse population.  Uh, nope.  Most world studies put the US somewhere in the middle for diversity, typically well below Canada for example.  Despite what Fox rants about, you are still a predominantly white, Christian, English speaking nation.

The US has a problem with violent crime using illegal guns in urban areas.  This isn't unique at all.  Most urban areas have problems with violent crime.  What's unique about the ?US is the way that you've made it extremely easy for criminals to get guns, and extremely hard to prosecute those who supply them.
  Just to be clear, it's not really "we" that have made it easy for criminals to get guns.  Guns started off as accessible because of the 2nd amendment and have remained that way largely because of 2nd amendment supporters.  Criminals have easy access to because (1) of the drug trade, largely through mexico. (2) because of the domestic drug trade (think drugs come from chicago to Mississippi, guns (mostly stolen) go from Mississippi to Chicago), and (3) prosecutors are elected positions and in the areas with the worst problems, such as Chicago or Baltimore, prosecuting straw purchasers is politically damaging, because even if straw purchasing is made a felony (in many jurisdictions its not), you're talking about democrat politicians putting girlfriends, grandmothers, aunts etc. with otherwise clean records in jail for buying a gun for their felon boyfriends/relatives who can't pass a background check, and most of those girlfriends, grandmothers, aunts, etc. are going to be from voting blocs that the politician relies upon to get elected.  The different mechanisms for getting guns are enabled by different political factions, with left and right historically supporting the drug war, left and establishment right not wanting to have effective border control, the left being the primary obstacle to prosecuting straw purchasers, and I'm not sure there is a current political faction to blame for the domestic gun/drugs trade.  That genie was let out of the bottle a long time ago and I don't think there is an easy (or even hard) way to stop it that's feasible.  Even if the war on drugs were ended, the criminal infrastructure is there and they'd just move to using their guns to pursue other criminal enterprises that might be more damaging than the illegal drug trade, since it won't involve victimless crimes.     

You say that things are slowly changing over time, but I'm not sure that's true.  Restrictions around guns have only been loosened in my lifetime.  Can you point to what you consider movement in the right direction?

Until recently, violent crime rates were on a long and steady drop.  Lots of theories as to why (unleaded gasoline, more abortions, higher incarceration rates, more concealed carry) that may not really be the "culture" of violence changing, but a good trend regardless.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 19, 2018, 07:40:35 PM
I don't know, but believe it would. It feels like most just think, "It'll never be my kid" and shrug it off. Kind of like how no one believes their kid is the bully. No matter how much you teach your kids about guns, you can't be sure they will be smart about it. Leaving loaded weapons in easy reach is seriously piss poor parenting.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Missy B on March 19, 2018, 11:10:03 PM
Probably, in no particular order, because of much different rates of poverty, mental illness, multi-generational problems with gangsterism, the drug war, ethnic conflicts and hopelessness or social disconnection.

...and gun ownership?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 20, 2018, 07:53:43 AM
I don't know, but believe it would. It feels like most just think, "It'll never be my kid" and shrug it off. Kind of like how no one believes their kid is the bully. No matter how much you teach your kids about guns, you can't be sure they will be smart about it. Leaving loaded weapons in easy reach is seriously piss poor parenting.

Given that 1.7 million kids live in homes with loaded, unsecured guns (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9226351/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-kids-live-homes-loaded-guns/#.WrEQxa6nEkI (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9226351/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-kids-live-homes-loaded-guns/#.WrEQxa6nEkI)), it's pretty clear than an awful lot of gun owners are piss poor parents.  Rather than a stiff criminal penalty, force them to take responsibility for their action.  Permanently remove the right of anyone involved in this sort of thing to ever own a firearm again.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 20, 2018, 08:10:32 AM
I don't know, but believe it would. It feels like most just think, "It'll never be my kid" and shrug it off. Kind of like how no one believes their kid is the bully. No matter how much you teach your kids about guns, you can't be sure they will be smart about it. Leaving loaded weapons in easy reach is seriously piss poor parenting.

Given that 1.7 million kids live in homes with loaded, unsecured guns (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9226351/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-kids-live-homes-loaded-guns/#.WrEQxa6nEkI (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9226351/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-kids-live-homes-loaded-guns/#.WrEQxa6nEkI)), it's pretty clear than an awful lot of gun owners are piss poor parents.  Rather than a stiff criminal penalty, force them to take responsibility for their action.  Permanently remove the right of anyone involved in this sort of thing to ever own a firearm again.

I'm OK with this on a conceptual basis. Feels ripe for abuse though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 20, 2018, 08:22:25 AM
I had this discussion with a friend recently who was advocating for an AR-15 ban.  He thought rifles were more accurate and could fire more shots per minute than a handgun.  I disagreed and pointed to the fish in a barrel argument - accuracy doesn't matter much in a crowd.  On the first point we couldn't agree if a rifle could fire faster or not.  I think fire rates are as fast as you can pull the trigger in both cases.  There are huge capacity clips available for both.  Also there is the possibility that a shooter could wield 2 pistols for more firepower.  Maybe that's just in the movies...

Are AR-15 rifle rounds more or less lethal than a 9mm round from a standard pistol?  Probably hard to get a definitive answer because there are a lot of types of rounds.  I've read that the AR round travels faster but delivers less power overall.  Which one typically causes more damage?

Can someone with knowledge of both chime in on these questions?
I'm a bit late responding to this, but  a couple points are worth bringing up:
1) Dual-wielding pistols (or any other weapon) is Hollywood stupidity.  You lose effectiveness with two weapons.
2) A semiauto rifle has the same rate of fire as a semiauto handgun, i.e. how fast you pull the trigger.  However, given a rifle's larger size, it's easier/faster to recover from the recoil and get back on target, and of course rifles are more effective at longer ranges.  There are 33-round magazines for Glock semiauto handguns, and even the ridiculous 50-round double-drum magazine, if you're rich and feeling silly.

I don't know, but believe it would. It feels like most just think, "It'll never be my kid" and shrug it off. Kind of like how no one believes their kid is the bully. No matter how much you teach your kids about guns, you can't be sure they will be smart about it. Leaving loaded weapons in easy reach is seriously piss poor parenting.

Given that 1.7 million kids live in homes with loaded, unsecured guns (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9226351/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-kids-live-homes-loaded-guns/#.WrEQxa6nEkI (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9226351/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-kids-live-homes-loaded-guns/#.WrEQxa6nEkI)), it's pretty clear than an awful lot of gun owners are piss poor parents.  Rather than a stiff criminal penalty, force them to take responsibility for their action.  Permanently remove the right of anyone involved in this sort of thing to ever own a firearm again.
You keep bringing this up, but I'm sorry, this is just silly.  It's like permanently banning someone from driving a car if they got a speeding ticket once.  C'mon, man.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on March 20, 2018, 08:28:14 AM
You keep bringing this up, but I'm sorry, this is just silly.  It's like permanently banning someone from driving a car if they got a speeding ticket once.  C'mon, man.
Nope, it's more like a permanent ban on driving if you kill someone while driving drunk. Irresponsible and dangerous behaviour leading to death = loss of privileges.
Perfectly justifiable.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 20, 2018, 09:06:57 AM
I don't know, but believe it would. It feels like most just think, "It'll never be my kid" and shrug it off. Kind of like how no one believes their kid is the bully. No matter how much you teach your kids about guns, you can't be sure they will be smart about it. Leaving loaded weapons in easy reach is seriously piss poor parenting.

Given that 1.7 million kids live in homes with loaded, unsecured guns (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9226351/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-kids-live-homes-loaded-guns/#.WrEQxa6nEkI (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9226351/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-kids-live-homes-loaded-guns/#.WrEQxa6nEkI)), it's pretty clear than an awful lot of gun owners are piss poor parents.  Rather than a stiff criminal penalty, force them to take responsibility for their action.  Permanently remove the right of anyone involved in this sort of thing to ever own a firearm again.
You keep bringing this up, but I'm sorry, this is just silly.  It's like permanently banning someone from driving a car if they got a speeding ticket once.  C'mon, man.

Negligence causing the death of a child should be treated the same as getting a speeding ticket?  Really?  This is why so many people view gun owners as unwilling to take responsibility for their actions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on March 20, 2018, 09:26:47 AM
Texting while driving accident,no more cell phones for you, alcohol related deaths, no more booze for the parents or kids.  Drug related deaths, no more pills for you.

I’m sure there are many other ways people kill themselves and others.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 20, 2018, 09:36:06 AM
Texting while driving accident,no more cell phones for you, alcohol related deaths, no more booze for the parents or kids.  Drug related deaths, no more pills for you.

I’m sure there are many other ways people kill themselves and others.

Trump was promoting the idea of the death penalty for drug dealers. I was saying to hubby that we should just go further with that. Death penalty for anyone who causes the death of anyone else. What do you say? An idea from dear leader himself!  #maga
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 20, 2018, 09:56:36 AM
You keep bringing this up, but I'm sorry, this is just silly.  It's like permanently banning someone from driving a car if they got a speeding ticket once.  C'mon, man.
Nope, it's more like a permanent ban on driving if you kill someone while driving drunk. Irresponsible and dangerous behaviour leading to death = loss of privileges.
Perfectly justifiable.
Ah, I see the point of confusion--GuitarStv didn't mention in his earlier post that it would be tied to the death of a child.  I see that he has clarified that in a more recent post.

Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 20, 2018, 10:04:43 AM
A shooting in a Maryland high school today.  Two are injured before school resource officer shoots he attacker.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/shooting-reported-great-mills-maryland-high-school-n858186 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/shooting-reported-great-mills-maryland-high-school-n858186)
The perpetrator has now apparently died.

Since this is going to be brought up anyway, I'd like to point out that Maryland has some of the more restrictive gun laws in the country:
--Universal background checks for all sales, including private sales, which must be facilitated by an FFL
--Concealed carry is "may issue," i.e. you have to convince the state to give you a license
--Handgun Qualification License is required, training/fingerprinting/etc
--Registry of all firearm transactions, including private sales
--Magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds
--Assault weapon ban
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on March 20, 2018, 10:15:10 AM
You keep bringing this up, but I'm sorry, this is just silly.  It's like permanently banning someone from driving a car if they got a speeding ticket once.  C'mon, man.
Nope, it's more like a permanent ban on driving if you kill someone while driving drunk. Irresponsible and dangerous behaviour leading to death = loss of privileges.
Perfectly justifiable.
Ah, I see the point of confusion--GuitarStv didn't mention in his earlier post that it would be tied to the death of a child.  I see that he has clarified that in a more recent post.

Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.
Not necessarily, but I think they should. In my province, 3 dui offenses gets you a 3 year driving ban, plus an interlock device for life.
This case was pretty bad: http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/marco-muzzo-gets-10-years-in-jail-for-drunk-driving-crash-that-killed-three-newmarket-kids-and-their-grandfather
The guy got a ten year jail term and 12 year driving ban for killing 3 people while driving drunk. If it were up to me, he would never get his license back.
I'm not sure what the laws are in the USA, I suspect it would vary by state.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 20, 2018, 11:03:33 AM
A shooting in a Maryland high school today.  Two are injured before school resource officer shoots he attacker.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/shooting-reported-great-mills-maryland-high-school-n858186 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/shooting-reported-great-mills-maryland-high-school-n858186)
The perpetrator has now apparently died.

Since this is going to be brought up anyway, I'd like to point out that Maryland has some of the more restrictive gun laws in the country:
--Universal background checks for all sales, including private sales, which must be facilitated by an FFL
--Concealed carry is "may issue," i.e. you have to convince the state to give you a license
--Handgun Qualification License is required, training/fingerprinting/etc
--Registry of all firearm transactions, including private sales
--Magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds
--Assault weapon ban

The point is that gun restrictions aim to reduce the number and seriousness of casualties, not prevent shootings. They are one component of a more holistic approach to a complex problem. It includes police action, better mental health care, trying to shift our culture away from violence, etc..

Initial reports are three injured/dead including the shooter, which is a lot better than Parkland or [insert other event here].
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 20, 2018, 11:20:33 AM
Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.

Knee-jerk reaction is that they should.  The problem is that driving a car is often required for work.  You would be creating a class of people who would have tremendous difficulty getting to/from work by revoking car privileges.  That said, I'd be liable to lean towards supporting this sort of measure.

Shooting stuff with a gun is not required for any reason.  Restricting this privileged for life will not be a roadblock to a citizen being productive.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 20, 2018, 11:37:05 AM
Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.

Knee-jerk reaction is that they should.  The problem is that driving a car is often required for work.  You would be creating a class of people who would have tremendous difficulty getting to/from work by revoking car privileges.  That said, I'd be liable to lean towards supporting this sort of measure.

Shooting stuff with a gun is not required for any reason.  Restricting this privileged for life will not be a roadblock to a citizen being productive.

Penalties for drunk driving are much harsher in Europe. Coincidentally, they have much better public transport.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on March 20, 2018, 11:43:52 AM
Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.

Knee-jerk reaction is that they should.  The problem is that driving a car is often required for work.  You would be creating a class of people who would have tremendous difficulty getting to/from work by revoking car privileges.  That said, I'd be liable to lean towards supporting this sort of measure.

Shooting stuff with a gun is not required for any reason.  Restricting this privileged for life will not be a roadblock to a citizen being productive.
You don't need a car to be a productive citizen. I don't have one. There are buses, and bikes, and friends/family, and feet. Yes, they will have to think a little harder about how to get around, but I feel like that's well deserved. If you kill someone because of your stupidity and carelessness, you don't get to have access to that weapon again, whether it's a car or a gun. Or at least that's how I think it should work.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 20, 2018, 11:54:10 AM
Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.

Knee-jerk reaction is that they should.  The problem is that driving a car is often required for work.  You would be creating a class of people who would have tremendous difficulty getting to/from work by revoking car privileges.  That said, I'd be liable to lean towards supporting this sort of measure.

Shooting stuff with a gun is not required for any reason.  Restricting this privileged for life will not be a roadblock to a citizen being productive.

Generally speaking, convicted felons do lose the right to own a gun. Usually forever.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on March 20, 2018, 12:00:07 PM
Texting while driving accident,no more cell phones for you, alcohol related deaths, no more booze for the parents or kids.  Drug related deaths, no more pills for you.

I’m sure there are many other ways people kill themselves and others.

Trump was promoting the idea of the death penalty for drug dealers. I was saying to hubby that we should just go further with that. Death penalty for anyone who causes the death of anyone else. What do you say? An idea from dear leader himself!  #maga


Why not just have the death penalty if you use a gun during. A felony, or if your a felon caught with a gun, again death penalty.  That might get the gangs back to using knives and clubs.

That would not effect law abiding gun owners.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 20, 2018, 12:04:47 PM
Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.

Knee-jerk reaction is that they should.  The problem is that driving a car is often required for work.  You would be creating a class of people who would have tremendous difficulty getting to/from work by revoking car privileges.  That said, I'd be liable to lean towards supporting this sort of measure.

Shooting stuff with a gun is not required for any reason.  Restricting this privileged for life will not be a roadblock to a citizen being productive.

Generally speaking, convicted felons do lose the right to own a gun. Usually forever.

If you want to make improper storage of a gun a felony, I can get on board with that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 20, 2018, 12:16:58 PM
Texting while driving accident,no more cell phones for you, alcohol related deaths, no more booze for the parents or kids.  Drug related deaths, no more pills for you.

I’m sure there are many other ways people kill themselves and others.

Trump was promoting the idea of the death penalty for drug dealers. I was saying to hubby that we should just go further with that. Death penalty for anyone who causes the death of anyone else. What do you say? An idea from dear leader himself!  #maga


Why not just have the death penalty if you use a gun during. A felony, or if your a felon caught with a gun, again death penalty.  That might get the gangs back to using knives and clubs.

That would not effect law abiding gun owners.

I have a feeling the NRA would have something to say about that.

Which means it would never fly with the GOP.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 20, 2018, 12:36:50 PM
I have a feeling the NRA would have something to say about that.

Which means it would never fly with the GOP.
Many crimes have stronger penalties if the perpetrator uses a firearm in their commission.  Part of the problem, once again, is the lack of enforcement.  Chicago is a prime example of this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 20, 2018, 01:23:14 PM
Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.

Knee-jerk reaction is that they should.  The problem is that driving a car is often required for work.  You would be creating a class of people who would have tremendous difficulty getting to/from work by revoking car privileges.  That said, I'd be liable to lean towards supporting this sort of measure.

Shooting stuff with a gun is not required for any reason.  Restricting this privileged for life will not be a roadblock to a citizen being productive.

Generally speaking, convicted felons do lose the right to own a gun. Usually forever.

If you want to make improper storage of a gun a felony, I can get on board with that.

I’d be fine making improper storage of a gun a felony when it causes injury/death to a minor.  I would not be okay with making it a felony for, say, having a gun stolen from your home, or because the cops were at your house and saw a pistol in your nightstand.

Storage is highly variable depending on firearm type, home type, persons residing in the home, frequent visitors, even time of day, etc etc etc. I am not in favor of a one size fits all approach mandated by the government. I am willing to say that most of the time, if a minor gains access to your firearms and hurts someone with them you’ve done it wrong.  But if your 15y/o breaks into a safe and steals a gun for a crime, not your fault. 5y/o grabs a pistol off your nightstand and fires it, yeah, felony, I’m good with that. But single guy with no kids and his pistol is in his nightstand and the cop sees it for whatever reason?  No crime.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 20, 2018, 01:35:40 PM
Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.

Knee-jerk reaction is that they should.  The problem is that driving a car is often required for work.  You would be creating a class of people who would have tremendous difficulty getting to/from work by revoking car privileges.  That said, I'd be liable to lean towards supporting this sort of measure.

Shooting stuff with a gun is not required for any reason.  Restricting this privileged for life will not be a roadblock to a citizen being productive.

Generally speaking, convicted felons do lose the right to own a gun. Usually forever.

If you want to make improper storage of a gun a felony, I can get on board with that.

I’d be fine making improper storage of a gun a felony when it causes injury/death to a minor.  I would not be okay with making it a felony for, say, having a gun stolen from your home, or because the cops were at your house and saw a pistol in your nightstand.

Storage is highly variable depending on firearm type, home type, persons residing in the home, frequent visitors, even time of day, etc etc etc. I am not in favor of a one size fits all approach mandated by the government. I am willing to say that most of the time, if a minor gains access to your firearms and hurts someone with them you’ve done it wrong.  But if your 15y/o breaks into a safe and steals a gun for a crime, not your fault. 5y/o grabs a pistol off your nightstand and fires it, yeah, felony, I’m good with that. But single guy with no kids and his pistol is in his nightstand and the cop sees it for whatever reason?  No crime.

Sounds reasonable.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 20, 2018, 02:15:25 PM
Do drunk drivers who kill someone currently permanently lose driving privileges?  That's an area of law with which I'm not familiar.

Knee-jerk reaction is that they should.  The problem is that driving a car is often required for work.  You would be creating a class of people who would have tremendous difficulty getting to/from work by revoking car privileges.  That said, I'd be liable to lean towards supporting this sort of measure.

Shooting stuff with a gun is not required for any reason.  Restricting this privileged for life will not be a roadblock to a citizen being productive.

Let them bicycle to work or ebike to work... A bunch of us do it. Let them adapt to getting around without a car. They'll be better off in the long run.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 20, 2018, 02:52:47 PM
If the media reported every mass shooting event in the US as a major event, no other news would be reported.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 20, 2018, 03:14:32 PM
A shooting in a Maryland high school today.  Two are injured before school resource officer shoots he attacker.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/shooting-reported-great-mills-maryland-high-school-n858186 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/shooting-reported-great-mills-maryland-high-school-n858186)
The perpetrator has now apparently died.

Since this is going to be brought up anyway, I'd like to point out that Maryland has some of the more restrictive gun laws in the country:
--Universal background checks for all sales, including private sales, which must be facilitated by an FFL
--Concealed carry is "may issue," i.e. you have to convince the state to give you a license
--Handgun Qualification License is required, training/fingerprinting/etc
--Registry of all firearm transactions, including private sales
--Magazine capacity limit of 10 rounds
--Assault weapon ban

The point is that gun restrictions aim to reduce the number and seriousness of casualties, not prevent shootings. They are one component of a more holistic approach to a complex problem. It includes police action, better mental health care, trying to shift our culture away from violence, etc..

Initial reports are three injured/dead including the shooter, which is a lot better than Parkland or [insert other event here].


Also, unless we make these kinds of gun laws FEDERAL, it really doesn't matter much what the states do individually. It's extremely easy to cross state lines with a gun. I recall seeing a map somewhere that showed how states with strict gun laws end up with a mass influx of guns obtained from nearby states with lax laws. Illinois being a notable one, since everyone loves to bring up Chicago as an example of everything gun related :P
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 20, 2018, 03:40:34 PM
Good argument there.  I do think the state laws are effective, but federal would be much more so, closing the cracks for people willing to break the law to obtain illegal weapons.  Universal background checks seems like a good place to start. What is the reason to oppose rhat?

LOL. Have you MET the GOP?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 20, 2018, 03:46:13 PM
Good argument there.  I do think the state laws are effective, but federal would be much more so, closing the cracks for people willing to break the law to obtain illegal weapons.  Universal background checks seems like a good place to start.  What is the reason to oppose rhat?

I outlined a potential mechanism for it a page or two back. That would be palatable. But if it’s “no loans ever” (can’t I borrow a hunting rifle from a family member?) or “you must go to a FFL for all transfers and pay your $25” it’s going to be unpalatable. And at the same time, give us some concrete rules on what constitutes a seller; is it 1 gun a year, 5, 10?  This ambiguity leads to authoritative abuse.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 20, 2018, 03:56:06 PM
Good argument there.  I do think the state laws are effective, but federal would be much more so, closing the cracks for people willing to break the law to obtain illegal weapons.  Universal background checks seems like a good place to start. What is the reason to oppose rhat?

LOL. Have you MET the GOP?

It's not just the GOP.  Gun control people want gun control are for gun control whether it will have a meaningful difference or not.  The NRA is against almost everything.

Politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are too busy scoring points to get anything done.

The fix NICS bill seems pretty straightforward and even that can't pass.  I'd like some solutions to both mass shootings and violence in general and we are wasting time talking about "assault rifles."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 20, 2018, 04:43:33 PM
Good argument there.  I do think the state laws are effective, but federal would be much more so, closing the cracks for people willing to break the law to obtain illegal weapons.  Universal background checks seems like a good place to start. What is the reason to oppose rhat?

LOL. Have you MET the GOP?

It's not just the GOP.  Gun control people want gun control are for gun control whether it will have a meaningful difference or not.  The NRA is against almost everything.

Politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are too busy scoring points to get anything done.

The fix NICS bill seems pretty straightforward and even that can't pass.  I'd like some solutions to both mass shootings and violence in general and we are wasting time talking about "assault rifles."

I doubt you're suggesting that an equal proportion of democrats and republicans have opposed gun control in the past.  Because that would be silly; all you'd have to do to disprove that is look at the votes on past bills.

You are correct, I'm not suggesting that d and r's vote equally on gun control.  I'm criticizing all parties involved.  The fix NICS bill is a perfect example.  The R's are afraid to vote for it.  The D's are thinking about opposing it because they want more.  Dysfunction at its best.

We have a background check system.  Apparently the info kind of sucks sometimes.  Solution, improve the info.  Seems like a fairly simple improvement that should be fairly non-controversial.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 21, 2018, 07:37:23 AM
If the media reported every mass shooting event in the US as a major event, no other news would be reported.

That's an asinine thing to say.  Forum rules be dammed.

346 mass shootings occurred in the US in 2017 (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2017 (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2017)).  The school shooting that occurred yesterday didn't even qualify as a mass shooting as only one person (the shooter) was killed, and two people were injured (needs to have injured/killed at least 4 to be a mass shooting).  You claimed media bias because the shooting wasn't getting front page coverage.  If every shooting that small got front page coverage, you would see a shooting event as the main story literally every day.

No conspiracy, the story was too common place to take top billing - unless you're trying to argue that someone with a gun stopping a shooter is such a rare event that it made the story news worthy.  Was that your argument?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 21, 2018, 08:02:43 AM
You are correct, I'm not suggesting that d and r's vote equally on gun control.  I'm criticizing all parties involved.  The fix NICS bill is a perfect example.  The R's are afraid to vote for it.  The D's are thinking about opposing it because they want more.  Dysfunction at its best.

We have a background check system.  Apparently the info kind of sucks sometimes.  Solution, improve the info.  Seems like a fairly simple improvement that should be fairly non-controversial.
Actually, I think the R's are the ones who came up with the fix NICS bill, and the NRA is in favor of it.  But you're right--the D's are worried that if Fix NICS passes, it'll sap any political willpower for further-reaching legislation.

346 mass shootings occurred in the US in 2017 (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2017 (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2017)).  The school shooting that occurred yesterday didn't even qualify as a mass shooting as only one person (the shooter) was killed, and two people were injured (needs to have injured/killed at least 4 to be a mass shooting).  You claimed media bias because the shooting wasn't getting front page coverage.  If every shooting that small got front page coverage, you would see a shooting event as the main story literally every day.

No conspiracy, the story was too common place to take top billing - unless you're trying to argue that someone with a gun stopping a shooter is such a rare event that it made the story news worthy.  Was that your argument?
There's an element of survivorship bias here, as well.  Potential mass shootings that get stopped by a GGWAG (Good Guy With A Gun) don't develop into mass shootings, and therefore don't catch the headlines.

Conspiracy? Nah, it's just plain bias.  Swap Trump for Obama, and can you imagine any of those stories showing up at the top on CNN?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 21, 2018, 08:10:07 AM
You are correct, I'm not suggesting that d and r's vote equally on gun control.  I'm criticizing all parties involved.  The fix NICS bill is a perfect example.  The R's are afraid to vote for it.  The D's are thinking about opposing it because they want more.  Dysfunction at its best.

We have a background check system.  Apparently the info kind of sucks sometimes.  Solution, improve the info.  Seems like a fairly simple improvement that should be fairly non-controversial.
Actually, I think the R's are the ones who came up with the fix NICS bill, and the NRA is in favor of it.  But you're right--the D's are worried that if Fix NICS passes, it'll sap any political willpower for further-reaching legislation.

That's a bipartisan bill.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-florida-shooting-whats-the-status-of-the-fix-nics-bill/

Apparently you are correct that the NRA supports this particular bill.

My point on the dysfunction stands.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 21, 2018, 08:23:23 AM
346 mass shootings occurred in the US in 2017 (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2017 (http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting?year=2017)).  The school shooting that occurred yesterday didn't even qualify as a mass shooting as only one person (the shooter) was killed, and two people were injured (needs to have injured/killed at least 4 to be a mass shooting).  You claimed media bias because the shooting wasn't getting front page coverage.  If every shooting that small got front page coverage, you would see a shooting event as the main story literally every day.

No conspiracy, the story was too common place to take top billing - unless you're trying to argue that someone with a gun stopping a shooter is such a rare event that it made the story news worthy.  Was that your argument?
There's an element of survivorship bias here, as well.  Potential mass shootings that get stopped by a GGWAG (Good Guy With A Gun) don't develop into mass shootings, and therefore don't catch the headlines.

Conspiracy? Nah, it's just plain bias.  Swap Trump for Obama, and can you imagine any of those stories showing up at the top on CNN?

It was a CNN headline.  The school shooting (and a full report of what happened) was up on CNN's main page yesterday (it was the fourth story reported when I checked).  Bender's complaint was that it should have been the highest ranked story for some reason.

To be a headline, there should be something newsworthy about a story.  Mass shootings are a near daily occurrence in the US, and this didn't even have enough people dead to be a mass shooting.  If you believe that a 'Good Guy With A Gun' stopping a criminal is a normal or common occurrence, then there's nothing newsworthy about the story at all.

You're claiming there's bias.  OK.  Why do you believe that the story was newsworthy?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 21, 2018, 08:44:23 AM
Good argument there.  I do think the state laws are effective, but federal would be much more so, closing the cracks for people willing to break the law to obtain illegal weapons.  Universal background checks seems like a good place to start.  What is the reason to oppose rhat?

You realize federal law already requires background checks for any interstate sale and all sales by dealers?  Only intrastate sales by a non-dealer are not covered by federal law, and although the Supreme Ct has just about turned the commerce clause into a general police power, there are still plenty of lawmakers who still think the federal government doesn't have general police powers? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Heywood57 on March 21, 2018, 11:21:56 AM
Gun control in England seems to be working well

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/world/europe/england-wales-crime-rate.html

"When it comes to crimes committed with guns, up by 23 percent,
"and knife crime, which spiked by 20 percent to its highest level in seven years,
"experts say the increases go well beyond recording practices.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on March 21, 2018, 02:17:38 PM
What are the actual rates, though? And what's the base?

Might be in the article, but you should pull that out if you're going to lecture the anti-gun crowd...

Even if gun control is effective at removing, say, 90% of gun crime, there will still be spikes and troughs in gun crime.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 21, 2018, 02:21:48 PM
What are the actual rates, though? And what's the base?

Might be in the article, but you should pull that out if you're going to lecture the anti-gun crowd...

Even if gun control is effective at removing, say, 90% of gun crime, there will still be spikes and troughs in gun crime.

Considering that there's been gun control of some form or other in England since the 16th century, discussing crime changes in the last 10 years seems like it's not really relevant.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on March 21, 2018, 06:41:06 PM
Regarding bender's post about media bias, I will say that Trump has ruined CNN completely. It used to be moderately watchable and gloriously bland, falling somewhere vaguely in between Fox News and MSNBC in terms of editorial slant. Their foreign reporting was a strong core competency dating back from the first gulf war. Now, it's just an unwatchable 24/7 anti-Trump channel (a practice which probably also helped get Trump elected). Of course, it's just a cynical ratings-grab and I am not anywhere near the median target-audience for such predictable content. And I say all of this being firmly anti-Trump.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 21, 2018, 06:42:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR9NHjDi4EA

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 21, 2018, 06:43:51 PM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 22, 2018, 08:00:41 AM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Good news! Gun violence, even including suicides, the gun violence rate in the US has fallen massively since 1993, and has been flat since 2000!  If you remove suicides, it has fallen. That's the issue I have - even with fallingviolence levels, there's a perception that it's going up, and we're talking about banning entire classes of weapons, stripping weapon rights with no due process, etc.

I'm open to universal BG checks, taking weapons away from domestic abusers if there's a good appeals process... and a couple other things. But I don't believe they will make a significant difference, and we'll have this conversation again, only now the measures proposed will be even stricter.  Prediction: Some of these laws will pass, media will change the way they report data to make it look good, then slip into the shoddy methods they use now to drum up fear, and within 15 years we'll be talking about more gun control even though violence levels will be the same or better than they are now.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 22, 2018, 10:16:15 AM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Actions speak louder than words. Most of the actions I see proposed like bans on certain weapons classes and magazine size limits aren’t going to bring down the rate.  That’s what frustrates us NRA types, what people propose tend to be overly burdensome and ultimately ineffective. Want to cut the rate?  Crack down on the flow of cheap illegal handguns in major urban areas. Constructing more barriers for licensing, imposing limits on what law abiding gun owners can buy, etc, doesn’t drive down the rate.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 22, 2018, 10:20:22 AM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Actions speak louder than words. Most of the actions I see proposed like bans on certain weapons classes and magazine size limits aren’t going to bring down the rate.  That’s what frustrates us NRA types, what people propose tend to be overly burdensome and ultimately ineffective. Want to cut the rate?  Crack down on the flow of cheap illegal handguns in major urban areas. Constructing more barriers for licensing, imposing limits on what law abiding gun owners can buy, etc, doesn’t drive down the rate.

Most of the gun control legislation proposed comes from the left. If you want the actions that you propose, maybe the right needs to get together and propose them? What's stopping them, do you think?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 22, 2018, 10:31:45 AM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Actions speak louder than words. Most of the actions I see proposed like bans on certain weapons classes and magazine size limits aren’t going to bring down the rate.  That’s what frustrates us NRA types, what people propose tend to be overly burdensome and ultimately ineffective. Want to cut the rate?  Crack down on the flow of cheap illegal handguns in major urban areas. Constructing more barriers for licensing, imposing limits on what law abiding gun owners can buy, etc, doesn’t drive down the rate.

Most of the gun control legislation proposed comes from the left. If you want the actions that you propose, maybe the right needs to get together and propose them? What's stopping them, do you think?

I think that is because the right believes the answer isn’t “gun control” as the left understands it. For instance, locally the NRA has been very critical of Chicago’s softness and leiniency on punishing straw buyers. Tougher sentencing isn’t “gun control” but it’s part of the solution on fixing the gun violence problem.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170421/chicago-mayor-emanuel-demands-tougher-laws-for-gun-dealers-as-straw-purchaser-gets-probation?sf72797439=1
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 22, 2018, 10:31:59 AM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Actions speak louder than words. Most of the actions I see proposed like bans on certain weapons classes and magazine size limits aren’t going to bring down the rate.  That’s what frustrates us NRA types, what people propose tend to be overly burdensome and ultimately ineffective. Want to cut the rate?  Crack down on the flow of cheap illegal handguns in major urban areas. Constructing more barriers for licensing, imposing limits on what law abiding gun owners can buy, etc, doesn’t drive down the rate.

Most of the gun control legislation proposed comes from the left. If you want the actions that you propose, maybe the right needs to get together and propose them? What's stopping them, do you think?

Maybe some on the right realize that we already have lots of gun control laws on the books and need to enforce/improve what we have.  Much of what the gun control advocates will be ineffective at best.

Case in point - We had a local citizen get killed by the police recently for pointing a pistol at the cops.  His family is suing for wrongful death.  In the last 5 years leading up to his death, he was convicted of armed robbery and then convicted of having a weapon as a felon two more times. 

I've heard no clamor from the press about why he was walking around free.  No outrage or investigation as to how he got the guns (straw buyer?).  No outrage that this family is suing.   Meanwhile the same paper is promoting the myth that my daughters school participated in the gun control walkout.

I'm one hell of a lot more concerned about a violent felon with a gun than my law abiding neighbor with an Ar-15.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 22, 2018, 10:39:44 AM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Actions speak louder than words. Most of the actions I see proposed like bans on certain weapons classes and magazine size limits aren’t going to bring down the rate.  That’s what frustrates us NRA types, what people propose tend to be overly burdensome and ultimately ineffective. Want to cut the rate?  Crack down on the flow of cheap illegal handguns in major urban areas. Constructing more barriers for licensing, imposing limits on what law abiding gun owners can buy, etc, doesn’t drive down the rate.

Most of the gun control legislation proposed comes from the left. If you want the actions that you propose, maybe the right needs to get together and propose them? What's stopping them, do you think?

I think that is because the right believes the answer isn’t “gun control” as the left understands it. For instance, locally the NRA has been very critical of Chicago’s softness and leiniency on punishing straw buyers. Tougher sentencing isn’t “gun control” but it’s part of the solution on fixing the gun violence problem.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170421/chicago-mayor-emanuel-demands-tougher-laws-for-gun-dealers-as-straw-purchaser-gets-probation?sf72797439=1

This is pure hypocrisy.  The NRA is arguing for something that they've made impossible.

It's extremely difficult to catch someone violating the private sale laws since the government has no knowledge of who owns what guns once they're privately owned.  The best you can do is a few sting operations to randomly catch a few private sales.  The NRA of course, will vehemently argue against any sort of registry that would allow for easy enforcement of the laws they claim to care about.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 22, 2018, 10:51:28 AM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Actions speak louder than words. Most of the actions I see proposed like bans on certain weapons classes and magazine size limits aren’t going to bring down the rate.  That’s what frustrates us NRA types, what people propose tend to be overly burdensome and ultimately ineffective. Want to cut the rate?  Crack down on the flow of cheap illegal handguns in major urban areas. Constructing more barriers for licensing, imposing limits on what law abiding gun owners can buy, etc, doesn’t drive down the rate.

Most of the gun control legislation proposed comes from the left. If you want the actions that you propose, maybe the right needs to get together and propose them? What's stopping them, do you think?

I think that is because the right believes the answer isn’t “gun control” as the left understands it. For instance, locally the NRA has been very critical of Chicago’s softness and leiniency on punishing straw buyers. Tougher sentencing isn’t “gun control” but it’s part of the solution on fixing the gun violence problem.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170421/chicago-mayor-emanuel-demands-tougher-laws-for-gun-dealers-as-straw-purchaser-gets-probation?sf72797439=1

This is pure hypocrisy.  The NRA is arguing for something that they've made impossible.

It's extremely difficult to catch someone violating the private sale laws since the government has no knowledge of who owns what guns once they're privately owned.  The best you can do is a few sting operations to randomly catch a few private sales.  The NRA of course, will vehemently argue against any sort of registry that would allow for easy enforcement of the laws they claim to care about.

Steve:

What happens in Canada if you get caught carrying a pistol around?  What happens in Canada if you are carrying a felon carrying a pistol around?

In the US, the punishment is sometimes a slap on the wrist for these people.  That's who's committing the majority of crimes so why not focus on them and punish them rather than the average citizen. 

You don't need a gun registry to punish a felon caught with a gun.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 22, 2018, 10:53:42 AM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Actions speak louder than words. Most of the actions I see proposed like bans on certain weapons classes and magazine size limits aren’t going to bring down the rate.  That’s what frustrates us NRA types, what people propose tend to be overly burdensome and ultimately ineffective. Want to cut the rate?  Crack down on the flow of cheap illegal handguns in major urban areas. Constructing more barriers for licensing, imposing limits on what law abiding gun owners can buy, etc, doesn’t drive down the rate.

Most of the gun control legislation proposed comes from the left. If you want the actions that you propose, maybe the right needs to get together and propose them? What's stopping them, do you think?

I think that is because the right believes the answer isn’t “gun control” as the left understands it. For instance, locally the NRA has been very critical of Chicago’s softness and leiniency on punishing straw buyers. Tougher sentencing isn’t “gun control” but it’s part of the solution on fixing the gun violence problem.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170421/chicago-mayor-emanuel-demands-tougher-laws-for-gun-dealers-as-straw-purchaser-gets-probation?sf72797439=1

This is pure hypocrisy.  The NRA is arguing for something that they've made impossible.

It's extremely difficult to catch someone violating the private sale laws since the government has no knowledge of who owns what guns once they're privately owned.  The best you can do is a few sting operations to randomly catch a few private sales.  The NRA of course, will vehemently argue against any sort of registry that would allow for easy enforcement of the laws they claim to care about.

It’s a fundamental philosophical difference. You want a law that prevents people from doing things, that makes it impossible to do something illegal. I, and the NRA, want a law that maximizes freedom for people who are going to abide by it but harshly punished those who break it. You want a limited on a car that prevents it from going over 80mph, I want the freedom to do it (maybe I’m going on a track?) but fines for people who are caught misusing it. The problem with your approach is that it removes freedom from people who obey the law. My approach is less effective but more free, which is basically the fundamental principle America was founded on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 22, 2018, 12:12:45 PM
Quote
...the government has no knowledge of who owns what guns once they're privately owned.
 

I'm OK with that.


It’s a fundamental philosophical difference. You want a law that prevents people from doing things, that makes it impossible to do something illegal. I, and the NRA, want a law that maximizes freedom for people who are going to abide by it but harshly punished those who break it. You want a limited on a car that prevents it from going over 80mph, I want the freedom to do it (maybe I’m going on a track?) but fines for people who are caught misusing it. The problem with your approach is that it removes freedom from people who obey the law. My approach is less effective but more free, which is basically the fundamental principle America was founded on.

I don't know that lacking a registry is less effective anyway. Areas that require universal BG checks for all buyers, without a registry, have seen positive effects regardless... Registries have been used very often to fuck over legal gun owners, in extreme cases even made disarmament feasible. With little to to recommend them and a history of abuse, I say no thanks to registries.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 22, 2018, 12:13:52 PM
I get the feeling the NRA crowd (I use this mostly to deistic guise between gun owners who want no laws and those who are open to changing gun laws) believes those of us who advocate for gun control believe it will stop ALL crime and gun-related incidents. This is not the case, any more than anyone believes seat belt and DUI laws will magically halt all auto deaths. It's all about bringing down the rate, as right now, we appear to have an escalating problem. There is no perfect world where no one commits a crime. Doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and admit defeat.

Actions speak louder than words. Most of the actions I see proposed like bans on certain weapons classes and magazine size limits aren’t going to bring down the rate.  That’s what frustrates us NRA types, what people propose tend to be overly burdensome and ultimately ineffective. Want to cut the rate?  Crack down on the flow of cheap illegal handguns in major urban areas. Constructing more barriers for licensing, imposing limits on what law abiding gun owners can buy, etc, doesn’t drive down the rate.

Most of the gun control legislation proposed comes from the left. If you want the actions that you propose, maybe the right needs to get together and propose them? What's stopping them, do you think?

I think that is because the right believes the answer isn’t “gun control” as the left understands it. For instance, locally the NRA has been very critical of Chicago’s softness and leiniency on punishing straw buyers. Tougher sentencing isn’t “gun control” but it’s part of the solution on fixing the gun violence problem.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170421/chicago-mayor-emanuel-demands-tougher-laws-for-gun-dealers-as-straw-purchaser-gets-probation?sf72797439=1

This is pure hypocrisy.  The NRA is arguing for something that they've made impossible.

It's extremely difficult to catch someone violating the private sale laws since the government has no knowledge of who owns what guns once they're privately owned.  The best you can do is a few sting operations to randomly catch a few private sales.  The NRA of course, will vehemently argue against any sort of registry that would allow for easy enforcement of the laws they claim to care about.

Steve:

What happens in Canada if you get caught carrying a pistol around?  What happens in Canada if you are carrying a felon carrying a pistol around?

In the US, the punishment is sometimes a slap on the wrist for these people.  That's who's committing the majority of crimes so why not focus on them and punish them rather than the average citizen. 

You don't need a gun registry to punish a felon caught with a gun.

It's perfectly legitimate to want better sentencing regarding firearms offenses.  That wasn't what the article that Chris posted was about.

The NRA is specifically said:
"No matter how onerous a transfer law might be, criminals will still acquire firearms using straw purchasers, as illustrated in the present case. A better emphasis would be to focus on aggressively prosecuting those who buy firearms for dangerous criminals."

The best way to 'aggressively prosecute those who buy firearms for dangerous criminals." is to have a searchable database of who owns what gun so that patterns can be immediately seen and people doing the wrong thing can be prosecuted.  Something that the NRA is completely against.



It’s a fundamental philosophical difference. You want a law that prevents people from doing things, that makes it impossible to do something illegal. I, and the NRA, want a law that maximizes freedom for people who are going to abide by it but harshly punished those who break it. You want a limited on a car that prevents it from going over 80mph, I want the freedom to do it (maybe I’m going on a track?) but fines for people who are caught misusing it. The problem with your approach is that it removes freedom from people who obey the law. My approach is less effective but more free, which is basically the fundamental principle America was founded on.

Not really.

I want a law that prevents criminals from doing illegal things.  Currently you're operating on the honor system, and it isn't going so well.  It seems that some criminals are willing to break the law if there's nothing to stop them.  Go figure.

If there's a gun registry, you can't transfer a gun to a felon.  This has zero impact on the freedoms of a law abiding citizen.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 22, 2018, 12:31:46 PM
It isn’t going well because everyone knows the punishment is minimal. Same reason I speed in my car. There’s a small chance I get an inexpensive ticket. If there was a greater chance of getting a ticket, or a small chance of a $1k ticket instead of $75, I wouldn’t speed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 22, 2018, 01:13:08 PM
It isn’t going well because everyone knows the punishment is minimal. Same reason I speed in my car. There’s a small chance I get an inexpensive ticket. If there was a greater chance of getting a ticket, or a small chance of a $1k ticket instead of $75, I wouldn’t speed.

The NRA in the link you posted specifically said the opposite:
"No matter how onerous a transfer law might be, criminals will still acquire firearms using straw purchasers, as illustrated in the present case. A better emphasis would be to focus on aggressively prosecuting those who buy firearms for dangerous criminals."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 22, 2018, 01:35:13 PM

It's perfectly legitimate to want better sentencing regarding firearms offenses.  That wasn't what the article that Chris posted was about.

The NRA is specifically said:
"No matter how onerous a transfer law might be, criminals will still acquire firearms using straw purchasers, as illustrated in the present case. A better emphasis would be to focus on aggressively prosecuting those who buy firearms for dangerous criminals."

The best way to 'aggressively prosecute those who buy firearms for dangerous criminals." is to have a searchable database of who owns what gun so that patterns can be immediately seen and people doing the wrong thing can be prosecuted.  Something that the NRA is completely against.



It’s a fundamental philosophical difference. You want a law that prevents people from doing things, that makes it impossible to do something illegal. I, and the NRA, want a law that maximizes freedom for people who are going to abide by it but harshly punished those who break it. You want a limited on a car that prevents it from going over 80mph, I want the freedom to do it (maybe I’m going on a track?) but fines for people who are caught misusing it. The problem with your approach is that it removes freedom from people who obey the law. My approach is less effective but more free, which is basically the fundamental principle America was founded on.

Not really.

I want a law that prevents criminals from doing illegal things.  Currently you're operating on the honor system, and it isn't going so well.  It seems that some criminals are willing to break the law if there's nothing to stop them.  Go figure.

If there's a gun registry, you can't transfer a gun to a felon.  This has zero impact on the freedoms of a law abiding citizen.

No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime as it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 22, 2018, 01:46:43 PM
http://fox6now.com/2016/10/27/theres-no-disincentive-to-carry-a-gun-felons-with-guns-still-dodge-minimum-sentence-despite-new-law/

We might want to start by enforcing the laws against felons with guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 22, 2018, 01:54:42 PM
http://fox6now.com/2016/10/27/theres-no-disincentive-to-carry-a-gun-felons-with-guns-still-dodge-minimum-sentence-despite-new-law/

We might want to start by enforcing the laws against felons with guns.

How do you propose that this is accomplished?

From the article you linked:

Quote
From 2011 to 2015, police referred 3,637 gun possession cases to the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office. The FOX6 Investigators found charges were never filed in 37% of them -- that's more than one in three.

"Because there just isn't sufficient evidence at that point and time," explained Chisholm.

Hundreds of other cases were charged, but then dismissed — sometimes because a key witness backed out. That's what happened with Bobby Joe Johnson, whose girlfriend -- and mother of his child -- had reported him to police for threatening her with a gun. Police found a gun hidden in the oven and arrested him. But on the day of his trial, the witness failed to show up to testify -- a common problem in domestic violence cases.

"She doesn't show. She's not cooperative. That case gets dismissed," Chisholm said.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 22, 2018, 02:01:02 PM
http://fox6now.com/2016/10/27/theres-no-disincentive-to-carry-a-gun-felons-with-guns-still-dodge-minimum-sentence-despite-new-law/

We might want to start by enforcing the laws against felons with guns.

How do you propose that this is accomplished?

From the article you linked:

Quote
From 2011 to 2015, police referred 3,637 gun possession cases to the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office. The FOX6 Investigators found charges were never filed in 37% of them -- that's more than one in three.

"Because there just isn't sufficient evidence at that point and time," explained Chisholm.

Hundreds of other cases were charged, but then dismissed — sometimes because a key witness backed out. That's what happened with Bobby Joe Johnson, whose girlfriend -- and mother of his child -- had reported him to police for threatening her with a gun. Police found a gun hidden in the oven and arrested him. But on the day of his trial, the witness failed to show up to testify -- a common problem in domestic violence cases.

"She doesn't show. She's not cooperative. That case gets dismissed," Chisholm said.

"Even when felons are convicted of having a gun in Milwaukee, they don't always go to jail  — at least not for long.

The FOX6 Investigators found 20% serve less than one year in jail and 75% serve less than three.

"If we can't put the felons in possession of firearms in jail, why are we surprised that we're awash in guns?" Chief Flynn asked."

If they get convicted, quit screwing around with them.  You want to fix the gun problem, start there.  Violent felons are aware they shouldn't have guns and are much more likely to commit more violence with the firearm.  3 years.  Seriously.

If that's all we do to felons caught with guns, what sort of punishment do you suppose we would give to all the straw purchasers being caught with the registry you propose?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 22, 2018, 02:05:06 PM

It's perfectly legitimate to want better sentencing regarding firearms offenses.  That wasn't what the article that Chris posted was about.

The NRA is specifically said:
"No matter how onerous a transfer law might be, criminals will still acquire firearms using straw purchasers, as illustrated in the present case. A better emphasis would be to focus on aggressively prosecuting those who buy firearms for dangerous criminals."

The best way to 'aggressively prosecute those who buy firearms for dangerous criminals." is to have a searchable database of who owns what gun so that patterns can be immediately seen and people doing the wrong thing can be prosecuted.  Something that the NRA is completely against.



It’s a fundamental philosophical difference. You want a law that prevents people from doing things, that makes it impossible to do something illegal. I, and the NRA, want a law that maximizes freedom for people who are going to abide by it but harshly punished those who break it. You want a limited on a car that prevents it from going over 80mph, I want the freedom to do it (maybe I’m going on a track?) but fines for people who are caught misusing it. The problem with your approach is that it removes freedom from people who obey the law. My approach is less effective but more free, which is basically the fundamental principle America was founded on.

Not really.

I want a law that prevents criminals from doing illegal things.  Currently you're operating on the honor system, and it isn't going so well.  It seems that some criminals are willing to break the law if there's nothing to stop them.  Go figure.

If there's a gun registry, you can't transfer a gun to a felon.  This has zero impact on the freedoms of a law abiding citizen.

No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime as it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

Your claim that prosecutors are simply lazy has evidence to back it up?  You further claim that straw purchasers aren't prosecuted because of 'political convenience'.  What does that mean?

Everything that I've read indicates that it's very difficult and time consuming to prove that a straw purchase has been made.  Time is not unlimited.  If the choice is spending 1000 hours to put a pedophile or murderer behind bars, and spending 1000 hours to catch a straw purchaser . . . it would make sense that the more extreme crime would draw the attention.  If you're going to prioritize a difficult and time consuming task, what current law enforcement work do you want to see cut to meet your demand?  Budget is not unlimited.




If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

What are you talking about?  Who on 'the left' doesn't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 22, 2018, 02:07:33 PM
http://fox6now.com/2016/10/27/theres-no-disincentive-to-carry-a-gun-felons-with-guns-still-dodge-minimum-sentence-despite-new-law/

We might want to start by enforcing the laws against felons with guns.

How do you propose that this is accomplished?

From the article you linked:

Quote
From 2011 to 2015, police referred 3,637 gun possession cases to the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office. The FOX6 Investigators found charges were never filed in 37% of them -- that's more than one in three.

"Because there just isn't sufficient evidence at that point and time," explained Chisholm.

Hundreds of other cases were charged, but then dismissed — sometimes because a key witness backed out. That's what happened with Bobby Joe Johnson, whose girlfriend -- and mother of his child -- had reported him to police for threatening her with a gun. Police found a gun hidden in the oven and arrested him. But on the day of his trial, the witness failed to show up to testify -- a common problem in domestic violence cases.

"She doesn't show. She's not cooperative. That case gets dismissed," Chisholm said.

"Even when felons are convicted of having a gun in Milwaukee, they don't always go to jail  — at least not for long.

The FOX6 Investigators found 20% serve less than one year in jail and 75% serve less than three.

"If we can't put the felons in possession of firearms in jail, why are we surprised that we're awash in guns?" Chief Flynn asked."

If they get convicted, quit screwing around with them.  You want to fix the gun problem, start there.  Violent felons are aware they shouldn't have guns and are much more likely to commit more violence with the firearm.  3 years.  Seriously.

If that's all we do to felons caught with guns, what sort of punishment do you suppose we would give to all the straw purchasers being caught with the registry you propose?

Can you provide the details of these cases you're referring to?  Why were these felons not given a more severe sentence?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 22, 2018, 02:21:06 PM
http://fox6now.com/2016/10/27/theres-no-disincentive-to-carry-a-gun-felons-with-guns-still-dodge-minimum-sentence-despite-new-law/

We might want to start by enforcing the laws against felons with guns.

How do you propose that this is accomplished?

From the article you linked:

Quote
From 2011 to 2015, police referred 3,637 gun possession cases to the Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office. The FOX6 Investigators found charges were never filed in 37% of them -- that's more than one in three.

"Because there just isn't sufficient evidence at that point and time," explained Chisholm.

Hundreds of other cases were charged, but then dismissed — sometimes because a key witness backed out. That's what happened with Bobby Joe Johnson, whose girlfriend -- and mother of his child -- had reported him to police for threatening her with a gun. Police found a gun hidden in the oven and arrested him. But on the day of his trial, the witness failed to show up to testify -- a common problem in domestic violence cases.

"She doesn't show. She's not cooperative. That case gets dismissed," Chisholm said.

"Even when felons are convicted of having a gun in Milwaukee, they don't always go to jail  — at least not for long.

The FOX6 Investigators found 20% serve less than one year in jail and 75% serve less than three.

"If we can't put the felons in possession of firearms in jail, why are we surprised that we're awash in guns?" Chief Flynn asked."

If they get convicted, quit screwing around with them.  You want to fix the gun problem, start there.  Violent felons are aware they shouldn't have guns and are much more likely to commit more violence with the firearm.  3 years.  Seriously.

If that's all we do to felons caught with guns, what sort of punishment do you suppose we would give to all the straw purchasers being caught with the registry you propose?

Can you provide the details of these cases you're referring to?  Why were these felons not given a more severe sentence?



That's from the article.  Here's a website indicating the max in MD is 5 years for comparison purposes.  According to that site, that's the max in MD, a state with gun control laws that tend towards strict.

https://www.mdtriallawyer.com/possession-of-a-firearm-by-convicted-felon.html

To answer your initial question, as to why felons caught with guns aren't sentenced more harshly, I don't know.  It's quite illogical to go easy on a felon with a gun (especially a violent felon) if you want to reduce gun violence and violence in general.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 22, 2018, 02:24:43 PM
FTR - I have no issues of any kind increasing the sentencing for a felon caught with a firearm.  I think going after them sounds like a good idea, and probably should be part of the overall approach to limiting gun violence in the US.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 22, 2018, 02:37:06 PM

Your claim that prosecutors are simply lazy has evidence to back it up?  You further claim that straw purchasers aren't prosecuted because of 'political convenience'.  What does that mean?

Everything that I've read indicates that it's very difficult and time consuming to prove that a straw purchase has been made.  Time is not unlimited.  If the choice is spending 1000 hours to put a pedophile or murderer behind bars, and spending 1000 hours to catch a straw purchaser . . . it would make sense that the more extreme crime would draw the attention.  If you're going to prioritize a difficult and time consuming task, what current law enforcement work do you want to see cut to meet your demand?  Budget is not unlimited.
  It can be hard.  But it's also often easy.  It's often a relative or girl friend of the person that commits violence with the gun.  They still aren't prosecuted generally and if they are, they generally get extremely light sentences. 

The straw purchaser can either claim the gun was stolen (in which case you add a felony charge to perpetrator depending on value), that the gun was given to them under duress (in which that's more likely to be a felony charge), or claim that they sold to somebody else who just happened to sell to their close relative or boyfriend, which is going to be a difficult claim to make credibly without identifying the middle man.  It's pretty much win-win.  Even in cases where you aren't successful with either putting a felony on the straw purchaser or an extra felony on the perpetrator, just seeing other straw purchasers going through the process is going to scare a lot of would-be straw purchasers off.




If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

What are you talking about?  Who on 'the left' doesn't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime?
[/quote]  Depends on teh place.  In Chicago, they've actually made straw purchasing a serious crime, but elected prosecutors typically don't want to throw the book at straw purchasers (who by nature have a pretty clean record) because it might hurt them come election time.  In other places, like Baltimore, legislators don't make it a serious crime to begin with.  I don't really understand why.  I at least get the incentives elected prosecutors face.  I don't think legislators would catch the same negative feedback for making it a serious felony.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 23, 2018, 06:09:16 AM
I remember way back when I was listening to conservative talk radio (trying to get my political bearings) G Gordon Liddy would admit on the air that his wife bought and owned all his guns. Nobody knocking down his door over this.

I'm not sure why the liberals need to take action on this alone. Looks like both sides of the aisle would benefit from a country that was less violent. I probably misunderstood the comment though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 23, 2018, 07:25:07 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 23, 2018, 07:42:20 AM
From an earlier question:
Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2012
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm)
The information is there if people look for it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 23, 2018, 08:04:44 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You keep saying that, but your wording is at best imprecise, at worst intentionally confusing. Gun advocates are all in favor of proscuting people who break gun laws. They are not in favor of removing the privacy or rights of lawful gun owners to make it easier to catch those breaking the law. There’s a difference, whether or not you choose to acknowledge it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 23, 2018, 08:19:36 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You keep saying that, but your wording is at best imprecise, at worst intentionally confusing. Gun advocates are all in favor of proscuting people who break gun laws.

Gun advocates have ensured that straw purchasers will not be prosecuted by increasing the difficulty to do so, out of fear that a government boogeyman will take all their guns.  Then they complain about how prosecutors don't make a point of pursuing charges that are extremely time consuming and difficult to prove in court.  Budget and time are not unlimited, so I ask again:

What crimes do you believe that prosecutors should stop pursuing in order to spend the additional time you've made necessary to prosecute  straw purchasers?  Alternatively, do you support an extra tax necessary to pay for the additional resources and time that the system you support has made necessary for this prosecution?  If neither of these . . . how can you argue that you're in favor of prosecuting at all?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 23, 2018, 08:24:48 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You keep saying that, but your wording is at best imprecise, at worst intentionally confusing. Gun advocates are all in favor of proscuting people who break gun laws.

Gun advocates have ensured that straw purchasers will not be prosecuted by increasing the difficulty to do so, out of fear that a government boogeyman will take all their guns.  Then they complain about how prosecutors don't make a point of pursuing charges that are extremely time consuming and difficult to prove in court.  Budget and time are not unlimited, so I ask again:

What crimes do you believe that prosecutors should stop pursuing in order to spend the additional time you've made necessary to prosecute  straw purchasers?  Alternatively, do you support an extra tax necessary to pay for the additional resources and time that the system you support has made necessary for this prosecution?  If neither of these . . . how can you argue that you're in favor of prosecuting at all?
Traffic enforcement and marijuana interdiction.  I just voted to make pot legal in Chicago. That should free up plenty of time.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 23, 2018, 10:01:58 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You think gun advocates are in control of Chicago and Maryland? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on March 23, 2018, 10:26:10 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

Cause straw purchasers are people with generally clean (or cleaner records) that often have media-friendly narratives and personalities. They also are susceptible to bullying by the gun criminals.

Like, you don't want to be the guy who throw a woman in jail because she bought a gun for her drug-dealing boyfriend, who beat the crap out of her until she bought the gun.

"GuitarStv throws battered housewives in jail" is a great way to lose your re-election bid.


Also, there's the question about proving intent. Might not be worth the prosecutor's time. A good example might be perjury, which my lawyer friends tell me is an obviously serious crime, but difficult to prove (and thus rarely prosecuted).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 23, 2018, 10:36:41 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You think gun advocates are in control of Chicago and Maryland?

Difficulty prosecuting straw purchasers is not limited to these two locations in the US.

Under current Texas law (for example) it's legal to:
- Sell a firearm to a person that the transferor knows intends to use in the commission of a crime
- Transfer a firearm to a person they know is a felon, subject to an active domestic violence protective order, and/or with a serious history of dangerous mental illness (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases))

It's extremely difficult to prosecute straw purchases when they're not breaking the law, and last I checked Texas was not known as being a liberal stronghold.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 23, 2018, 11:19:57 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You think gun advocates are in control of Chicago and Maryland?

Difficulty prosecuting straw purchasers is not limited to these two locations in the US.

Under current Texas law (for example) it's legal to:
- Sell a firearm to a person that the transferor knows intends to use in the commission of a crime
- Transfer a firearm to a person they know is a felon, subject to an active domestic violence protective order, and/or with a serious history of dangerous mental illness (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases))

It's extremely difficult to prosecute straw purchases when they're not breaking the law, and last I checked Texas was not known as being a liberal stronghold.

Those are still federal crimes though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 23, 2018, 11:36:00 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You think gun advocates are in control of Chicago and Maryland?

Difficulty prosecuting straw purchasers is not limited to these two locations in the US.

Under current Texas law (for example) it's legal to:
- Sell a firearm to a person that the transferor knows intends to use in the commission of a crime
- Transfer a firearm to a person they know is a felon, subject to an active domestic violence protective order, and/or with a serious history of dangerous mental illness (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases))

It's extremely difficult to prosecute straw purchases when they're not breaking the law, and last I checked Texas was not known as being a liberal stronghold.

Those are still federal crimes though.

Right.  So why were we talking about Chicago then?  That damned federal government must not be doing it's job.  It's still liberal right?  All three branches?

 . . . and I'm still trying to understand where the idea that liberals don't want straw gun purchases prosecuted came from.  I mean, the places you're bitching about not caring about straw purchasers (Illiniois and Maryland) have enacted state laws to punish them . . . while a stalwart bastion of gun freedom and the NRA like Texas hasn't bothered to make it illegal.  I guess because they care so much.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 23, 2018, 11:42:48 AM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You think gun advocates are in control of Chicago and Maryland?

Difficulty prosecuting straw purchasers is not limited to these two locations in the US.

Under current Texas law (for example) it's legal to:
- Sell a firearm to a person that the transferor knows intends to use in the commission of a crime
- Transfer a firearm to a person they know is a felon, subject to an active domestic violence protective order, and/or with a serious history of dangerous mental illness (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases))

It's extremely difficult to prosecute straw purchases when they're not breaking the law, and last I checked Texas was not known as being a liberal stronghold.

Those are still federal crimes though.

Right.  So why were we talking about Chicago then?  That damned federal government must not be doing it's job.  It's still liberal right?  All three branches?

 . . . and I'm still trying to understand where the idea that liberals don't want straw gun purchases prosecuted came from.  I mean, the places you're bitching about not caring about straw purchasers (Illiniois and Maryland) have enacted state laws to punish them . . . while a stalwart bastion of gun freedom and the NRA like Texas hasn't bothered to make it illegal.  I guess because they care so much.

Did you read the article I linked?  The straw purchaser was prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to...parole. Does anything about that suggest they are serious about stopping the crime? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 23, 2018, 12:27:14 PM
Did you read the article I linked?

Yes.  I'm starting to wonder if you did though.


The straw purchaser was prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to...parole. Does anything about that suggest they are serious about stopping the crime?

From the Chicago police report:
“The felony arrest is not expected to result in jail time, but will result in a permanent revocation of her FOID card.”

We have a situation where an arrest of a straw purchaser was possible because of gun registration, and where gun registration will be used to prevent this person from performing a straw purchase again.  I don't know why additional jail time wasn't given to the woman.

I'd still say that the probation and loss of the ability to buy guns in Chicago is better than absolutely nothing happening in Texas.  I'd say that having a gun registry to prove ownership was invaluable in actually catching the straw purchaser.  I'd also say that having a method of preventing a straw purchaser from buying a gun legally again is great.

I am still trying to understand why you believe that liberals don't want straw purchasers to be prosecuted.



So, to recap . . .
- gun registries make it easier to catch straw purchasers
- gun registries make it easier to prevent people who break the law from buying guns again
- states that enact more gun laws prosecute straw purchasers more harshly than states that do not
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 23, 2018, 12:53:10 PM
Why do you think jail time is always warranted? A felony on your record, parole (with all its limits), and revocation of FOID card (I'm not sure what this is, but if it's related to the right to own a gun, seems appropriate) is potentially the right response. Jail is expensive, and not really where I'd throw a first time offender depending in the circumstances. I mean, I'm all for coming down hard on parents who do not secure their weapons, but jail time is probably not the best answer in most cases, and likely compounds the negative situation more than anything.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on March 23, 2018, 01:29:29 PM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You think gun advocates are in control of Chicago and Maryland?

Difficulty prosecuting straw purchasers is not limited to these two locations in the US.

Under current Texas law (for example) it's legal to:
- Sell a firearm to a person that the transferor knows intends to use in the commission of a crime
- Transfer a firearm to a person they know is a felon, subject to an active domestic violence protective order, and/or with a serious history of dangerous mental illness (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases))

It's extremely difficult to prosecute straw purchases when they're not breaking the law, and last I checked Texas was not known as being a liberal stronghold.

This is blatantly false....

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-texas/ (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-texas/)

From NRA's own site:
Quote
It is unlawful to sell, rent, loan or give a handgun to any person if it is known that the person intends to use it unlawfully.  It is unlawful to knowingly sell, rent, give or offer to sell, rent or give any firearm to a person under 18 years of age, without the written consent of his parent or guardian. It is unlawful to knowingly or recklessly sell any firearm or ammunition to any person who is intoxicated.
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/texas/ (https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/texas/)

Your intentional lying is really quite aggravating...


Edit to add the actual penal code in case the above was not enough...
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm)
Quote
Sec. 46.06.  UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.  (a)  A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)  sells, rents, leases, loans, or gives a handgun to any person knowing that the person to whom the handgun is to be delivered intends to use it unlawfully or in the commission of an unlawful act;

(2)  intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years of age any firearm, club, or location-restricted knife;

(3)  intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly sells a firearm or ammunition for a firearm to any person who is intoxicated;

(4)  knowingly sells a firearm or ammunition for a firearm to any person who has been convicted of a felony before the fifth anniversary of the later of the following dates:

    (A)  the person's release from confinement following conviction of the felony; or

    (B)  the person's release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision following conviction of the felony;
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 23, 2018, 02:18:58 PM
I didn't double check the website I referenced.  Thank you for pointing out my error, and I apologize if you feel personally mislead.


It is indeed a misdemeanor in Texas to act as a straw purchaser, punishable by a maximum of to one year in jail / a fine of up to $4,000.

This works on the honor system, since there is no law requiring a background check you can always claim that you didn't know the person you were buying the gun for was a criminal or planned to use it for anything bad.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on March 23, 2018, 02:50:25 PM
I didn't double check the website I referenced.  Thank you for pointing out my error, and I apologize if you feel personally mislead.


It is indeed a misdemeanor in Texas to act as a straw purchaser, punishable by a maximum of to one year in jail / a fine of up to $4,000.

This works on the honor system, since there is no law requiring a background check you can always claim that you didn't know the person you were buying the gun for was a criminal or planned to use it for anything bad.

Except when you fill out ATF form 4473 and it asks "Are you buying this weapon for anyone other than yourself" and you lie...

It is not legal to buy a gun for another person, plain and simple.  As Chris22 has stated, its simply not prosecuted.  I'll leave the discussion of why the current laws are not enforced to others to discuss, but if we aren't willing to enforce the current written law it seems rather... backhanded, to ask for more regulation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 23, 2018, 03:29:43 PM
I didn't double check the website I referenced.  Thank you for pointing out my error, and I apologize if you feel personally mislead.


It is indeed a misdemeanor in Texas to act as a straw purchaser, punishable by a maximum of to one year in jail / a fine of up to $4,000.

This works on the honor system, since there is no law requiring a background check you can always claim that you didn't know the person you were buying the gun for was a criminal or planned to use it for anything bad.

Except when you fill out ATF form 4473 and it asks "Are you buying this weapon for anyone other than yourself" and you lie... It is not legal to buy a gun for another person, plain and simple.  As Chris22 has stated, its simply not prosecuted. 

Sure, you lie on the form.

Then when caught, you say that you sold the gun privately.  In most states that's where the case ends.  That's the 'honor system' part I was talking about, because it's next to impossible to prove that you're not telling the truth without transfer of ownership being recorded somewhere and without requirement to do a background check.

This is why it isn't prosecuted.  Because there's no way to prosecute it.


I'll leave the discussion of why the current laws are not enforced to others to discuss, but if we aren't willing to enforce the current written law it seems rather... backhanded, to ask for more regulation.

Why isn't it prosecuted?  It turns out that without good record keeping (like a registry), it's very, very difficult to catch people making straw purchases.  It's not a matter of will to enforce current law, it's inability to do so.  In this case, more regulation would make it possible to enforce the current law.

It seems rather . . . disingenuous, to argue for the need to do something while vehemently arguing that the tools necessary to do it can never be obtained.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 23, 2018, 05:36:19 PM
Interestng article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: scottish on March 24, 2018, 07:39:01 PM
Sounds like high schools students have organized 800 protests across the US today demanding better gun control.

Here we have a generation of people that have grown up with school shootings and are fed up with it.    I think the NRA's days are numbered.  Not this year, and not next year, but the end is in sight.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Fireball on March 24, 2018, 08:35:09 PM
A few sites are saying it was the largest protest in DC history. Go kids, go.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 24, 2018, 11:06:48 PM
Yep. My kids just went back to public school this year, really our first foray into the American school system since we were living overseas when my oldest started school. (Homeschooled when w moved back for the last 5 years.) The day they came home to tell me they had their first lockdown drill, I felt sick inside. Any child or parent who is forced to live with constant reminders that this is the new normal is changed by it. This is the core of my opposition to arming teachers and hardening schools - w can do better than this. I want a return to when none of this was necessary. You can't do that by passing out more guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: kei te pai on March 25, 2018, 03:34:41 AM
America should be so proud of the kids who have rallied today. I cried when I watched the video of Emma Gonzalez on the Guardian website. It breaks my heart that those in politics will sacrifice these fine young people.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 25, 2018, 07:03:33 PM
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-doctors-react_us_5ab7f039e4b008c9e5f88e52

I think the NRA and GOP need to start designing a new platform. With each passing year they become less relevant to the average American voter.

I am very proud of the young folks who have taken a stand.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 25, 2018, 07:25:49 PM
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-doctors-react_us_5ab7f039e4b008c9e5f88e52

I think the NRA and GOP need to start designing a new platform. With each passing year they become less relevant to the average American voter.

I am very proud of the young folks who have taken a stand.

What a fantastic example of how tone deaf these people are. We don't want to try to make these incidents less deadly; we want them to STOP.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 25, 2018, 07:31:04 PM
Interestng article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/)

Now to add more context - some of these same white men face a future where many blue collar jobs are on the verge of automation. The future will deliver more worries, not less.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 26, 2018, 06:29:29 AM
Interestng article:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns/)

Now to add more context - some of these same white men face a future where many blue collar jobs are on the verge of automation. The future will deliver more worries, not less.

Everyone is facing that future, but nobody wants to admit it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 26, 2018, 07:07:26 AM
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-santorum-doctors-react_us_5ab7f039e4b008c9e5f88e52

I think the NRA and GOP need to start designing a new platform. With each passing year they become less relevant to the average American voter.

I am very proud of the young folks who have taken a stand.

What a fantastic example of how tone deaf these people are. We don't want to try to make these incidents less deadly; we want them to STOP.

It’s really a question of the NRA lackeys not having much of an argument or defense at this point. So, instead, they try to turn the argument toward something else, to change the subject.

It’s pretty pathetic.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 07:42:51 AM
There is a lot of talk about stricter gun laws and how we seem to have sooooo many gun deaths, but why isn't anyone talking about how many lives are saved by guns? (may have missed it in this thread but from what pages i read) the CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year and that does not count the amount of crimes deterred by criminals seeing or knowing a good guy has a gun and decides to not commit the crime. Also the stats show that most gun violence is from suicide and that on average, if you remove suicide, gun deaths in the USA are only about 12,000 to 15,000. I think limiting or removing guns are not the answer, since guns save way more lives.   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 26, 2018, 07:49:37 AM
There is a lot of talk about stricter gun laws and how we seem to have sooooo many gun deaths, but why isn't anyone talking about how many lives are saved by guns? (may have missed it in this thread but from what pages i read) the CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year and that does not count the amount of crimes deterred by criminals seeing or knowing a good guy has a gun and decides to not commit the crime. Also the stats show that most gun violence is from suicide and that on average, if you remove suicide, gun deaths in the USA are only about 12,000 to 15,000. I think limiting or removing guns are not the answer, since guns save way more lives.   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

"CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year"

Waiting for the source of this before commenting. I suggest others do, as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 26, 2018, 08:00:45 AM
There is a lot of talk about stricter gun laws and how we seem to have sooooo many gun deaths, but why isn't anyone talking about how many lives are saved by guns? (may have missed it in this thread but from what pages i read) the CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year and that does not count the amount of crimes deterred by criminals seeing or knowing a good guy has a gun and decides to not commit the crime. Also the stats show that most gun violence is from suicide and that on average, if you remove suicide, gun deaths in the USA are only about 12,000 to 15,000. I think limiting or removing guns are not the answer, since guns save way more lives.   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

"CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year"

Waiting for the source of this before commenting. I suggest others do, as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.3646360b8eac

Here's a discussion of the article that person referenced. The CDC gives a range of 108,000 to 3 million defensive uses per year based on numerous surveys, and points out that this data should be studied more in depth due to the unreliability of said surveys. The data isn't great, but even taking the low number estimate (or even divide this number by 2!) is still significant.

It is, of course, about impossible to get good data, given that a big portion of defensive uses involve no gunshot, and result in no crime committed. (defensive brandishing) You are completely reliant on word of mouth for cases like that, I'd think.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 08:00:51 AM
Here you go, this is one link to the study.   https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 26, 2018, 08:02:09 AM
There is a lot of talk about stricter gun laws and how we seem to have sooooo many gun deaths, but why isn't anyone talking about how many lives are saved by guns? (may have missed it in this thread but from what pages i read) the CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year and that does not count the amount of crimes deterred by criminals seeing or knowing a good guy has a gun and decides to not commit the crime. Also the stats show that most gun violence is from suicide and that on average, if you remove suicide, gun deaths in the USA are only about 12,000 to 15,000. I think limiting or removing guns are not the answer, since guns save way more lives.   https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

"CDC reported not long ago that guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year"

Waiting for the source of this before commenting. I suggest others do, as well.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/16/the-study-that-gun-rights-activists-keep-citing-but-completely-misunderstand/?utm_term=.3646360b8eac

Here's a discussion of the article that person referenced. The CDC gives a range of 108,000 to 3 million defensive uses per year based on numerous surveys, and points out that this data should be studied more in depth due to the unreliability of said surveys. The data isn't great, but even taking the low number estimate (or even divide this number by 2!) is still significant.

It is, of course, about impossible to get good data, given that a big portion of defensive uses involve no gunshot, and result in no crime committed. (defensive brandishing) You are completely reliant on word of mouth for cases like that, I'd think.

Huh. Yeah, that's not really great data. Nor does it say anything like "the CDC says guns save on average 500,000 to 3 million lives a year."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 08:08:55 AM
Read my post, it does point out 500,000 to 3 million in the report (even if you wanted to reduce it to 120,000, that is still more lives saved than lost to gun violence). It has data from all sides and just because it does not follow ones thoughts on guns, does not mean to discredit this report that was conducted based on an order by Obama and Congress. It was given significant funding and resources to perform this research.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 26, 2018, 08:13:07 AM
Also this:

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/28/controversial-pro-gun-researcher-helped-write-f/194660

As far as I can tell the numbers suggested in this study are completely meaningless and should be thrown out. Not even taking the low number and dividing by 2 has any real meaning. Now that the CDC can (maybe) do real research we may have some usable estimates in the future or perhaps something more legitimate already exists, but this is not it.

ETA: Maybe I shouldn't say completely meaningless, but I'm not putting any stock in these numbers. Too many questions remain, at least one being, how many cases where a gun was used in self defense wouldn't have required a gun if neither party involved had a gun? And then about a million more questions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 26, 2018, 08:14:57 AM
Read my post, it does point out 500,000 to 3 million in the report (even if you wanted to reduce it to 120,000, that is still more lives saved than lost to gun violence). It has data from all sides and just because it does not follow ones thoughts on guns, does not mean to discredit this report that was conducted based on an order by Obama and Congress. It was given significant funding and resources to perform this research.

I did read your post. I was quoting from your post.

The report doesn’t say what you said it did.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 08:19:42 AM
Directly from the report "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)" Its deeper in the report and takes some time to read the detailed report.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 08:21:28 AM
By the way, just like all data, its not solid and can be missing a lot of variables, but we cannot deny that guns do save lives and protect countless people in the USA.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on March 26, 2018, 08:24:19 AM
Directly from the report "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)" Its deeper in the report and takes some time to read the detailed report.

I think what's being pointed out is that defensive gun uses are not equivalent to saved lives.  Along with the fact that the particular study that you are citing was conducted by a biased individual and has serious methodological problems.  Not that you quoted the wrong numbers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 26, 2018, 08:24:52 AM
Directly from the report "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)" Its deeper in the report and takes some time to read the detailed report.

Defensive gun uses -- which in a self-reported survey might be largely in the eye of the beholder in terms of what exactly constitutes "use" -- are NOT the same as "lives saved." It's incredibly sloppy thinking to insist otherwise.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 26, 2018, 08:37:04 AM
Directly from the report "defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a)" Its deeper in the report and takes some time to read the detailed report.

Defensive gun uses -- which in a self-reported survey might be largely in the eye of the beholder in terms of what exactly constitutes "use" -- are NOT the same as "lives saved." It's incredibly sloppy thinking to insist otherwise.

It also doesn't mean a 1:1 correlation between offensive and defensive use. There are presumably a statistically significant number of defensive uses where the defensive gun is the only one in play.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 08:40:25 AM
Exactly NoStacheOhio, even in my personal life my gun prevented a crime. I had a guy try to kick in my apartment door. I got my gun, tapped on the window next to my door and showed my gun. The guy ran off. Well, I did not call the police to report it because it would just be a waste of time for them to leave other important jobs to come to my place to write up a report on a person they most likely will never find or pursue since the crime of prevented.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 26, 2018, 09:04:14 AM
Exactly NoStacheOhio, even in my personal life my gun prevented a crime. I had a guy try to kick in my apartment door. I got my gun, tapped on the window next to my door and showed my gun. The guy ran off. Well, I did not call the police to report it because it would just be a waste of time for them to leave other important jobs to come to my place to write up a report on a person they most likely will never find or pursue since the crime of prevented.
Ya, and this one time I shot a possum that very well could have had rabies. I mean maybe he didn't, but we don't know that. Count it! Then again, another time I killed a possum with a shovel. Maybe a shovel would have had the same effect in your burglar situation?

I'm not trying to make fun of your near break in, that's a scary situation and I completely understand why you felt safer with a gun and you're probably more adament about owning one after that incident. But the numbers you're citing are not sound data, not even close. Self reported data on this question is almost certain to draw false positives and there were other flaws as well. So all you've really provided is numbers that no one here is going to take seriously and one anecdotal case. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your conclusions but you're going to need more information to make that case. Even if we could determine owning guns for self defense was a net positive, there is still a debate to be had about what guns should and shouldn't be allowed/restricted/banned.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 26, 2018, 09:30:49 AM
Exactly NoStacheOhio, even in my personal life my gun prevented a crime. I had a guy try to kick in my apartment door. I got my gun, tapped on the window next to my door and showed my gun. The guy ran off. Well, I did not call the police to report it because it would just be a waste of time for them to leave other important jobs to come to my place to write up a report on a person they most likely will never find or pursue since the crime of prevented.

Yeah, I think you're misreading what I said.

Nobody is arguing guns never deter crime. Some people might be arguing that they don't deter enough crime to be worth the social costs, but even that isn't going to be a huge number of Americans.

The bulk of the gun control debate centers around the details of the specific weapons (because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it), and who is buying/selling. Over the past 20 years or so, the NRA has come out hard against meaningful laws dealing with those two things, so this is where we are now.

A majority of American households choose not to keep objects whose primary purpose is "weapon." If you choose to have these things, it's not unreasonable for the rest of us to support restrictions on time, manner and place (amazingly, the same kind of restrictions we place on the First Amendment).

Maybe should turn it around and make it "Fuck you, I don't like guns." But wait, that might hurt somebody's feels.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 26, 2018, 09:37:49 AM
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 09:39:02 AM
I am pretty sure someone directly kicking in my door isn't there to preach peace.

Nawww you can say F GUNS!! If someone is hurt by that, then they have other issues at hand. I just want my rights and freedom to be protected, just because one hates guns, does not mean its moral to take away others rights. Also I bet you all love free speech? I hate social media and most news sites, so should I actively try to pass laws to limit your rights to free speech and how to express it? I personally say no, its part of why our nation is here. Other than that, I'm out of this debate, just wanted to add a bit more to the conversation and have people think for just a second how maybe guns are not just here committing crimes and that maybe there are many more good events happening due to guns.

Thank you all :)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jimmymango on March 26, 2018, 09:39:33 AM
Apologies as I've been jumping in and out of this thread, so I don't know if this point has been made already.

The U.S. is unique among developed nations in terms of gun ownership numbers (total number of guns, percentage of the population owning guns). So, considering that a full ban isn't going to fly (a concession from the Left), and that if the goal truly is to reduce the numbers of gun deaths, then federal gun-restriction legislation will have to become a reality (a concession from the Right).

So the solution then would be to examine the things that other nations with little or no gun violence do, and implement all policies that stop short of disarming the populace. Not an easy pill to swallow, but it seems to me to be the answer to solving our gun violence problems.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 26, 2018, 09:40:48 AM
I am pretty sure someone directly kicking in my door isn't there to preach peace.

Nawww you can say F GUNS!! If someone is hurt by that, then they have other issues at hand. I just want my rights and freedom to be protected, just because one hates guns, does not mean its moral to take away others rights. Also I bet you all love free speech? I hate social media and most news sites, so should I actively try to pass laws to limit your rights to free speech and how to express it? I personally say no, its part of why our nation is here. Other than that, I'm out of this debate, just wanted to add a bit more to the conversation and have people think for just a second how maybe guns are not just here committing crimes and that maybe there are many more good events happening due to guns.

Thank you all :)

LOL.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 26, 2018, 09:46:13 AM
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 26, 2018, 09:55:51 AM
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

Indeed.

I own three guns. And I have a license to carry in my state.

It's not about hating guns. It's about being sensible. And in this discussion, it's about actually being able to back up what you say, instead of throwing out some assertions, and then when others point out that your assertions aren't really backed up by what you provided as "evidence," tossing up a bunch of straw men, and then "peace out"ing like you won the argument.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 09:58:25 AM
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

100 percent agree with you :) My whole counter is to not get to the point of gun bans or restrict so much to the point its practically banned. Its just like the parties on the right pushing "safety" laws on abortion in my state of Texas, which makes abortion practically banned. I can't stand when either sides preaches for safety, but really its just leading to a "ban" for the most part. Overall, I agree with you, we do need to enforce the laws in place and maybe even see why things are falling through the cracks and how to shore up those areas a bit. Thank you for your sensible reply.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Killerbrandt on March 26, 2018, 10:00:40 AM
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

Indeed.

I own three guns. And I have a license to carry in my state.

It's not about hating guns. It's about being sensible. And in this discussion, it's about actually being able to back up what you say, instead of throwing out some assertions, and then when others point out that your assertions aren't really backed up by what you provided as "evidence," tossing up a bunch of straw men, and then "peace out"ing like you won the argument.

Sorry, that is not what I was trying to do, and I still believe my source is not what you think. I just read so much in this thread about how guns are bad this and that, but wanted to add in that guns do and can help people. Its hard to push my point online over texts, I am not the best at writing or grammar as you can probably tell.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 26, 2018, 10:17:58 AM
Hatred doesn't really have to come into play at all, and this seems to be a point often missed (or misunderstood) by gun advocates.  I spent a lot of time in my childhood hunting with friends for partridge and moose.  While I don't currently own a gun, I have in the past . . . and have no anger with someone who wants to keep one.

I don't hate guns, but am strongly for sensible gun laws . . . in the same way I don't hate cars, but am strongly in favour of sensible traffic laws.  Setting a speed limit, or having seatbelt laws doesn't significantly impact your freedoms . . . it just makes the world safer for everyone.  Supporting increased fines for running red lights doesn't mean that you hate all vehicles and believe that driving is inherently wrong.

Indeed.

I own three guns. And I have a license to carry in my state.

It's not about hating guns. It's about being sensible. And in this discussion, it's about actually being able to back up what you say, instead of throwing out some assertions, and then when others point out that your assertions aren't really backed up by what you provided as "evidence," tossing up a bunch of straw men, and then "peace out"ing like you won the argument.

Sorry, that is not what I was trying to do, and I still believe my source is not what you think. I just read so much in this thread about how guns are bad this and that, but wanted to add in that guns do and can help people. Its hard to push my point online over texts, I am not the best at writing or grammar as you can probably tell.

To be fair there are plenty of people who are speaking with emotion on both sides but if you want to be involved in a debate about gun control I find it's best to ignore comments that don't really make an assertion that you can counter or support with facts.

If you still think your source carries any meaning, you'll need to counter the numerous flaws that others have pointed out. It feels like you are ignoring these comments.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 26, 2018, 10:20:28 AM
I've read a whole lot of the gun control wishlists out there. Not a one says "ban all guns in the US". Even if all of them were implemented, you could still own a gun to defend yourself from a burglar. You just wouldn't be able to kill him in a giant hail of bullets. (Unless, of course, you're a felon.)

The first Amendment is absolutely curtailed: you can't slander people. You can lose your job by being an ass on social media. The 2nd absolutely should be curtailed in a way that other people's rights are not harmed. I don't want my kids to be terrified at school, something that is happening by asking them to do shooter drills, walk by armed cops every day, or go through metal detectors. These things harm their psyche more than they protect. If you have more hoops to jump through to own your gun so my kids can stop being reminded constantly that guns threaten them, yes, I fully support that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 26, 2018, 10:21:24 AM
I am pretty sure someone directly kicking in my door isn't there to preach peace.

Nawww you can say F GUNS!! If someone is hurt by that, then they have other issues at hand. I just want my rights and freedom to be protected, just because one hates guns, does not mean its moral to take away others rights. Also I bet you all love free speech? I hate social media and most news sites, so should I actively try to pass laws to limit your rights to free speech and how to express it? I personally say no, its part of why our nation is here. Other than that, I'm out of this debate, just wanted to add a bit more to the conversation and have people think for just a second how maybe guns are not just here committing crimes and that maybe there are many more good events happening due to guns.

Thank you all :)

Except none of that is relevant to what I said, but sure mic drop away from hard conversations.

Burglars are generally trying to avoid people (armed or otherwise) while doing their burglarizing, it tends not to be good for their outcomes. It's perfectly plausible that you could've scared them off without a gun too. There's no way to know with anything approaching certainty.

I fully appreciate the value racking a shotgun provides to someone trying to stop something bad from happening, but gun rights aren't a binary thing.

I also think you might not understand free speech. I know lots of people don't understand free speech.

The First Amendment protects you from government sanctions based on your speech. There are exceptions to those protections (time/manner/place restrictions). The First Amendment doesn't address what happens to you when you say something other people don't like, nor should it. It doesn't enshrine a right to a Twitter account, or the right to a book publishing and distribution deal. So when YouTube decides to restrict gun content and people get all "FREE SPEECH!" it just makes them look stupid, because they clearly don't understand what they're saying.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 26, 2018, 10:55:48 AM
Too many questions remain, at least one being, how many cases where a gun was used in self defense wouldn't have required a gun if neither party involved had a gun? And then about a million more questions.

Sorry, but this is not a valid criticism of the data. If you do that, then you need to figure out how many murders would still have occurred if neither party had a gun.... then, about a million other questions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 26, 2018, 11:06:17 AM
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/)

There seem to be around 300 justifiable homicides year on average in the US.  Assuming that 100% of these are from gun use, that still seems like a very tiny fraction when compared to the yearly homicides committed by guns.



Quote
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf)


Quote
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 26, 2018, 12:13:00 PM
I'm still trying to understand where the impression that liberals don't want straw purchasing to be treated as a serious crime comes from.  The people who have worked hard to ensure that it's difficult to prosecute straw purchasers are gun advocates who are most often found on the right end of the spectrum.

You think gun advocates are in control of Chicago and Maryland?

Difficulty prosecuting straw purchasers is not limited to these two locations in the US.

Under current Texas law (for example) it's legal to:
- Sell a firearm to a person that the transferor knows intends to use in the commission of a crime
- Transfer a firearm to a person they know is a felon, subject to an active domestic violence protective order, and/or with a serious history of dangerous mental illness (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases (https://www.txgunsense.org/articles/stop-straw-purchases))

It's extremely difficult to prosecute straw purchases when they're not breaking the law, and last I checked Texas was not known as being a liberal stronghold.

Those are still federal crimes though.

Right.  So why were we talking about Chicago then?  That damned federal government must not be doing it's job.  It's still liberal right?  All three branches?

 . . . and I'm still trying to understand where the idea that liberals don't want straw gun purchases prosecuted came from.  I mean, the places you're bitching about not caring about straw purchasers (Illiniois and Maryland) have enacted state laws to punish them . . . while a stalwart bastion of gun freedom and the NRA like Texas hasn't bothered to make it illegal.  I guess because they care so much.

Because Chicago not only has one-party rule and has had it for a long time, it would be one of the best places to do something if you wanted to make a dent in gun crime in the U.S.  If Chicago won't prosecute straw purchasers and seek meaningful punishment, then you can be pretty sure it's not gun rights activists stopping it from being treated seriously.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 26, 2018, 12:23:02 PM
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/)

There seem to be around 300 justifiable homicides year on average in the US.  Assuming that 100% of these are from gun use, that still seems like a very tiny fraction when compared to the yearly homicides committed by guns.



Quote
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf)


Quote
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101)

It is not at all valid to only consider justifiable homicides as legitimate defensive gun uses.  A justifiable homocide is the WORST possible way to use a gun for self defense... it's a last resort. Defensive brandishing, warning shots, etc are way more common than actually shooting someone in self defense, and that's a good thing. I understand that good data is hard to get on something like this... I'm not sure how to do it either. But for the  CDC to take a stab at it, and come up with 108,000 cannot be discounted with a hand wave as you seek to do. It shows there is a significant number of defensive uses, wither it's 50,000; 108,000, or 3 million. That shouldn't be discounted the way you want to.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 26, 2018, 12:31:34 PM
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/)

There seem to be around 300 justifiable homicides year on average in the US.  Assuming that 100% of these are from gun use, that still seems like a very tiny fraction when compared to the yearly homicides committed by guns.



Quote
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf)


Quote
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101)

It is not at all valid to only consider justifiable homicides as legitimate defensive gun uses.  A justifiable homocide is the WORST possible way to use a gun for self defense... it's a last resort. Defensive brandishing, warning shots, etc are way more common than actually shooting someone in self defense, and that's a good thing. I understand that good data is hard to get on something like this... I'm not sure how to do it either. But for the  CDC to take a stab at it, and come up with 108,000 cannot be discounted with a hand wave as you seek to do. It shows there is a significant number of defensive uses, wither it's 50,000; 108,000, or 3 million. That shouldn't be discounted the way you want to.

Then when considering the detrimental effects of gun use we need a study that covers similar territory.  We need to cover the uses of a gun for intimidation as well as unreported accidents.  If you don't have this number, then you're trying to compare apples (all possible defensive uses of a gun) to oranges (just reported crimes where gun use was proven by police).

I suspect that when comparing like to like you'll find that defensive uses are outnumbered by offensive uses.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 26, 2018, 12:37:52 PM
Right.  So why were we talking about Chicago then?  That damned federal government must not be doing it's job.  It's still liberal right?  All three branches?

 . . . and I'm still trying to understand where the idea that liberals don't want straw gun purchases prosecuted came from.  I mean, the places you're bitching about not caring about straw purchasers (Illiniois and Maryland) have enacted state laws to punish them . . . while a stalwart bastion of gun freedom and the NRA like Texas hasn't bothered to make it illegal.  I guess because they care so much.

Because Chicago not only has one-party rule and has had it for a long time, it would be one of the best places to do something if you wanted to make a dent in gun crime in the U.S.  If Chicago won't prosecute straw purchasers and seek meaningful punishment, then you can be pretty sure it's not gun rights activists stopping it from being treated seriously.

So we have a case where Chicago has a system to catch straw purchasers.  It is effective in doing so, and is used to prevent these people from buying guns again.  It typically results in no jail time.

In comparison, (in Texas for example) there is effectively no way to catch straw purchases.  Since they're not caught, they don't get jail time.  Since there's no registry/background checks done they're not prevented from doing this again.

You argument appears to be that the former is not treating gun crime seriously, and therefore 'liberals' are not interested in stopping straw purchasers.  You are completely silent on the latter for some reason.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 26, 2018, 03:36:53 PM
A closer measure of lives saved might be achieved by studying the number of justifiable homicides where a firearm was used.

After all, gun deaths are typically determined by the number of homicides reported by police . . . they don't often include injuries/intimidation with a gun.  It doesn't really make sense to compare a published study that does.  Comparing to justifiable homicides would probably give you a more representative number.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/)

There seem to be around 300 justifiable homicides year on average in the US.  Assuming that 100% of these are from gun use, that still seems like a very tiny fraction when compared to the yearly homicides committed by guns.



Quote
In 2010, for every justifiable homicide in the United States involving a gun, guns were used in 36 criminal homicides. And this ratio, of course, does not take into account the thousands of lives ended in gun suicides (19,392) or unintentional shootings (606) that year.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf)


Quote
Using data from a national random-digit-dial telephone survey of over 1,900 adults conducted in 1996, we find that criminal gun use is far more common than self-defense gun use.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11200101)

It is not at all valid to only consider justifiable homicides as legitimate defensive gun uses.  A justifiable homocide is the WORST possible way to use a gun for self defense... it's a last resort. Defensive brandishing, warning shots, etc are way more common than actually shooting someone in self defense, and that's a good thing. I understand that good data is hard to get on something like this... I'm not sure how to do it either. But for the  CDC to take a stab at it, and come up with 108,000 cannot be discounted with a hand wave as you seek to do. It shows there is a significant number of defensive uses, wither it's 50,000; 108,000, or 3 million. That shouldn't be discounted the way you want to.

Then when considering the detrimental effects of gun use we need a study that covers similar territory.  We need to cover the uses of a gun for intimidation as well as unreported accidents.  If you don't have this number, then you're trying to compare apples (all possible defensive uses of a gun) to oranges (just reported crimes where gun use was proven by police).

I suspect that when comparing like to like you'll find that defensive uses are outnumbered by offensive uses.

I suspect not.   With the lack of data, all we're left with is  speculation. So here is mine:

Given that there ARE figures for non-fatal firearms related crime, that put it in the 414,000 incidents/year range, and that most incidents where a gun is firearm related ARE reported to police.. The 414K figure factors in that they estimate 39% of non fatal firearm related crimes are unreported.

Given that ~75% of robberies, 70% of aggravated assault, and 91+% of other non-fatal violence was perpetrated by someone who was NOT armed, an absence of firearms would simply result in conversion of most "armed" crimes to "unarmed." IE, the crime would happen anyway. This follows - the goal of armed robbery isn't to be armed while robbing a house - the goal is to rob the house. The goal is to assault the person, to rape, to.. whatever. The gun in most cases, is secondary, and is there only to make sure if they're met by a homeowner with a bat, that they have the upper hand. Or they just carry it because Thug Life.  It is therefore not the gun that is the primary motive, facilitator, or creator of the crime. It is therefore not legitimate to add to the "detrimental" aspect of firearms... at least not a 1:1 ratio. 

Well, how much detriment should be attributed to firearms? It appears that of the 414k non-fatal violence incidents, 7% of them resulted in a serious injury, which may or may not have been a gunshot wound. Everything else involved no unjury, or minor things like bruises. Lets say, of those non-fatal incidents involving a firearm, 14% can be directly attributed to the availability of firearms... that 14% of  these crimes were possible mainly because of firearms, that firearms played a serious role in 14% of the incidents. That is ~57,000 incidents/yr.  Add in homicides... that's about 68000 per year.

With a defensive gun use, the goal of the gun is to make sure the home owner has the upper hand, if the criminal comes to the house armed with anything from a knife, up to and including a gun. When a gun is brandished against a criminal armed in any way, regardless of whether it's fired, it's done its job, and is accredited to defensive uses.

Yes, this is mostly speculation, approximation, and assumption. But it is as good as anything else I've seen out there for this, and I'm using what data is available.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on March 26, 2018, 08:11:36 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

2. I can't pin this down to any one post in particular, but there seems to be a general feeling on here from people opposing gun rights and from others I see in media. This feeling is that I have a right to not be afraid. Sometimes it's a little more tangible than that of I have a right to not get hurt. I dunno, I guess this is just foreign to me. I hear things like you can have your gun rights until they conflict with my rights to this or that which, again, tend to go back to not being afraid or not getting hurt. To me, again, this is just a very foreign thing. The fear thing especially seems odd and to be honest a little silly. Having a right to not be afraid...even writing it seems weird. I get it on one level. I don't want my kids to be afraid or live in fear. I wouldn't be too excited about my kids getting nervous because of active shooter drills. However, I wouldn't say that a "right" is being violated. People live in fear over the craziest things. I am no exception. I am afraid of ridiculous things that are very unlikely to happen many times. I don't really blame someone for my fear, though. I can choose to live in fear, or I can choose to not. If I'm living in the middle of a war zone, some healthy caution would be merited. However, at least the way I see it, these fears are not merited statistically compared to other risks, and I think it's silly to live in fear of these other even riskier things (auto accidents even if I drive a lot or whatever). If we live in that fear, it seems it's kind of on us, and I don't understand how the right to own a gun competes with the "right" to not be afraid. That doesn't seem to be a right. The other right mentioned of a right to not get hurt also seems a bit nebulous. I guess I've always just lived with the understanding that rights prevent limitations - they mean you are able to do something or you cannot be restricted from doing something. In some cases it's super clear - I can say the government stinks and they can't throw me in jail. In other cases, it's more, I guess, philosophical like, let's say discrimination. However, that can still be linked to ensuring someone is able to do something - find a job, find housing, etc. It makes sense as a right. This right to not have bad things happen to me as a theoretical or philosophical right...it just seems so, I don't know, all encompassing that I don't know how you would ever stop if you really believed that as a founding principle. I get it, I believe that there can be certain restrictions on things - we all drive on one side of the road to prevent accidents, so on and so forth. This is not to say there can't be gun control if you view things as I do. I can see the benefits of certain restrictions, compromise, and the like. However, I guess I just can't make that leap that I have this unalienable right to not have something bad happen to me. I don't have a right to not ever be punched in the face. Now, if someone does it, I would like for them to get punished for it, but to say that I truly have the right to not be punched in the face would mean that I would have to support some insane restrictions that would prevent anyone from being able to punch me in the face. It just doesn't seem like a right to me. Not that locking someone up for assault to keep them from assaulting someone else is a bad thing (the analogy breaks down here, but hopefully you get my drift). It's not a bad thing to have restrictions on things necessarily. I just don't understand how it's some right in the same line as a right to have free speech or to have the ability to defend yourself - and yes, defend yourself with a weapon. I realize this whole part is a little theoretical, but it seems at least somewhat important to me. Not sure if this part will/even should get any responses, but if someone believes these things are rights and has thoughts on it, please respond.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on March 26, 2018, 11:08:27 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

...


From a purely Australian perspective I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that can fire without reloading - i.e. semi-automatic or faster.  This would apply to all guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on March 27, 2018, 01:31:27 AM
Quote
Lets say, of those non-fatal incidents involving a firearm, 14% can be directly attributed to the availability of firearms... that 14% of  these crimes were possible mainly because of firearms, that firearms played a serious role in 14% of the incidents. That is ~57,000 incidents/yr.  Add in homicides... that's about 68000 per year.

Let’s say you live to 85 years old. That’s 5,700,000 incidents over your life time.

If gun violence continues increasing at 6% per year it’s 159,000,000 incidents in ones lifetime.

Either scenario seems far to high risk for my liking.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 27, 2018, 06:04:42 AM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

...


From a purely Australian perspective I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that can fire without reloading - i.e. semi-automatic or faster.  This would apply to all guns.

No, that’s not true.

It’s a common trope on the right that “the left” doesn’t know anything about guns and therefore you can’t have a conversation with them about gun control.

But plenty of military veterans are on the side of gun control, and they know that “assault rifle” was a term that came from them.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20180226/assault-weapons-have-no-place-with-civilians
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 27, 2018, 06:51:38 AM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

Acting like "assault rifle" doesn't have a specific meaning is intellectually dishonest at best. If you want me to say "assault weapon" instead, fine, but you're just being pedantic. We can quibble about details like what rounds a particular weapon uses, but that's basically misdirection.

-Pistol grip or bullpup design
-Modular
-Usually derived from selective-fire rifles initially designed for the military
-Detachable box magazine

 The vast majority of the weapons we're addressing here are in the M16/M4/AK47 realm. The overarching problem with this class of weapon is that they're designed to put a lot of bullets into targets in a short period of time, while moving. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with people wanting something like an M1 Garand. Yes, it's more destructive from a ballistics point of view, but overall rate of fire is basically limited by reloading speed and design.

I'm not delusional enough to think that gun control will stop violent people from doing violence. The kinds of changes we're talking about are harm reduction measures. The best data we have shows that, if you can't escape or effectively barricade, attacking a shooter is how you reduce casualties. When is the best time for an unarmed person to attack someone with a gun? When they're reloading.

2. I can't pin this down to any one post in particular, but there seems to be a general feeling on here from people opposing gun rights and from others I see in media. This feeling is that I have a right to not be afraid. Sometimes it's a little more tangible than that of I have a right to not get hurt. I dunno, I guess this is just foreign to me. I hear things like you can have your gun rights until they conflict with my rights to this or that which, again, tend to go back to not being afraid or not getting hurt. To me, again, this is just a very foreign thing. The fear thing especially seems odd and to be honest a little silly. Having a right to not be afraid...even writing it seems weird. I get it on one level. I don't want my kids to be afraid or live in fear. I wouldn't be too excited about my kids getting nervous because of active shooter drills. However, I wouldn't say that a "right" is being violated. People live in fear over the craziest things. I am no exception. I am afraid of ridiculous things that are very unlikely to happen many times. I don't really blame someone for my fear, though. I can choose to live in fear, or I can choose to not. If I'm living in the middle of a war zone, some healthy caution would be merited. However, at least the way I see it, these fears are not merited statistically compared to other risks, and I think it's silly to live in fear of these other even riskier things (auto accidents even if I drive a lot or whatever). If we live in that fear, it seems it's kind of on us, and I don't understand how the right to own a gun competes with the "right" to not be afraid. That doesn't seem to be a right. The other right mentioned of a right to not get hurt also seems a bit nebulous. I guess I've always just lived with the understanding that rights prevent limitations - they mean you are able to do something or you cannot be restricted from doing something. In some cases it's super clear - I can say the government stinks and they can't throw me in jail. In other cases, it's more, I guess, philosophical like, let's say discrimination. However, that can still be linked to ensuring someone is able to do something - find a job, find housing, etc. It makes sense as a right. This right to not have bad things happen to me as a theoretical or philosophical right...it just seems so, I don't know, all encompassing that I don't know how you would ever stop if you really believed that as a founding principle. I get it, I believe that there can be certain restrictions on things - we all drive on one side of the road to prevent accidents, so on and so forth. This is not to say there can't be gun control if you view things as I do. I can see the benefits of certain restrictions, compromise, and the like. However, I guess I just can't make that leap that I have this unalienable right to not have something bad happen to me. I don't have a right to not ever be punched in the face. Now, if someone does it, I would like for them to get punished for it, but to say that I truly have the right to not be punched in the face would mean that I would have to support some insane restrictions that would prevent anyone from being able to punch me in the face. It just doesn't seem like a right to me. Not that locking someone up for assault to keep them from assaulting someone else is a bad thing (the analogy breaks down here, but hopefully you get my drift). It's not a bad thing to have restrictions on things necessarily. I just don't understand how it's some right in the same line as a right to have free speech or to have the ability to defend yourself - and yes, defend yourself with a weapon. I realize this whole part is a little theoretical, but it seems at least somewhat important to me. Not sure if this part will/even should get any responses, but if someone believes these things are rights and has thoughts on it, please respond.

A. Right to life supersedes pretty much everything else
B. "Opposing gun rights" is a not-so-subtle dig at anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of gun rights
C. Just because something is foreign to you doesn't mean it's invalid or silly
D. Some of the most fearful people I know are gun owners, they've bought into the amped up rhetoric about how violent the world is, and they can't see things any other way
E. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. I just don't think any random slob off the street should be able to be any weapon imaginable.  But sure, act like I'm a hysterical know-nothing.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 27, 2018, 07:22:22 AM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

Here's one definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

I think the federal ban was incomplete and had too many exemptions. I also think we should drop the "Assault Weapon" term, but only because there is not a 100% agreed upon definition and some gun rights advocates like to use that fact to end the discussion. Most definitions overlap but if someone is for an assault weapons ban what that really means is that they are in favor of banning more weapons than we currently do. If someone uses the term "assault weapon" what they're really saying is, "weapon that I think should be banned".

ETA: I assumed you meant "assault weapons" rather than "assault rifles"
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 27, 2018, 07:55:27 AM
Quote
Lets say, of those non-fatal incidents involving a firearm, 14% can be directly attributed to the availability of firearms... that 14% of  these crimes were possible mainly because of firearms, that firearms played a serious role in 14% of the incidents. That is ~57,000 incidents/yr.  Add in homicides... that's about 68000 per year.

Let’s say you live to 85 years old. That’s 5,700,000 incidents over your life time.

If gun violence continues increasing at 6% per year it’s 159,000,000 incidents in ones lifetime.

Either scenario seems far to high risk for my liking.

You realize how... wrong... you conclusion is? 57,000 is just a subset of 414k/year incidences of violent crime. by your math, and your assumption of a 6% increase every year, an individual would be subject to multiple cases of violent crime every year? Gun violence, and violence overall, by all credible accounts, has been steady or decreasing since the early 1990s.  The risk you face now is lower than it has been in a long time.

Try using facts instead of relying on the media to tell you what to be afraid of.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 27, 2018, 08:03:45 AM
I suspect not.   With the lack of data, all we're left with is  speculation. So here is mine:

Given that there ARE figures for non-fatal firearms related crime, that put it in the 414,000 incidents/year range, and that most incidents where a gun is firearm related ARE reported to police.. The 414K figure factors in that they estimate 39% of non fatal firearm related crimes are unreported.

Who is 'they', and what study are you referencing where 'they' estimate that 39% of non-fatal firearm related crimes are unreported?  I can find several studies with different figures.

This study (for example) lists 478,000 reported crimes involving firearms in 2011:  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf)

This study lists that 52% of all violent victimizations go unreported, 38% of firearm related ones:  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf)

That means that we're likely talking about roughly 659,000 violent crimes involving guns.  That doesn't even include non-violent stuff though . . . which would likely drive the numbers higher.


Given that ~75% of robberies, 70% of aggravated assault, and 91+% of other non-fatal violence was perpetrated by someone who was NOT armed, an absence of firearms would simply result in conversion of most "armed" crimes to "unarmed." IE, the crime would happen anyway. This follows - the goal of armed robbery isn't to be armed while robbing a house - the goal is to rob the house. The goal is to assault the person, to rape, to.. whatever. The gun in most cases, is secondary, and is there only to make sure if they're met by a homeowner with a bat, that they have the upper hand. Or they just carry it because Thug Life.  It is therefore not the gun that is the primary motive, facilitator, or creator of the crime. It is therefore not legitimate to add to the "detrimental" aspect of firearms... at least not a 1:1 ratio.

Agreed.

However, the example you're citing adds all of the same types of suspect measures to the 'beneficial' aspect of firearms.  Likely many of the reported cases would have been resolved by holding a baseball bat or shovel (in some cases, even shouting/disturbing the person performing the crime could get them to flee).  If you're going to insist that we compare those illegitimate statistics on the pro gun side, we need to compare like to like.  There's also the issue of the unreliability of the self-reported data from the study.

What solution do you propose for this?


Well, how much detriment should be attributed to firearms? It appears that of the 414k non-fatal violence incidents, 7% of them resulted in a serious injury, which may or may not have been a gunshot wound. Everything else involved no unjury, or minor things like bruises. Lets say, of those non-fatal incidents involving a firearm, 14% can be directly attributed to the availability of firearms... that 14% of  these crimes were possible mainly because of firearms, that firearms played a serious role in 14% of the incidents. That is ~57,000 incidents/yr.  Add in homicides... that's about 68000 per year.


On what basis are you discounting 86% of incidents?  What is the reasoning that led to this number?


With a defensive gun use, the goal of the gun is to make sure the home owner has the upper hand, if the criminal comes to the house armed with anything from a knife, up to and including a gun. When a gun is brandished against a criminal armed in any way, regardless of whether it's fired, it's done its job, and is accredited to defensive uses.

With offensive gun use, the goal of the gun is to make sure that the aggressor has the upper hand.  If the victim comes to the crime scene armed with anything from a knife up to and including a gun.  When a gun is brandished against a victim in any way, regardless of whether it's fired, it's done its job, and should be accredited to crimnal use.

That will radically inflate the number of criminal gun uses we're discussing . . . in the same way you're inflating the number of defensive gun uses.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 27, 2018, 09:14:19 AM
Right.  So why were we talking about Chicago then?  That damned federal government must not be doing it's job.  It's still liberal right?  All three branches?

 . . . and I'm still trying to understand where the idea that liberals don't want straw gun purchases prosecuted came from.  I mean, the places you're bitching about not caring about straw purchasers (Illiniois and Maryland) have enacted state laws to punish them . . . while a stalwart bastion of gun freedom and the NRA like Texas hasn't bothered to make it illegal.  I guess because they care so much.

Because Chicago not only has one-party rule and has had it for a long time, it would be one of the best places to do something if you wanted to make a dent in gun crime in the U.S.  If Chicago won't prosecute straw purchasers and seek meaningful punishment, then you can be pretty sure it's not gun rights activists stopping it from being treated seriously.

So we have a case where Chicago has a system to catch straw purchasers.  It is effective in doing so, and is used to prevent these people from buying guns again.  It typically results in no jail time.

In comparison, (in Texas for example) there is effectively no way to catch straw purchases.  Since they're not caught, they don't get jail time.  Since there's no registry/background checks done they're not prevented from doing this again.

You argument appears to be that the former is not treating gun crime seriously, and therefore 'liberals' are not interested in stopping straw purchasers.  You are completely silent on the latter for some reason.

The former is not treating gun crime seriously.  If you don't think procuring guns for people who are banned from buying guns is worthy of jail time, then you obviously don't consider background checks that important. 

And I'm still not buying that Texas doesn't make it illegal to act as a straw purchaser, at least for somebody banned from having a gun.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 27, 2018, 10:06:51 AM
Right.  So why were we talking about Chicago then?  That damned federal government must not be doing it's job.  It's still liberal right?  All three branches?

 . . . and I'm still trying to understand where the idea that liberals don't want straw gun purchases prosecuted came from.  I mean, the places you're bitching about not caring about straw purchasers (Illiniois and Maryland) have enacted state laws to punish them . . . while a stalwart bastion of gun freedom and the NRA like Texas hasn't bothered to make it illegal.  I guess because they care so much.

Because Chicago not only has one-party rule and has had it for a long time, it would be one of the best places to do something if you wanted to make a dent in gun crime in the U.S.  If Chicago won't prosecute straw purchasers and seek meaningful punishment, then you can be pretty sure it's not gun rights activists stopping it from being treated seriously.

So we have a case where Chicago has a system to catch straw purchasers.  It is effective in doing so, and is used to prevent these people from buying guns again.  It typically results in no jail time.

In comparison, (in Texas for example) there is effectively no way to catch straw purchases.  Since they're not caught, they don't get jail time.  Since there's no registry/background checks done they're not prevented from doing this again.

You argument appears to be that the former is not treating gun crime seriously, and therefore 'liberals' are not interested in stopping straw purchasers.  You are completely silent on the latter for some reason.

The former is not treating gun crime seriously.  If you don't think procuring guns for people who are banned from buying guns is worthy of jail time, then you obviously don't consider background checks that important. 

Sigh.

If you don't support a gun registry, you obviously don't believe that catching straw purchasers is all that important, because the costs of prosecution will deter cases from ever making it to court.  See?  I can play the same game that you're doing.  But it's not really productive.

I'd personally like harsher penalties for straw purchasers than Maryland is handing out.  I'm happy that they've got a framework in place that actually allows small time straw purchasers to be caught and prosecuted though (unlike most places with lax gun laws).



And I'm still not buying that Texas doesn't make it illegal to act as a straw purchaser, at least for somebody banned from having a gun.

As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 27, 2018, 01:19:49 PM
About the fear comment form Wolfpack: why are gun owners so afraid all the time? Why do they need weapons all over the house "just in case"? Why do they need to strap on a gun just to go for a walk in the neighborhood or to the local store? Is life so terrifyingly dangerous where they live that this is necessary? I'd probably move if that was true.

I've never strapped on a gun, even when I lived in a high crime area, and I don't feel a lack in my life because of this. We don't own a gun because we believe having one with kids is much more irresponsible than the opposite.

See, I don't care if you're afraid all the time and think a gun will solve that just like you don't care about my fears. I don't care if you carry a gun as long as you do so responsibly. As long as lax gun laws don't mean your fear spills into my life. That is what I mean by wanting these shooter drills to stop being necessary. They never were when I was growing up, so I can only conclude our laws have become lax enough that something needs to change. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert and know how best to do that. I can only support those who think they have the answers.

If gun owners only ridicule and try to shut down the conversation, they will ultimately have no say in how this goes.  I don't think the NRA is going to win this forever, thankfully.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 27, 2018, 03:42:20 PM
I suspect not.   With the lack of data, all we're left with is  speculation. So here is mine:

Given that there ARE figures for non-fatal firearms related crime, that put it in the 414,000 incidents/year range, and that most incidents where a gun is firearm related ARE reported to police.. The 414K figure factors in that they estimate 39% of non fatal firearm related crimes are unreported.

Who is 'they', and what study are you referencing where 'they' estimate that 39% of non-fatal firearm related crimes are unreported?  I can find several studies with different figures.

This study (for example) lists 478,000 reported crimes involving firearms in 2011:  https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf)


That means that we're likely talking about roughly 659,000 violent crimes involving guns.  That doesn't even include non-violent stuff though . . . which would likely drive the numbers higher.


The BJS you linked, thought I'd included that.
You are misquoting the data, by the way.  There were 414,000 incidents. The 478k figure you use is the number of people victimized... some of the 414K figures involved multiple people. The same article indicates that 61% of nonfatal firearm violence is reported (page 12.) I accounted for this later in my estimation thing.

Quote
Given that ~75% of robberies, 70% of aggravated assault, and 91+% of other non-fatal violence was perpetrated by someone who was NOT armed, an absence of firearms would simply result in conversion of most "armed" crimes to "unarmed." IE, the crime would happen anyway. This follows - the goal of armed robbery isn't to be armed while robbing a house - the goal is to rob the house. The goal is to assault the person, to rape, to.. whatever. The gun in most cases, is secondary, and is there only to make sure if they're met by a homeowner with a bat, that they have the upper hand. Or they just carry it because Thug Life.  It is therefore not the gun that is the primary motive, facilitator, or creator of the crime. It is therefore not legitimate to add to the "detrimental" aspect of firearms... at least not a 1:1 ratio.

Agreed.

However, the example you're citing adds all of the same types of suspect measures to the 'beneficial' aspect of firearms.  Likely many of the reported cases would have been resolved by holding a baseball bat or shovel (in some cases, even shouting/disturbing the person performing the crime could get them to flee).  If you're going to insist that we compare those illegitimate statistics on the pro gun side, we need to compare like to like.  There's also the issue of the unreliability of the self-reported data from the study.

What solution do you propose for this?

Likely, some cases where a person was coerced or non-fatally wounded with a gun, would have been hurt/coereced just the same, had there not been a gun available. I think you assume that somehow, a robbery at gunpoint is different than robbery at the tip of a crowbar. You're still robbed.
Additionally, An individual has no idea what weapon a assailant might bring. It is therefore a "positive" aspect of gun ownership that one little item can level the playing field no matter what is brought against them, so any defensive use should be accreditive to the positive impact of guns on society. With anything less than a gun... who knows if it'll be enough? It's not incumbent on the victim to scale down their response to match - they just need to protect themselves.  I don't think I'm articulating this very well, but there it is. I may come back and edit this if I can think of a better way to word it.

Quote

Well, how much detriment should be attributed to firearms? It appears that of the 414k non-fatal violence incidents, 7% of them resulted in a serious injury, which may or may not have been a gunshot wound. Everything else involved no unjury, or minor things like bruises. Lets say, of those non-fatal incidents involving a firearm, 14% can be directly attributed to the availability of firearms... that 14% of  these crimes were possible mainly because of firearms, that firearms played a serious role in 14% of the incidents. That is ~57,000 incidents/yr.  Add in homicides... that's about 68000 per year.


On what basis are you discounting 86% of incidents?  What is the reasoning that led to this number?

The BJS article indicates that 7% of the incidents involved the perpetrator firing the weapon. I figure that if the gun was fired, then the crime was definitely defined by the presence of the firearm. I then multipled by 2.

Quote

With a defensive gun use, the goal of the gun is to make sure the home owner has the upper hand, if the criminal comes to the house armed with anything from a knife, up to and including a gun. When a gun is brandished against a criminal armed in any way, regardless of whether it's fired, it's done its job, and is accredited to defensive uses.

With offensive gun use, the goal of the gun is to make sure that the aggressor has the upper hand.  If the victim comes to the crime scene armed with anything from a knife up to and including a gun.  When a gun is brandished against a victim in any way, regardless of whether it's fired, it's done its job, and should be accredited to crimnal use.

In your logic, you leave out that the aggressor is choosing to commit a crime. That's on the aggressor, not the inanimate object they're carrying. Unless the gun is used, I don't think it had a whole lot of impact on the occurrence or severity of the crime. Ergo, my 14% figure.

Quote
That will radically inflate the number of criminal gun uses we're discussing . . . in the same way you're inflating the number of defensive gun uses.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 27, 2018, 04:09:43 PM
About the fear comment form Wolfpack: why are gun owners so afraid all the time? Why do they need weapons all over the house "just in case"? Why do they need to strap on a gun just to go for a walk in the neighborhood or to the local store? Is life so terrifyingly dangerous where they live that this is necessary? I'd probably move if that was true.

Nice straw man. Try again.

Quote
I've never strapped on a gun, even when I lived in a high crime area, and I don't feel a lack in my life because of this. We don't own a gun because we believe having one with kids is much more irresponsible than the opposite.
I respect your self awareness and decision to make that choice in your life. I make a different one and hold a different opinion about what is and isn't responsible.
Quote

See, I don't care if you're afraid all the time and think a gun will solve that just like you don't care about my fears. I don't care if you carry a gun as long as you do so responsibly. As long as lax gun laws don't mean your fear spills into my life. That is what I mean by wanting these shooter drills to stop being necessary. They never were when I was growing up, so I can only conclude our laws have become lax enough that something needs to change. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert and know how best to do that. I can only support those who think they have the answers.

Shooter drills are currently unnecessary, if you want to look a the the numbers. There are on average, 8 children killed each year in a school shooting. Those are 8 horrendous tragedies, to be sure... each with untold lost potential.  We are acutely aware of them due to our media... Which I believe, is responsible for some of the increases in thier occurance we've seen.   I don't know when you grew up, but if you went to school any time is since around 1992, or even back to 1980, they've been about as necessary as they are now. Maybe more if you adjust for population.
Quote
If gun owners only ridicule and try to shut down the conversation, they will ultimately have no say in how this goes.  I don't think the NRA is going to win this forever, thankfully.

I agree than firearms owners should participate in the discussion, or the ignorant masses in a media driven frenzy of fear will overshoot the mark.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on March 27, 2018, 04:30:29 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

...


From a purely Australian perspective I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that can fire without reloading - i.e. semi-automatic or faster.  This would apply to all guns.

No, that’s not true.

It’s a common trope on the right that “the left” doesn’t know anything about guns and therefore you can’t have a conversation with them about gun control.

But plenty of military veterans are on the side of gun control, and they know that “assault rifle” was a term that came from them.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20180226/assault-weapons-have-no-place-with-civilians

Thanks for your comment, Kris. I was not trying to go down the path that no liberals know anything about guns and therefore can't have a discussion. My comment was intended to be very focused on specifically what I was not seeing, which is virtually any details on this proposed ban on this thread or in any commentary on major news outlets about what exactly this ban on assault weapons, rifles, or whatever the term used is.

In regards to your comment about "plenty of military veterans" who know that "assault rifle" was a term that came from them, I would respectfully say that your article which, as much as I could tell references only one person, does not convey that. To me, it seemed anecdotal commentary by someone who did, of course serve in the military, of their opinion on gun control. Not to be snarky, but I have plenty of anecdotes myself of people with different positions. If you have any links that show that any of these terms were originated by the military and tie into specific, tangible things about a rifle, I would certainly be interested in it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on March 27, 2018, 04:46:50 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

...


From a purely Australian perspective I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that can fire without reloading - i.e. semi-automatic or faster.  This would apply to all guns.

No, that’s not true.

It’s a common trope on the right that “the left” doesn’t know anything about guns and therefore you can’t have a conversation with them about gun control.

But plenty of military veterans are on the side of gun control, and they know that “assault rifle” was a term that came from them.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20180226/assault-weapons-have-no-place-with-civilians

Thanks for your comment, Kris. I was not trying to go down the path that no liberals know anything about guns and therefore can't have a discussion. My comment was intended to be very focused on specifically what I was not seeing, which is virtually any details on this proposed ban on this thread or in any commentary on major news outlets about what exactly this ban on assault weapons, rifles, or whatever the term used is.

In regards to your comment about "plenty of military veterans" who know that "assault rifle" was a term that came from them, I would respectfully say that your article which, as much as I could tell references only one person, does not convey that. To me, it seemed anecdotal commentary by someone who did, of course serve in the military, of their opinion on gun control. Not to be snarky, but I have plenty of anecdotes myself of people with different positions. If you have any links that show that any of these terms were originated by the military and tie into specific, tangible things about a rifle, I would certainly be interested in it.

Yes, it was anecdotal. And anecdotally, I see many, many military and ex-military use the term "assault rifle" and they seem to have no trouble with it -- and they are clearly quite familiar with weapons. Interestingly, I have read that the term came from Hitler.

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

As to what an assault rifle actually is, it doesn't seem particularly in doubt.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/a-brief-history-of-the-assault-rifle/489428/


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 27, 2018, 05:16:45 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

...


From a purely Australian perspective I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that can fire without reloading - i.e. semi-automatic or faster.  This would apply to all guns.

No, that’s not true.

It’s a common trope on the right that “the left” doesn’t know anything about guns and therefore you can’t have a conversation with them about gun control.

But plenty of military veterans are on the side of gun control, and they know that “assault rifle” was a term that came from them.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20180226/assault-weapons-have-no-place-with-civilians

Thanks for your comment, Kris. I was not trying to go down the path that no liberals know anything about guns and therefore can't have a discussion. My comment was intended to be very focused on specifically what I was not seeing, which is virtually any details on this proposed ban on this thread or in any commentary on major news outlets about what exactly this ban on assault weapons, rifles, or whatever the term used is.

In regards to your comment about "plenty of military veterans" who know that "assault rifle" was a term that came from them, I would respectfully say that your article which, as much as I could tell references only one person, does not convey that. To me, it seemed anecdotal commentary by someone who did, of course serve in the military, of their opinion on gun control. Not to be snarky, but I have plenty of anecdotes myself of people with different positions. If you have any links that show that any of these terms were originated by the military and tie into specific, tangible things about a rifle, I would certainly be interested in it.

Yes, it was anecdotal. And anecdotally, I see many, many military and ex-military use the term "assault rifle" and they seem to have no trouble with it -- and they are clearly quite familiar with weapons. Interestingly, I have read that the term came from Hitler.

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

As to what an assault rifle actually is, it doesn't seem particularly in doubt.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/a-brief-history-of-the-assault-rifle/489428/

The wikipedia link you gave specifically states that it is referring to automatic rifles (it refers to another wikipedia article - see below) and the atlantic article refers military rifles which are automatic as well.

Here's a link to wikipedia regarding "assault weapons which has a wide variety of definitions.

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

Other than pissing off lawful gun owners, why is the gun control side so focused on rifles which are used in a minority of homicides and difficult to define?

Some sort of universal background check without a registry would be a lot better use of time and might actually have a chance if structured correctly.  In addition, it would address pistols which comprise the vast majority of crimes (including many mass shootings).

John Paul Stevens came out today advocating for the repeal of the 2nd amendment.  That's the ultimate goal of many in the movement (not you necessarily).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on March 27, 2018, 07:03:35 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

Acting like "assault rifle" doesn't have a specific meaning is intellectually dishonest at best. If you want me to say "assault weapon" instead, fine, but you're just being pedantic. We can quibble about details like what rounds a particular weapon uses, but that's basically misdirection.

-Pistol grip or bullpup design
-Modular
-Usually derived from selective-fire rifles initially designed for the military
-Detachable box magazine

 The vast majority of the weapons we're addressing here are in the M16/M4/AK47 realm. The overarching problem with this class of weapon is that they're designed to put a lot of bullets into targets in a short period of time, while moving. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with people wanting something like an M1 Garand. Yes, it's more destructive from a ballistics point of view, but overall rate of fire is basically limited by reloading speed and design.

I'm not delusional enough to think that gun control will stop violent people from doing violence. The kinds of changes we're talking about are harm reduction measures. The best data we have shows that, if you can't escape or effectively barricade, attacking a shooter is how you reduce casualties. When is the best time for an unarmed person to attack someone with a gun? When they're reloading.

2. I can't pin this down to any one post in particular, but there seems to be a general feeling on here from people opposing gun rights and from others I see in media. This feeling is that I have a right to not be afraid. Sometimes it's a little more tangible than that of I have a right to not get hurt. I dunno, I guess this is just foreign to me. I hear things like you can have your gun rights until they conflict with my rights to this or that which, again, tend to go back to not being afraid or not getting hurt. To me, again, this is just a very foreign thing. The fear thing especially seems odd and to be honest a little silly. Having a right to not be afraid...even writing it seems weird. I get it on one level. I don't want my kids to be afraid or live in fear. I wouldn't be too excited about my kids getting nervous because of active shooter drills. However, I wouldn't say that a "right" is being violated. People live in fear over the craziest things. I am no exception. I am afraid of ridiculous things that are very unlikely to happen many times. I don't really blame someone for my fear, though. I can choose to live in fear, or I can choose to not. If I'm living in the middle of a war zone, some healthy caution would be merited. However, at least the way I see it, these fears are not merited statistically compared to other risks, and I think it's silly to live in fear of these other even riskier things (auto accidents even if I drive a lot or whatever). If we live in that fear, it seems it's kind of on us, and I don't understand how the right to own a gun competes with the "right" to not be afraid. That doesn't seem to be a right. The other right mentioned of a right to not get hurt also seems a bit nebulous. I guess I've always just lived with the understanding that rights prevent limitations - they mean you are able to do something or you cannot be restricted from doing something. In some cases it's super clear - I can say the government stinks and they can't throw me in jail. In other cases, it's more, I guess, philosophical like, let's say discrimination. However, that can still be linked to ensuring someone is able to do something - find a job, find housing, etc. It makes sense as a right. This right to not have bad things happen to me as a theoretical or philosophical right...it just seems so, I don't know, all encompassing that I don't know how you would ever stop if you really believed that as a founding principle. I get it, I believe that there can be certain restrictions on things - we all drive on one side of the road to prevent accidents, so on and so forth. This is not to say there can't be gun control if you view things as I do. I can see the benefits of certain restrictions, compromise, and the like. However, I guess I just can't make that leap that I have this unalienable right to not have something bad happen to me. I don't have a right to not ever be punched in the face. Now, if someone does it, I would like for them to get punished for it, but to say that I truly have the right to not be punched in the face would mean that I would have to support some insane restrictions that would prevent anyone from being able to punch me in the face. It just doesn't seem like a right to me. Not that locking someone up for assault to keep them from assaulting someone else is a bad thing (the analogy breaks down here, but hopefully you get my drift). It's not a bad thing to have restrictions on things necessarily. I just don't understand how it's some right in the same line as a right to have free speech or to have the ability to defend yourself - and yes, defend yourself with a weapon. I realize this whole part is a little theoretical, but it seems at least somewhat important to me. Not sure if this part will/even should get any responses, but if someone believes these things are rights and has thoughts on it, please respond.

A. Right to life supersedes pretty much everything else
B. "Opposing gun rights" is a not-so-subtle dig at anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of gun rights
C. Just because something is foreign to you doesn't mean it's invalid or silly
D. Some of the most fearful people I know are gun owners, they've bought into the amped up rhetoric about how violent the world is, and they can't see things any other way
E. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to own a gun. I just don't think any random slob off the street should be able to be any weapon imaginable.  But sure, act like I'm a hysterical know-nothing.


Wow, ok, so let's address these one at a time. Your accusation that "acting like "assault rifle" doesn't have a specific meaning is intellectually dishonest at best" honestly made me laugh out loud. Intellectually dishonest....seriously? We're talking on a range of things from higher level philosophy to nuts and bolts of proposed changes on this board and yet I'm being intellectually dishonest for commenting that in 18 pages of this thread, I've seen virtually no one provide a definition of a word that has been called out for its vagueness many times....? Seriously? I have no qualms with it being assault rifle, assault weapon, or whatever the heck you want to call it, and I am certainly not being pedantic. Almost every person on this thread who supports gun control comes in with the line of reasoning, but "We're not trying to take your guns! Stop being ridiculous!" Well, you're talking about banning something. Banning. Full stop. And when I ask for a definition of what you're wanting to ban, you accuse me of obfuscating the point.... In any other debate on policy decisions if I said I want to ban something and can't be called on to give the details of what I'm wanting to ban, I'd be laughed out of the room, and rightly so. What does assault rifle/weapon mean? No one seems to be able to come to a consensus. The last time we banned them, even gun control advocates on here admit at least one or two of the items on the list were superfluous, so yes, defining what it means is kind of important. So, aside from your silly (used the word again on purpose, admittedly :-) ) questioning of my intents, let's look at your comments.

Pistol grip - ok, a detail we can discuss. Does it make a weapon easier to kill people than without it or than a handgun or whatnot? Again, something we can discuss now that you've spelled out something specific.

Modular - now this opens up a whole new can of worms, which is excellent. We need to figure out what people actually want and what makes sense. What's wrong with being modular? We need to know this to know what degree of modularity would actually be banned from a very modular AR-15 down to adding a scope on a bolt action single shot rifle. We can't have rational discourse without this stuff, IMO.

Usually derived from selective-fire rifles initially designed for the military - I won't belabor the point, but this is a great reason why this stuff needs to be detailed. Other than illegal modifications, anything that fires more than one shot per trigger pull is pretty much outlawed and yet, I would imagine when many people think about assault rifles or weapons, this is what they think of, and when they think of banning them, that's probably at least the thought that comes to mind.

Detachable box magazine - OK, so again, important details. I'm no gun expert, but I believe this would eliminate a significant portion of all semi-automatic rifles on the market. Is it worth it? Worth debating, but it's important to know the implications.

The comments after your initial statements show that you're clearly familiar with guns. I don't mean to condescend, but again, I don't see what the problem is with trying to figure out what we're actually wanting to ban before we make legislation.

As for your response to the second part, I believe you took it in a way that I was not intending. First of all, opposing gun rights, point conceded, not the best phrase.

For the "just because something is foreign to me doesn't mean it's invalid or silly," I never said it did. I said it seemed silly...just trying to convey how I saw it. If I wasn't clear, I was asking for input on people that saw it differently, not saying they were morons.

For the comment about fearful gun owners...sure, there are plenty of fearful gun owners. I'm just saying not being afraid is not a right in and of itself.

For the "right to life supersedes pretty much everything else," that's great! Please expound. That's the argument that I find completely alien, but it seems to be what people feel. If the right to life supersedes pretty much everything else, then we need to regulate everything intensely hard and do it yesterday. We apply right to life to guns because it's easy fodder so to speak, but if one really think right to life supersedes everything else, I don't see how it ends (and this is not a slippery slope argument, this is at the very base of the belief) in anything but, again, very intense restrictions. To allow any kind of standard social interactions with anything dangerous at all (cars, guns, knives, golf clubs, martial arts knowledge, what have you) would be to allow the risk of an end to this "right to life." Of course the risk is much less for tons of things compared to guns, no argument there. However, I feel like guns are an easy focal point (low hanging fruit gun control people would probably say), but this perspective isn't extended to it's logical conclusion if it's truly the most basic most important personal right....at least the way I see it.

To your final point, there's a huge gulf between someone not being able to own any gun whatsoever and "any random slob off the street" owning "any weapon imaginable." I'm trying to refine what people actually want and have intellectual conversations on fair level ground where we both know what we're debating. But sure, act like I'm asking the world and deriding you when I ask for a few details....
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on March 27, 2018, 07:08:56 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

Here's one definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

I think the federal ban was incomplete and had too many exemptions. I also think we should drop the "Assault Weapon" term, but only because there is not a 100% agreed upon definition and some gun rights advocates like to use that fact to end the discussion. Most definitions overlap but if someone is for an assault weapons ban what that really means is that they are in favor of banning more weapons than we currently do. If someone uses the term "assault weapon" what they're really saying is, "weapon that I think should be banned".

ETA: I assumed you meant "assault weapons" rather than "assault rifles"

I guess, I don't really think it's worth a big debate over "assault weapons" and "assault rifles." The terms are charged and many gun control advocates mean different things when they say them (as I believe you talked about, basically they mean it's a "weapon I think should be banned." It's not hard to see how people that are leery of things being banned are very leery of I want this something banned in my mind that I know what I'm meaning but I can't assume anyone else does. As I droned on for some time in the response above :), I'd like people to say what they want to ban. I.e. I want to ban all semi-automatic rifles. I want to ban all semi-automatic handguns. I want to ban all magazines with greater than 10 rounds capacity.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on March 27, 2018, 07:45:36 PM
About the fear comment form Wolfpack: why are gun owners so afraid all the time? Why do they need weapons all over the house "just in case"? Why do they need to strap on a gun just to go for a walk in the neighborhood or to the local store? Is life so terrifyingly dangerous where they live that this is necessary? I'd probably move if that was true.

I've never strapped on a gun, even when I lived in a high crime area, and I don't feel a lack in my life because of this. We don't own a gun because we believe having one with kids is much more irresponsible than the opposite.

See, I don't care if you're afraid all the time and think a gun will solve that just like you don't care about my fears. I don't care if you carry a gun as long as you do so responsibly. As long as lax gun laws don't mean your fear spills into my life. That is what I mean by wanting these shooter drills to stop being necessary. They never were when I was growing up, so I can only conclude our laws have become lax enough that something needs to change. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert and know how best to do that. I can only support those who think they have the answers.

If gun owners only ridicule and try to shut down the conversation, they will ultimately have no say in how this goes.  I don't think the NRA is going to win this forever, thankfully.

To your fear comment, I completely agree and even mentioned a while back in this thread that both sides are very emotional on the subject. I’m just saying that I think people viewing it as if they have a right to not be afraid is just really out there to me. Where does it end? I’m afraid at times of financial issues although I’m not in a terrible financial position. It’s not a rational fear. Should I have a right to not be afraid, if it meant I would get 10 million dollars or whatever it is. I know this is a silly analogy, but I don’t see how to not go down the silly route when we’re saying or implying that we truly have a right to not be afraid...

If the only argument to own a gun was the right to not be afraid, then sure, I would say there’s no right to own a gun. However, the right to own a gun ties to the right to defend yourself. That’s not a nebulous thing. That’s a basic right that says the government can’t take away your right to have a tool that could be instrumental in defending yourself or your family. If you take away the right to own a gun, the government is literally restricting me from being able to physically (not in my mind but physically) do something that I feel is pretty important – defense of your family. I’m not saying the government is doing this or you want to do this or anything. My whole point with the fear argument is that I feel these things are on totally different planes. One is a tangible right to me, the other is so vast and could go down so many rabbit holes, I have a hard time taking it seriously.

My response to your comment about active shooter drills is they’re not necessary. This is a tremendous statistically unlikely possibility. People are doing it because of an irrational fear perpetuated by a media that loves to report bad things.  These are tragedies, but as the point that has been beaten like a dead horse, your kids and mine are safer today than they were 3 decades ago, and there’s multiple other things more likely to endanger their lives, especially over the course of their lives, than guns. That’s why I target on the fear thing. The way I see it, it’s not lax gun laws spilling over into your life. It’s an irrational fear of lack of safety perpetuated by a media that thrives on it making us feel less and less safe. Having a gun to me is not a function of being afraid or of the likelihood of needing it. It’s the desire to be able to do something in the event it is actually needed. I’m sure it’s not totally logical either :).

I hope the comment about gun owners ridiculing and shutting down conversation wasn’t directed at me. I feel like I’ve tried to be pretty inviting to discussion and not derogatory, but I’m fallible too. Not to be too blunt, but it’s also not just the gun owners that are shutting down the conversations. I’ve had enough conversations/seen posts etc. from people adamant about gun control to believe that it’s really on both sides.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 27, 2018, 07:49:31 PM
So can we put to rest the whole “no one’s trying to take your guns away” tripe?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on March 27, 2018, 08:01:16 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

...


From a purely Australian perspective I would say an assault weapon is any weapon that can fire without reloading - i.e. semi-automatic or faster.  This would apply to all guns.

No, that’s not true.

It’s a common trope on the right that “the left” doesn’t know anything about guns and therefore you can’t have a conversation with them about gun control.

But plenty of military veterans are on the side of gun control, and they know that “assault rifle” was a term that came from them.

http://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20180226/assault-weapons-have-no-place-with-civilians

Thanks for your comment, Kris. I was not trying to go down the path that no liberals know anything about guns and therefore can't have a discussion. My comment was intended to be very focused on specifically what I was not seeing, which is virtually any details on this proposed ban on this thread or in any commentary on major news outlets about what exactly this ban on assault weapons, rifles, or whatever the term used is.

In regards to your comment about "plenty of military veterans" who know that "assault rifle" was a term that came from them, I would respectfully say that your article which, as much as I could tell references only one person, does not convey that. To me, it seemed anecdotal commentary by someone who did, of course serve in the military, of their opinion on gun control. Not to be snarky, but I have plenty of anecdotes myself of people with different positions. If you have any links that show that any of these terms were originated by the military and tie into specific, tangible things about a rifle, I would certainly be interested in it.

Yes, it was anecdotal. And anecdotally, I see many, many military and ex-military use the term "assault rifle" and they seem to have no trouble with it -- and they are clearly quite familiar with weapons. Interestingly, I have read that the term came from Hitler.

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

As to what an assault rifle actually is, it doesn't seem particularly in doubt.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/a-brief-history-of-the-assault-rifle/489428/

As Midwest said, even the article you just mentioned talks about fully automatic and semi-automatic rifles both as assault rifles, at least as I read it, and that's the most important point of potential devastation of a weapon. If this article that's being held up as an example of how we should all know what assault rifles are talks about the single most important distinction, IMO, of any weapon - full auto vs. semi auto as if both could apply, I submit that we don't have a handle on what this term means.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 27, 2018, 08:01:19 PM
Interesting continued discussion. I have two follow up questions:

1. If you are supporting banning "assault rifles," I think it's only fair that you define what you are meaning. This is especially to NoStacheOhio who said "because assault rifles aren't just "cosmetic," no matter how many times you say it," but it's also to anyone who would like to answer. I am pretty sure I disagree with your statement, but it's hard to disagree when you haven't put forth anything defining what you mean by it. Note, if you have and I have missed it, my apologies, but I have been keeping up with this thread and can't recall seeing anything other than ban at least AR-15's...maybe....? This is part of the frustration with gun control people because if you can't even define the restrictions you want to implement how can they be taken seriously (and even if they can be defined, they don't ever seem to be in conversation).

Here's one definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Criteria_of_an_assault_weapon

I think the federal ban was incomplete and had too many exemptions. I also think we should drop the "Assault Weapon" term, but only because there is not a 100% agreed upon definition and some gun rights advocates like to use that fact to end the discussion. Most definitions overlap but if someone is for an assault weapons ban what that really means is that they are in favor of banning more weapons than we currently do. If someone uses the term "assault weapon" what they're really saying is, "weapon that I think should be banned".

ETA: I assumed you meant "assault weapons" rather than "assault rifles"

I guess, I don't really think it's worth a big debate over "assault weapons" and "assault rifles." The terms are charged and many gun control advocates mean different things when they say them (as I believe you talked about, basically they mean it's a "weapon I think should be banned." It's not hard to see how people that are leery of things being banned are very leery of I want this something banned in my mind that I know what I'm meaning but I can't assume anyone else does. As I droned on for some time in the response above :), I'd like people to say what they want to ban. I.e. I want to ban all semi-automatic rifles. I want to ban all semi-automatic handguns. I want to ban all magazines with greater than 10 rounds capacity.

Neither do I. I pointed it out to let another commenter know that I read what you said differently than they did which is why I spoke as if you had said "assault weapons". I made the assumption that you weren't differentiating between the two, which you were not.


You've taken a small part of what I said and made it the whole point. My point was that there was a very specific definition of "assault weapons" under the federal ban. Many people who use the term are referring to that definition. Admittedly most probably don't know every detail of that ban. But when I said that there is disagreement among proponents of an assault weapon ban I meant some of the lesser details, not as in some people think single shot shotguns should be considered assault weapons (you can probably find a few of those people and you can promptly ignore their opinions, I wouldn't blame you.)

I absolutely agree that the real conversations should be about specifics, but you can't expect everyone to understand all of the aspects of how guns work, ammunition types, accessories and to also to voice those opinions in the sound bites you see on TV. So instead, you get people marching and waving signs. Among that crowd marching is a whole spectrum of knowledge on weapons. Some may be ignorant of what they're really asking for, but what if they're just asking politicians to have the conversations you say you want.

The ideal situation would be to have some experts who understand the statistics (if we actually tracked them) and others who understand the weapons and how they work sit down and hash these things out AND on top of that get politics out of the way enough for us to actually take the advice of these experts. But clearly we're a long way from the ideal situation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on March 27, 2018, 08:28:25 PM


Neither do I. I pointed it out to let another commenter know that I read what you said differently than they did which is why I spoke as if you had said "assault weapons". I made the assumption that you weren't differentiating between the two, which you were not.


You've taken a small part of what I said and made it the whole point. My point was that there was a very specific definition of "assault weapons" under the federal ban. Many people who use the term are referring to that definition. Admittedly most probably don't know every detail of that ban. But when I said that there is disagreement among proponents of an assault weapon ban I meant some of the lesser details, not as in some people think single shot shotguns should be considered assault weapons (you can probably find a few of those people and you can promptly ignore their opinions, I wouldn't blame you.)

I absolutely agree that the real conversations should be about specifics, but you can't expect everyone to understand all of the aspects of how guns work, ammunition types, accessories and to also to voice those opinions in the sound bites you see on TV. So instead, you get people marching and waving signs. Among that crowd marching is a whole spectrum of knowledge on weapons. Some may be ignorant of what they're really asking for, but what if they're just asking politicians to have the conversations you say you want.

The ideal situation would be to have some experts who understand the statistics (if we actually tracked them) and others who understand the weapons and how they work sit down and hash these things out AND on top of that get politics out of the way enough for us to actually take the advice of these experts. But clearly we're a long way from the ideal situation.

Ah, OK, so this was actually a situation where I didn't understand your main point, my bad. Now that I do, let me respond to that. It would make sense that at least some if not many people may think about reenacting that ban when the term comes up. I wish they would say, let's reenact the previous federal ban. Then I would know what they're talking about. I can agree that there are certain things that I wouldn't expect everyone to know. We're not all gun experts. Many gun control people even on this forum probably know more about guns than I do. I don't expect everyone waving a sign to know it all. However, I'll use an analogy. If you're passionate enough about tax law to go out and protest, great. I don't expect you to be an expert on tax law and know all the potential loop holes and this and that. However, I do expect you to know, let's just say, basic tax rate at different income levels - maybe 5 or 6 different percentages. If you don't have the fortitude to be knowledgeable enough to at least do that, I'm not really going to take you seriously. Sure, people out there marching may not know the benefits/risks of flash suppressors or pistol grips. I just wish they wouldn't get the "tax percentage" basics all wrong - conflating fully automatic with semi automatic. Wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles but then not seeing an issue with handguns because they think they're not semi-automatic or a million different variations that I see in the news and hear in every day conversation (like a teenage girl I overheard eating at a restaurant on Sunday because she was being so loud, and it was clear that she didn't even know the difference between a fully automatic gun and a semi-automatic one). That's a big frustration for me and most gun proponents. I don't think it's wrong for us to get frustrated with that. Auto vs. semi auto, the fact that all guns can fire a certain number of rounds without reloading or just 1 shot before reloading, and so on... It seems that people just don't get these things, and you're passionate enough to demand legislation, please know a little about what you're talking about and be willing to give a few of the big picture details.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 27, 2018, 08:50:02 PM
About the fear comment form Wolfpack: why are gun owners so afraid all the time? Why do they need weapons all over the house "just in case"? Why do they need to strap on a gun just to go for a walk in the neighborhood or to the local store? Is life so terrifyingly dangerous where they live that this is necessary? I'd probably move if that was true.

I've never strapped on a gun, even when I lived in a high crime area, and I don't feel a lack in my life because of this. We don't own a gun because we believe having one with kids is much more irresponsible than the opposite.

See, I don't care if you're afraid all the time and think a gun will solve that just like you don't care about my fears. I don't care if you carry a gun as long as you do so responsibly. As long as lax gun laws don't mean your fear spills into my life. That is what I mean by wanting these shooter drills to stop being necessary. They never were when I was growing up, so I can only conclude our laws have become lax enough that something needs to change. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert and know how best to do that. I can only support those who think they have the answers.

If gun owners only ridicule and try to shut down the conversation, they will ultimately have no say in how this goes.  I don't think the NRA is going to win this forever, thankfully.

To your fear comment, I completely agree and even mentioned a while back in this thread that both sides are very emotional on the subject. I’m just saying that I think people viewing it as if they have a right to not be afraid is just really out there to me. Where does it end? I’m afraid at times of financial issues although I’m not in a terrible financial position. It’s not a rational fear. Should I have a right to not be afraid, if it meant I would get 10 million dollars or whatever it is. I know this is a silly analogy, but I don’t see how to not go down the silly route when we’re saying or implying that we truly have a right to not be afraid...

If the only argument to own a gun was the right to not be afraid, then sure, I would say there’s no right to own a gun. However, the right to own a gun ties to the right to defend yourself. That’s not a nebulous thing. That’s a basic right that says the government can’t take away your right to have a tool that could be instrumental in defending yourself or your family. If you take away the right to own a gun, the government is literally restricting me from being able to physically (not in my mind but physically) do something that I feel is pretty important – defense of your family. I’m not saying the government is doing this or you want to do this or anything. My whole point with the fear argument is that I feel these things are on totally different planes. One is a tangible right to me, the other is so vast and could go down so many rabbit holes, I have a hard time taking it seriously.

My response to your comment about active shooter drills is they’re not necessary. This is a tremendous statistically unlikely possibility. People are doing it because of an irrational fear perpetuated by a media that loves to report bad things.  These are tragedies, but as the point that has been beaten like a dead horse, your kids and mine are safer today than they were 3 decades ago, and there’s multiple other things more likely to endanger their lives, especially over the course of their lives, than guns. That’s why I target on the fear thing. The way I see it, it’s not lax gun laws spilling over into your life. It’s an irrational fear of lack of safety perpetuated by a media that thrives on it making us feel less and less safe. Having a gun to me is not a function of being afraid or of the likelihood of needing it. It’s the desire to be able to do something in the event it is actually needed. I’m sure it’s not totally logical either :).

I hope the comment about gun owners ridiculing and shutting down conversation wasn’t directed at me. I feel like I’ve tried to be pretty inviting to discussion and not derogatory, but I’m fallible too. Not to be too blunt, but it’s also not just the gun owners that are shutting down the conversations. I’ve had enough conversations/seen posts etc. from people adamant about gun control to believe that it’s really on both sides.

I think they were using some hyperbole to show the flip side of what you were saying. Demonstrated again in bold.

On the other hand, I agree that the wording "right to not be afraid" is weird and that the drills probably are excessive.

One other thing, if you were arguing with someone who wanted to ban basic home defense weapons, your statements would make sense. Restricting ownership of specific guns that are deemed too dangerous for the public (not defined by commenter) is not the same as

Quote
the government is literally restricting me from being able to physically (not in my mind but physically) do something that I feel is pretty important – defense of your family

Polling shows only 10% of the country supports a ban on all firearms.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/guns-parkland-polling-quiz/

And 28% support banning private handgun ownership. More than I expected but a full 71% disagree, only 1% undecided.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 27, 2018, 09:08:16 PM


Neither do I. I pointed it out to let another commenter know that I read what you said differently than they did which is why I spoke as if you had said "assault weapons". I made the assumption that you weren't differentiating between the two, which you were not.


You've taken a small part of what I said and made it the whole point. My point was that there was a very specific definition of "assault weapons" under the federal ban. Many people who use the term are referring to that definition. Admittedly most probably don't know every detail of that ban. But when I said that there is disagreement among proponents of an assault weapon ban I meant some of the lesser details, not as in some people think single shot shotguns should be considered assault weapons (you can probably find a few of those people and you can promptly ignore their opinions, I wouldn't blame you.)

I absolutely agree that the real conversations should be about specifics, but you can't expect everyone to understand all of the aspects of how guns work, ammunition types, accessories and to also to voice those opinions in the sound bites you see on TV. So instead, you get people marching and waving signs. Among that crowd marching is a whole spectrum of knowledge on weapons. Some may be ignorant of what they're really asking for, but what if they're just asking politicians to have the conversations you say you want.

The ideal situation would be to have some experts who understand the statistics (if we actually tracked them) and others who understand the weapons and how they work sit down and hash these things out AND on top of that get politics out of the way enough for us to actually take the advice of these experts. But clearly we're a long way from the ideal situation.

Ah, OK, so this was actually a situation where I didn't understand your main point, my bad. Now that I do, let me respond to that. It would make sense that at least some if not many people may think about reenacting that ban when the term comes up. I wish they would say, let's reenact the previous federal ban. Then I would know what they're talking about. I can agree that there are certain things that I wouldn't expect everyone to know. We're not all gun experts. Many gun control people even on this forum probably know more about guns than I do. I don't expect everyone waving a sign to know it all. However, I'll use an analogy. If you're passionate enough about tax law to go out and protest, great. I don't expect you to be an expert on tax law and know all the potential loop holes and this and that. However, I do expect you to know, let's just say, basic tax rate at different income levels - maybe 5 or 6 different percentages. If you don't have the fortitude to be knowledgeable enough to at least do that, I'm not really going to take you seriously. Sure, people out there marching may not know the benefits/risks of flash suppressors or pistol grips. I just wish they wouldn't get the "tax percentage" basics all wrong - conflating fully automatic with semi automatic. Wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles but then not seeing an issue with handguns because they think they're not semi-automatic or a million different variations that I see in the news and hear in every day conversation (like a teenage girl I overheard eating at a restaurant on Sunday because she was being so loud, and it was clear that she didn't even know the difference between a fully automatic gun and a semi-automatic one). That's a big frustration for me and most gun proponents. I don't think it's wrong for us to get frustrated with that. Auto vs. semi auto, the fact that all guns can fire a certain number of rounds without reloading or just 1 shot before reloading, and so on... It seems that people just don't get these things, and you're passionate enough to demand legislation, please know a little about what you're talking about and be willing to give a few of the big picture details.

The ban ended in 2004. I am mostly in favor of a renewal as I think it would be better than the current situation, but I also think there are some simple fixes which would have improved things that may not have even been considered the first time around. To say I support exactly the previous ban would be untrue. For now I'm fine with saying I support an "assault weapons ban" as a starting point, although I'm not a big fan of the terminology.

It's not. But it is wrong if you conflate these people with everyone you disagree with. Hell, they may even be the majority but that doesn't prove one side or the other.

Your tax law analogy is a good one because the truth is the majority on both sides of that issue are ignorant of even basic details. But I don't use that fact to argue that we should never make any changes.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 27, 2018, 10:57:42 PM


Neither do I. I pointed it out to let another commenter know that I read what you said differently than they did which is why I spoke as if you had said "assault weapons". I made the assumption that you weren't differentiating between the two, which you were not.


You've taken a small part of what I said and made it the whole point. My point was that there was a very specific definition of "assault weapons" under the federal ban. Many people who use the term are referring to that definition. Admittedly most probably don't know every detail of that ban. But when I said that there is disagreement among proponents of an assault weapon ban I meant some of the lesser details, not as in some people think single shot shotguns should be considered assault weapons (you can probably find a few of those people and you can promptly ignore their opinions, I wouldn't blame you.)

I absolutely agree that the real conversations should be about specifics, but you can't expect everyone to understand all of the aspects of how guns work, ammunition types, accessories and to also to voice those opinions in the sound bites you see on TV. So instead, you get people marching and waving signs. Among that crowd marching is a whole spectrum of knowledge on weapons. Some may be ignorant of what they're really asking for, but what if they're just asking politicians to have the conversations you say you want.

The ideal situation would be to have some experts who understand the statistics (if we actually tracked them) and others who understand the weapons and how they work sit down and hash these things out AND on top of that get politics out of the way enough for us to actually take the advice of these experts. But clearly we're a long way from the ideal situation.

Ah, OK, so this was actually a situation where I didn't understand your main point, my bad. Now that I do, let me respond to that. It would make sense that at least some if not many people may think about reenacting that ban when the term comes up. I wish they would say, let's reenact the previous federal ban. Then I would know what they're talking about. I can agree that there are certain things that I wouldn't expect everyone to know. We're not all gun experts. Many gun control people even on this forum probably know more about guns than I do. I don't expect everyone waving a sign to know it all. However, I'll use an analogy. If you're passionate enough about tax law to go out and protest, great. I don't expect you to be an expert on tax law and know all the potential loop holes and this and that. However, I do expect you to know, let's just say, basic tax rate at different income levels - maybe 5 or 6 different percentages. If you don't have the fortitude to be knowledgeable enough to at least do that, I'm not really going to take you seriously. Sure, people out there marching may not know the benefits/risks of flash suppressors or pistol grips. I just wish they wouldn't get the "tax percentage" basics all wrong - conflating fully automatic with semi automatic. Wanting to ban semi-automatic rifles but then not seeing an issue with handguns because they think they're not semi-automatic or a million different variations that I see in the news and hear in every day conversation (like a teenage girl I overheard eating at a restaurant on Sunday because she was being so loud, and it was clear that she didn't even know the difference between a fully automatic gun and a semi-automatic one). That's a big frustration for me and most gun proponents. I don't think it's wrong for us to get frustrated with that. Auto vs. semi auto, the fact that all guns can fire a certain number of rounds without reloading or just 1 shot before reloading, and so on... It seems that people just don't get these things, and you're passionate enough to demand legislation, please know a little about what you're talking about and be willing to give a few of the big picture details.

I think the biggest problem with telling people they don't know what they are talking about so their proposals are worthless is there never follows a reasoned explanation and attempt to understand why the supposedly ignorant person would want change to gun laws in the first place. This makes gun owners who do this sound arrogant and dismissive, whether that was meant or not. It would be fantastic instead to hear non-dismissive explanations of said weapons and a gun owner perspective on how to change this. One that doesn't include "more guns" or "good guys" (why does that last one even get talked up? Like we're all watching Saturday morning cartoons and the good and bad guys wear black a nd white shirts so we are sure which side they belong to; real life ain't that cut and dried).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on March 28, 2018, 04:33:48 AM
Quote
Lets say, of those non-fatal incidents involving a firearm, 14% can be directly attributed to the availability of firearms... that 14% of  these crimes were possible mainly because of firearms, that firearms played a serious role in 14% of the incidents. That is ~57,000 incidents/yr.  Add in homicides... that's about 68000 per year.

Let’s say you live to 85 years old. That’s 5,700,000 incidents over your life time.

If gun violence continues increasing at 6% per year it’s 159,000,000 incidents in ones lifetime.

Either scenario seems far to high risk for my liking.

You realize how... wrong... you conclusion is? 57,000 is just a subset of 414k/year incidences of violent crime. by your math, and your assumption of a 6% increase every year, an individual would be subject to multiple cases of violent crime every year? Gun violence, and violence overall, by all credible accounts, has been steady or decreasing since the early 1990s.  The risk you face now is lower than it has been in a long time.

Try using facts instead of relying on the media to tell you what to be afraid of.

Let’s say you misinterpreted someone’s speculation as fact.

But if you want some facts it appears gun violence has been on the rise over the last 4 years.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/past-tolls

Feel free to dispute them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 28, 2018, 06:42:49 AM
To your final point, there's a huge gulf between someone not being able to own any gun whatsoever and "any random slob off the street" owning "any weapon imaginable." I'm trying to refine what people actually want and have intellectual conversations on fair level ground where we both know what we're debating. But sure, act like I'm asking the world and deriding you when I ask for a few details....

The problem is our status quo is pretty close to the latter. Hell, I didn't even know bump stocks were a thing until Vegas. And since you can 3D print them, banning them isn't going to do shit. We need to address some fundamental design features of the weapons capable of bump fire (see my M1 Garand reference). Focusing on automatic fire is also beside the point. The bigger problem is the number of weapons already in circulation.

I don't disagree that handguns cause a lot of harm, and account for the majority of gun incidents in the U.S. They're also fundamentally less capable of destruction (by design) compared to something that was designed as an infantry rifle from the ground up.

I'm sick of people arguing against measures meant to address narrow problems by saying "yeah, but what about [insert tangentially related thing]." One law isn't going to fix all of our problems. Yes, we have a violence problem. It's compounded by easy access to powerful weapons.

I'm looking at it from a pseudo-public health perspective. Clearly, as a society, we've decided that shootings are acceptable at a rate somewhere higher than what we're currently seeing (how high? who knows!). I think it's a stupid attitude, but it's apparently where we are. A nonzero number of people need to die because "Fuck you, I like guns."

So taking that into consideration, how can we reduce harm? Let's examine some of the characteristics of weapons commonly used in mass shootings and see if we can change anything. We should probably also look at the types of ammunition that are available for public purchase. Would limiting the amount of powder in a round reduce harm? Would changing the composition or design of the projectile? But we're apparently incapable of having that discussion because the lobbying arm of the firearms industry controls a huge portion of the narrative.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on March 28, 2018, 07:00:25 AM
So can we put to rest the whole “no one’s trying to take your guns away” tripe?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
No. 

You can still own guns without having it in the Constitution.

Other countries have people who own guns and they do not have it in their documents.  They just have a set of rules that their society agreed to about how to handle that.  This over broad worry that not having something in the Constitution is just funny.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on March 28, 2018, 07:07:25 AM
So can we put to rest the whole “no one’s trying to take your guns away” tripe?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region
No. 

You can still own guns without having it in the Constitution.

Other countries have people who own guns and they do not have it in their documents.  They just have a set of rules that their society agreed to about how to handle that.  This over broad worry that not having something in the Constitution is just funny.

To wit: cars are also not in the Bill of Rights
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jimmymango on March 28, 2018, 07:36:26 AM
Quote
Other countries have people who own guns and they do not have it in their documents.  They just have a set of rules that their society agreed to about how to handle that.

I think this quote is quite informative, especially when viewing the issue of gun violence through the lense of public health as NoStacheOhio mentioned. While I think it’s a good idea to try to design guns with safety in mind as  we do cars, the issue is not one without solid answers and evidence, which leads me to the conclusion that all this talk about the definition of assault rifles and the like is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Every other developed nation does not have a gun violence problem. They have the solutions. We can just adapt what they do to our own legal environment and likely see the mass reductions in gun deaths that everyone wants, balanced against respecting ownership rights. Rates may still be higher than in other countries, but I imagine they would be far lower than currently.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 28, 2018, 07:55:33 AM
Quote
Other countries have people who own guns and they do not have it in their documents.  They just have a set of rules that their society agreed to about how to handle that.

I think this quote is quite informative, especially when viewing the issue of gun violence through the lense of public health as NoStacheOhio mentioned. While I think it’s a good idea to try to design guns with safety in mind as  we do cars, the issue is not one without solid answers and evidence, which leads me to the conclusion that all this talk about the definition of assault rifles and the like is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Every other developed nation does not have a gun violence problem. They have the solutions. We can just adapt what they do to our own legal environment and likely see the mass reductions in gun deaths that everyone wants, balanced against respecting ownership rights. Rates may still be higher than in other countries, but I imagine they would be far lower than currently.

The problem is, pretty much every other developed country in the world has stricter gun control rules.  Gun advocates don't believe that guns are a problem because they like guns.  To them, the deaths and injury caused by guns are the price of freedom to use whatever toys you want, whenever you want . . . and no amount of death is worth the slightest inconvenience on that front.  I don't believe you'll ever get them on board.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 28, 2018, 08:21:07 AM

The former is not treating gun crime seriously.  If you don't think procuring guns for people who are banned from buying guns is worthy of jail time, then you obviously don't consider background checks that important. 

Sigh.

If you don't support a gun registry, you obviously don't believe that catching straw purchasers is all that important, because the costs of prosecution will deter cases from ever making it to court.  See?  I can play the same game that you're doing.  But it's not really productive.
  I'm not the one asking for law abiding gun owners to be entered into a registry.  To not prosecute actually identified criminals who have procured guns used in violent crimes (which is how straw purchasers are usually identified) and then ask for more burdens on law abiding gun owners is one of the reasons nothing is done.  If for no other reason than self interest, gun control advocates should at least act like they are more worried about deterring and decreasing violent gun crime than confiscating weapons. 


I'd personally like harsher penalties for straw purchasers than Maryland is handing out.  I'm happy that they've got a framework in place that actually allows small time straw purchasers to be caught and prosecuted though (unlike most places with lax gun laws).



And I'm still not buying that Texas doesn't make it illegal to act as a straw purchaser, at least for somebody banned from having a gun.

As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.  That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 28, 2018, 10:11:43 AM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 28, 2018, 10:43:26 AM
This whole argument about straw purchasers is part of the bigger issues we have prosecuting gun owners who don't actually fire the weapon. All those kids who got a hold of their parents' unsecured weapon? "Tragic accident" Most of these school shooters are in that category. Parent does not secure their weapon adequately, kid uses it at school. Does parent ever get arrested? Nope! Is that because these gun owners fall into the the category of "good guy" so it's terrifying to think of them being prosecuted? What, then, makes someone a "bad guy"?

This stupid debate, by the way, is why I don't think stricter background checks will do a whole lot to tamp down the violence. Plenty of people who shoot others have clean background checks until that moment.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 28, 2018, 11:08:00 AM
It has already been mentioned in this thread, but 45% of American gun owners with children keep at least one unsecured firearm in the home.  More than half of gun owners in the US store their weapons unsecured so that they can easily be stolen or used by an unauthorized person.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html)

The real reason that suggestions for things like a gun registry strikes terror in the heart of gun owners is that it means they might have to accept responsibility for their actions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 28, 2018, 11:12:52 AM
This whole argument about straw purchasers is part of the bigger issues we have prosecuting gun owners who don't actually fire the weapon. All those kids who got a hold of their parents' unsecured weapon? "Tragic accident" Most of these school shooters are in that category. Parent does not secure their weapon adequately, kid uses it at school. Does parent ever get arrested? Nope! Is that because these gun owners fall into the the category of "good guy" so it's terrifying to think of them being prosecuted? What, then, makes someone a "bad guy"?

This stupid debate, by the way, is why I don't think stricter background checks will do a whole lot to tamp down the violence. Plenty of people who shoot others have clean background checks until that moment.

Intentionally buying a weapon for another person and lying on the background check is different than a kid stealing an unloaded weapon from a parent or other parental figure.  I don't think it's a big leap to suggest the prohibited person who has now obtained a weapon is vastly more likely than the average person to commit a crime (apart from the crime of having the weapon) with said weapon.

If you are suggesting safes for all, I disagree.  If you are suggesting, parents be prosecuted for deaths/injuries of loaded firearms lying around, I tend to agree to depending on the circumstances.

In addition, mass shootings (of which school shootings are a subset) represent a small proportion of homicide in this country.  That doesn't make them any less tragic, but that is the reality.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 28, 2018, 11:31:37 AM
It has already been mentioned in this thread, but 45% of American gun owners with children keep at least one unsecured firearm in the home.  More than half of gun owners in the US store their weapons unsecured so that they can easily be stolen or used by an unauthorized person.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html)

The real reason that suggestions for things like a gun registry strikes terror in the heart of gun owners is that it means they might have to accept responsibility for their actions.

Ha, so very true.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: jimmymango on March 28, 2018, 12:14:45 PM
Just want to add a new element to this discussion that might illuminate one element of why the gun debate seems so intractable. I've been interacting with other people on a Reddit thread about a Salon article (https://www.salon.com/2018/03/27/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns_partner/ (https://www.salon.com/2018/03/27/why-are-white-men-stockpiling-guns_partner/)) discussing gun ownership among white men (this is controversial based on Reddit comments in the thread, and it's not my intention to troll...just hoping we could add it to the mix and discuss academically).

The article discusses sociologist Angela Stroud's book Good Guys with Guns - https://www.uncpress.org/book/9781469627892/good-guys-with-guns/ (https://www.uncpress.org/book/9781469627892/good-guys-with-guns/), (the core of which is based on interviews with 20 gun-owning men) which highlights a lot of racial anxiety surrounding gun ownership. Her interviews dovetail with a lot of research on the subject which highlight an intersection between gender, race, political leanings, and socioeconomic research when it comes to gun ownership (all links from the Salon article):

* Racism, Gun Ownership and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions - http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077552 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077552)
* Racial Resentment and Whites’ Gun Policy Preferences in Contemporary America - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4)
* Emerging Political Identities? Gun Ownership and Voting in Presidential Elections - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ssqu.12421 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ssqu.12421)
* Guns as a Source of Order and Chaos: Compensatory Control and the Psychological (Dis)Utility of Guns for Liberals and Conservatives - https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/695761?journalCode=jacr& (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/695761?journalCode=jacr&)
* Gun Culture in Action - https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/socpro/spx040/4643202 (https://academic.oup.com/socpro/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/socpro/spx040/4643202)
* Protection or Peril? - http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406 (http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM198606123142406)
* Childhood Firearm Injuries in the United States - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486)
* Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use - http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf (http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable15.pdf)
* State Firearm Laws and Interstate Firearm Deaths From Homicide and Suicide in the United States - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2673375 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2673375)
* Can the Science of Purpose Help Explain White Supremacy? - https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_the_science_of_purpose_help_explain_white_supremacy (https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_the_science_of_purpose_help_explain_white_supremacy)

Another interesting highlight: Household gun ownership has overall remained steady, but "three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 28, 2018, 02:23:16 PM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.

You don't have to have notarized confessions to prove a crime, even crimes with an elevated mens rea.  If you have a gangbanger that has not been eligible to buy a gun for three years who uses a gun in a violent crime, and the gun traces to a purchase by his brother with a clean record from one year ago, you're most of the way there. 

If you have a gun that was purchased new 5 years ago by somebody with no apparent relation to the shooter, then maybe you can't prove that there was a straw purchaser even if there really was one.  But generally even the easy ones aren't prosecuted and handed stiff sentences.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 28, 2018, 06:20:09 PM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.

You don't have to have notarized confessions to prove a crime, even crimes with an elevated mens rea.  If you have a gangbanger that has not been eligible to buy a gun for three years who uses a gun in a violent crime, and the gun traces to a purchase by his brother with a clean record from one year ago, you're most of the way there.

OK.  So in your 'most of the way there' case:

- First the gun has to be traced.  That means that law enforcement has to contact the importer, manufacturer, and wholesaler of the firearm.  Then they get a retailer name.  Then they have to contact the retailer and manually search through records (since it's illegal to digitize this information). 

How many hours of time does this take away from other cases do you think?

- Then you depend on the brother saying that the gun wasn't stolen (or privately sold to someone else).  If he says that, you have no way of proving your case, so all that previous effort doing the trace was for nothing.

That's the closest thing to a slam dunk that they have, and you wonder why most states don't prosecute this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on March 28, 2018, 07:36:13 PM
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.

You apparently have access to much better .gov maps then we do, have you ever tried to find a temporary trailer on one of those?  And .gov phone numbers that are up to date and answered when called??  And I thought your claim of emergency response times in the seconds sounded absurd.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 28, 2018, 08:32:00 PM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.

You don't have to have notarized confessions to prove a crime, even crimes with an elevated mens rea.  If you have a gangbanger that has not been eligible to buy a gun for three years who uses a gun in a violent crime, and the gun traces to a purchase by his brother with a clean record from one year ago, you're most of the way there.

OK.  So in your 'most of the way there' case:

- First the gun has to be traced.  That means that law enforcement has to contact the importer, manufacturer, and wholesaler of the firearm.  Then they get a retailer name.  Then they have to contact the retailer and manually search through records (since it's illegal to digitize this information). 

How many hours of time does this take away from other cases do you think?

- Then you depend on the brother saying that the gun wasn't stolen (or privately sold to someone else).  If he says that, you have no way of proving your case, so all that previous effort doing the trace was for nothing.

That's the closest thing to a slam dunk that they have, and you wonder why most states don't prosecute this.

I guess they could try to track the chain of custody from the manufacturer down. Or  they could call the ATF and have them run a trace.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on March 29, 2018, 06:29:57 AM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.

You don't have to have notarized confessions to prove a crime, even crimes with an elevated mens rea.  If you have a gangbanger that has not been eligible to buy a gun for three years who uses a gun in a violent crime, and the gun traces to a purchase by his brother with a clean record from one year ago, you're most of the way there.

OK.  So in your 'most of the way there' case:

- First the gun has to be traced.  That means that law enforcement has to contact the importer, manufacturer, and wholesaler of the firearm.  Then they get a retailer name.  Then they have to contact the retailer and manually search through records (since it's illegal to digitize this information). 

How many hours of time does this take away from other cases do you think?

- Then you depend on the brother saying that the gun wasn't stolen (or privately sold to someone else).  If he says that, you have no way of proving your case, so all that previous effort doing the trace was for nothing.

That's the closest thing to a slam dunk that they have, and you wonder why most states don't prosecute this.

I guess they could try to track the chain of custody from the manufacturer down. Or  they could call the ATF and have them run a trace.
I don't think that ignoring his main point is helping you make your case.  I'd like to know how you would go about proving that a person gave a gun to a criminal when they claim to have sold/given it to someone else.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on March 29, 2018, 08:06:32 AM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.

You don't have to have notarized confessions to prove a crime, even crimes with an elevated mens rea.  If you have a gangbanger that has not been eligible to buy a gun for three years who uses a gun in a violent crime, and the gun traces to a purchase by his brother with a clean record from one year ago, you're most of the way there.

OK.  So in your 'most of the way there' case:

- First the gun has to be traced.  That means that law enforcement has to contact the importer, manufacturer, and wholesaler of the firearm.  Then they get a retailer name.  Then they have to contact the retailer and manually search through records (since it's illegal to digitize this information). 

How many hours of time does this take away from other cases do you think?

- Then you depend on the brother saying that the gun wasn't stolen (or privately sold to someone else).  If he says that, you have no way of proving your case, so all that previous effort doing the trace was for nothing.

That's the closest thing to a slam dunk that they have, and you wonder why most states don't prosecute this.

I guess they could try to track the chain of custody from the manufacturer down. Or  they could call the ATF and have them run a trace.
I don't think that ignoring his main point is helping you make your case.  I'd like to know how you would go about proving that a person gave a gun to a criminal when they claim to have sold/given it to someone else.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Well if anyone can sell to anyone then the person can say this.  If the sale had to be registered and thefts had to be reported then there would be a paper trail, eh?  No sale or gift, then the putative brother is still owner of record, and his criminal brother used the gun.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 08:42:09 AM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.

You don't have to have notarized confessions to prove a crime, even crimes with an elevated mens rea.  If you have a gangbanger that has not been eligible to buy a gun for three years who uses a gun in a violent crime, and the gun traces to a purchase by his brother with a clean record from one year ago, you're most of the way there.

OK.  So in your 'most of the way there' case:

- First the gun has to be traced.  That means that law enforcement has to contact the importer, manufacturer, and wholesaler of the firearm.  Then they get a retailer name.  Then they have to contact the retailer and manually search through records (since it's illegal to digitize this information). 

How many hours of time does this take away from other cases do you think?

- Then you depend on the brother saying that the gun wasn't stolen (or privately sold to someone else).  If he says that, you have no way of proving your case, so all that previous effort doing the trace was for nothing.

That's the closest thing to a slam dunk that they have, and you wonder why most states don't prosecute this.

I guess they could try to track the chain of custody from the manufacturer down. Or  they could call the ATF and have them run a trace.
I don't think that ignoring his main point is helping you make your case.  I'd like to know how you would go about proving that a person gave a gun to a criminal when they claim to have sold/given it to someone else.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Well if anyone can sell to anyone then the person can say this.  If the sale had to be registered and thefts had to be reported then there would be a paper trail, eh?  No sale or gift, then the putative brother is still owner of record, and his criminal brother used the gun.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington require background checks on all weapons sold (public or private).

Maryland and Pennsylvania require background checks on handguns only.  Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require a firearms permit for all sales of guns.  Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina require a firearms permit for handguns only.

In the other 31 states anyone can sell a handgun to anyone else with no real chance of being caught if that person is a criminal.

In the other 37 states anyone can sell a rifle or shotgun to anyone else with no real chance of being caught if that person is a criminal.

  - http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/)


Of the states where it's possible to prevent private sales to criminals, California, Connecicut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Maryland,  Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Iowa, and Michigan have typically voted democratic since Bill Clinton was elected (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/)).

79% (15 / 19) of states with laws that make it easier to prosecute straw purchasers are liberal . . . yet the claim has been levied many times in this thread that liberals don't want to prosecute straw purchasers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 29, 2018, 08:45:40 AM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.

You don't have to have notarized confessions to prove a crime, even crimes with an elevated mens rea.  If you have a gangbanger that has not been eligible to buy a gun for three years who uses a gun in a violent crime, and the gun traces to a purchase by his brother with a clean record from one year ago, you're most of the way there.

OK.  So in your 'most of the way there' case:

- First the gun has to be traced.  That means that law enforcement has to contact the importer, manufacturer, and wholesaler of the firearm.  Then they get a retailer name.  Then they have to contact the retailer and manually search through records (since it's illegal to digitize this information). 

How many hours of time does this take away from other cases do you think?

- Then you depend on the brother saying that the gun wasn't stolen (or privately sold to someone else).  If he says that, you have no way of proving your case, so all that previous effort doing the trace was for nothing.

That's the closest thing to a slam dunk that they have, and you wonder why most states don't prosecute this.

I guess they could try to track the chain of custody from the manufacturer down. Or  they could call the ATF and have them run a trace.
I don't think that ignoring his main point is helping you make your case.  I'd like to know how you would go about proving that a person gave a gun to a criminal when they claim to have sold/given it to someone else.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

I really am glad that this is a law abiding community, because if a lot of you engaged in crime, I think you'd be shocked to find that criminal prosecution doesn't work on the honor system, where they let anybody go that denies the crime. 

But, just so you know, one simple way would be:
ask the gun purchaser where their gun is. 
- if they say it was stolen, you ask if they reported it; if they did, you immediately charge the gun user with larceny (which will often be another felony with real jail time to tack on) if it was actually reported.  If it wasn't reported, you get them to issue an affidavit saying it was stolen, when they were aware it was stolen, etc.  If they swear out the affidavit, again, you charge the gun user with larceny.  If they won't swear out the affidavit, you can use that in impeaching them, either directly (if they take the stand) or indirectly, if you have the investigator testify to the fact that they wouldn't swear it was stolen.
- If they say they sold it to somebody else, you get them to identify them.  If they identify them, you start the process over with that person (if they deny purchasing the gun, then you use them to impeach the strawpurchaser at trial) go to them.  If they don't identify them, again, you have a case to present with strong circumstantial evidence.

Certainly not a slam dunk, but you should generally either get (1) additional time for the violent criminal (a win), (2) jail time for the straw purchaser, which should greatly deter future strawpurchaser (a win), or (3) a huge hassle for the straw purchaser (not a win, but not bad either, especially if it involves them spending a few days in jail, as again, the straw purchasers will be people with clean records and who spending any time in jail is less palatable than it might be for the typical criminal, although granted some of the straw purchasers may already be fairly enmeshed in criminal life and just not been caught yet, in which case that probably wouldn't be a big deterrent)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 29, 2018, 08:48:19 AM
As Texasrunner pointed out, that's totally illegal in Texas (with a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail or 4000$ fine).  There's just no way to prove the charge, so it's rarely prosecuted.

It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.   That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge, then that's just another way of saying prosecutors and/or lawmakers don't think it's important, which is fine (although I'd disagree with it), as long as they don't immediately turn around and pretend it's important in order to argue for more burdens on law abiding citizens.  I'm guessing that's not a huge problem in Texas though.  Maybe in Houston?

Is a private seller required to do a background check? Is a private seller even required to keep records of buyers?

If not, then in many cases there is no way to prove the charge. Why is this a stupid talking point? What am I missing?

Without these things you can't prove that the seller knew the buyer wasn't allowed to have guns and you can't even prove that the seller gave the gun to anyone directly. They could claim they sold it to someone else and they don't know how the convicted felon got ahold of it.

You don't have to have notarized confessions to prove a crime, even crimes with an elevated mens rea.  If you have a gangbanger that has not been eligible to buy a gun for three years who uses a gun in a violent crime, and the gun traces to a purchase by his brother with a clean record from one year ago, you're most of the way there.

OK.  So in your 'most of the way there' case:

- First the gun has to be traced.  That means that law enforcement has to contact the importer, manufacturer, and wholesaler of the firearm.  Then they get a retailer name.  Then they have to contact the retailer and manually search through records (since it's illegal to digitize this information). 

How many hours of time does this take away from other cases do you think?

- Then you depend on the brother saying that the gun wasn't stolen (or privately sold to someone else).  If he says that, you have no way of proving your case, so all that previous effort doing the trace was for nothing.

That's the closest thing to a slam dunk that they have, and you wonder why most states don't prosecute this.

I guess they could try to track the chain of custody from the manufacturer down. Or  they could call the ATF and have them run a trace.
I don't think that ignoring his main point is helping you make your case.  I'd like to know how you would go about proving that a person gave a gun to a criminal when they claim to have sold/given it to someone else.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

Well if anyone can sell to anyone then the person can say this.  If the sale had to be registered and thefts had to be reported then there would be a paper trail, eh?  No sale or gift, then the putative brother is still owner of record, and his criminal brother used the gun.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington require background checks on all weapons sold (public or private).

Maryland and Pennsylvania require background checks on handguns only.  Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require a firearms permit for all sales of guns.  Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina require a firearms permit for handguns only.

In the other 31 states anyone can sell a handgun to anyone else with no real chance of being caught if that person is a criminal.

In the other 37 states anyone can sell a rifle or shotgun to anyone else with no real chance of being caught if that person is a criminal.

  - http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/)


Of the states where it's possible to prevent private sales to criminals, California, Connecicut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Maryland,  Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Iowa, and Michigan have typically voted democratic since Bill Clinton was elected (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/)).

79% (15 / 19) of states with laws that make it easier to prosecute straw purchasers are liberal . . . yet the claim has been levied many times in this thread that liberals don't want to prosecute straw purchasers.

Having laws is nice, but if you're not actually putting people in jail for straw purchasers, then you're not really in favor of treating straw purchasing as a serious crime. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 09:02:04 AM
I really am glad that this is a law abiding community, because if a lot of you engaged in crime, I think you'd be shocked to find that criminal prosecution doesn't work on the honor system, where they let anybody go that denies the crime. 

But, just so you know, one simple way would be:
ask the gun purchaser where their gun is. 
- if they say it was stolen, you ask if they reported it; if they did, you immediately charge the gun user with larceny (which will often be another felony with real jail time to tack on) if it was actually reported.  If it wasn't reported, you get them to issue an affidavit saying it was stolen, when they were aware it was stolen, etc.  If they swear out the affidavit, again, you charge the gun user with larceny.  If they won't swear out the affidavit, you can use that in impeaching them, either directly (if they take the stand) or indirectly, if you have the investigator testify to the fact that they wouldn't swear it was stolen.
- If they say they sold it to somebody else, you get them to identify them.  If they identify them, you start the process over with that person (if they deny purchasing the gun, then you use them to impeach the strawpurchaser at trial) go to them.  If they don't identify them, again, you have a case to present with strong circumstantial evidence.

Certainly not a slam dunk, but you should generally either get (1) additional time for the violent criminal (a win), (2) jail time for the straw purchaser, which should greatly deter future strawpurchaser (a win), or (3) a huge hassle for the straw purchaser (not a win, but not bad either, especially if it involves them spending a few days in jail, as again, the straw purchasers will be people with clean records and who spending any time in jail is less palatable than it might be for the typical criminal, although granted some of the straw purchasers may already be fairly enmeshed in criminal life and just not been caught yet, in which case that probably wouldn't be a big deterrent)

You're not required to know the name of the person you sell a gun to, or to verify their identity.  So, I'm a straw purchaser and I say 'I sold the gun to a guy with dark hair'.  Not only not a slam dunk, but your investigation is now over.

- No additional time for the violent criminal
- No jail time for the straw purchaser
- No hassle for the straw purchaser



California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington require background checks on all weapons sold (public or private).

Maryland and Pennsylvania require background checks on handguns only.  Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require a firearms permit for all sales of guns.  Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina require a firearms permit for handguns only.

In the other 31 states anyone can sell a handgun to anyone else with no real chance of being caught if that person is a criminal.

In the other 37 states anyone can sell a rifle or shotgun to anyone else with no real chance of being caught if that person is a criminal.

  - http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/)


Of the states where it's possible to prevent private sales to criminals, California, Connecicut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Maryland,  Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Iowa, and Michigan have typically voted democratic since Bill Clinton was elected (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/)).

79% (15 / 19) of states with laws that make it easier to prosecute straw purchasers are liberal . . . yet the claim has been levied many times in this thread that liberals don't want to prosecute straw purchasers.

Having laws is nice, but if you're not actually putting people in jail for straw purchasers, then you're not really in favor of treating straw purchasing as a serious crime.

So having laws, a way to enforce them, and prosecuting, then meting out discipline (albeit without jail time) is bad.

Having laws, no way to enforce them, and never being able to prosecute anyone is OK.  Wait, what?

This is my confusion when someone says that 'liberals' don't want to prosecute straw purchasers.  They're the only ones actually prosecuting straw purchasers.  You can argue that they don't go far enough . . . but certainly you can't argue that they're doing less than more conservative states.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on March 29, 2018, 09:20:17 AM
I really am glad that this is a law abiding community, because if a lot of you engaged in crime, I think you'd be shocked to find that criminal prosecution doesn't work on the honor system, where they let anybody go that denies the crime. 

But, just so you know, one simple way would be:
ask the gun purchaser where their gun is. 
- if they say it was stolen, you ask if they reported it; if they did, you immediately charge the gun user with larceny (which will often be another felony with real jail time to tack on) if it was actually reported.  If it wasn't reported, you get them to issue an affidavit saying it was stolen, when they were aware it was stolen, etc.  If they swear out the affidavit, again, you charge the gun user with larceny.  If they won't swear out the affidavit, you can use that in impeaching them, either directly (if they take the stand) or indirectly, if you have the investigator testify to the fact that they wouldn't swear it was stolen.
- If they say they sold it to somebody else, you get them to identify them.  If they identify them, you start the process over with that person (if they deny purchasing the gun, then you use them to impeach the strawpurchaser at trial) go to them.  If they don't identify them, again, you have a case to present with strong circumstantial evidence.

Certainly not a slam dunk, but you should generally either get (1) additional time for the violent criminal (a win), (2) jail time for the straw purchaser, which should greatly deter future strawpurchaser (a win), or (3) a huge hassle for the straw purchaser (not a win, but not bad either, especially if it involves them spending a few days in jail, as again, the straw purchasers will be people with clean records and who spending any time in jail is less palatable than it might be for the typical criminal, although granted some of the straw purchasers may already be fairly enmeshed in criminal life and just not been caught yet, in which case that probably wouldn't be a big deterrent)

You're not required to know the name of the person you sell a gun to, or to verify their identity.  So, I'm a straw purchaser and I say 'I sold the gun to a guy with dark hair'.  Not only not a slam dunk, but your investigation is now over.

- No additional time for the violent criminal
- No jail time for the straw purchaser
- No hassle for the straw purchaser



California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington require background checks on all weapons sold (public or private).

Maryland and Pennsylvania require background checks on handguns only.  Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require a firearms permit for all sales of guns.  Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, and North Carolina require a firearms permit for handguns only.

In the other 31 states anyone can sell a handgun to anyone else with no real chance of being caught if that person is a criminal.

In the other 37 states anyone can sell a rifle or shotgun to anyone else with no real chance of being caught if that person is a criminal.

  - http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/ (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/)


Of the states where it's possible to prevent private sales to criminals, California, Connecicut, Delaware, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Maryland,  Pennsylvania, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Iowa, and Michigan have typically voted democratic since Bill Clinton was elected (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/nov/10/george-will/george-will-paints-dire-electoral-picture-gop-says/)).

79% (15 / 19) of states with laws that make it easier to prosecute straw purchasers are liberal . . . yet the claim has been levied many times in this thread that liberals don't want to prosecute straw purchasers.

Having laws is nice, but if you're not actually putting people in jail for straw purchasers, then you're not really in favor of treating straw purchasing as a serious crime.

So having laws, a way to enforce them, and prosecuting, then meting out discipline (albeit without jail time) is bad.

Having laws, no way to enforce them, and never being able to prosecute anyone is OK.  Wait, what?

This is my confusion when someone says that 'liberals' don't want to prosecute straw purchasers.  They're the only ones actually prosecuting straw purchasers.  You can argue that they don't go far enough . . . but certainly you can't argue that they're doing less than more conservative states.

Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 29, 2018, 09:30:27 AM
But in IL, home of Chicago and the cases in question...

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-illinois/

Quote
Any private (unlicensed) seller of a firearm who seeks to transfer a firearm to any unlicensed purchaser must, prior to transfer, contact the Department of State Police (DSP) with the transferee’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card number to determine the validity of the transferee’s FOID Card.1 The seller must await approval by DSP before transferring the firearm. Approvals issued by DSP for the purchase of a firearm are valid for 30 days.2

...

Illinois law prohibits any person from knowingly selling firearms or ammunition to individuals who are ineligible to possess a firearm or who do not hold a Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) card. It is a Class 3 felony, for example, for any person to knowingly sell or give any firearm to any person who has been convicted of a felony.8 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers section for information about FOID cards.
Any person who transfers a firearm must keep records of all such transfers for a period of 10 years.9 See the Retention of Sales & Background Checks Records section for more information.
All firearms sellers must abide by statutory waiting periods.10 See the Waiting Periods section for more details.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on March 29, 2018, 09:32:48 AM
So can we put to rest the whole “no one’s trying to take your guns away” tripe?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Yes, the total failure of gun enthusiasts to do anything about the problem has caused many of us to no longer care about your right.

I no longer agree that it is important, and I support a wholesale ban of all firearms and the uncompensated confiscation of all firearms.

To change my mind, all you have to do is literally anything to take responsibility for the potential harm caused by misuse of the right you hold so dear.  Make any move in the direction of giving the slightest shit that mass shootings occur.  Self-police as manufacturers, as sellers, as enthusiasts.

Protect your right if it means that much to you.  Because you've done literally nothing to address the problem in two decades.  This isn't a case of tried and failed, looking for new solutions.

You just don't give even one fuck.

And as is pointed out, non gun-enthusiasts lack the knowledge to fix it and protect your rights.  I'm ceding that argument.  You are correct.  We can't fix it and protect your rights.  You won't fix it.  So fuck your rights.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 09:40:28 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.



But in IL, home of Chicago and the cases in question...

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-illinois/

Quote
Any private (unlicensed) seller of a firearm who seeks to transfer a firearm to any unlicensed purchaser must, prior to transfer, contact the Department of State Police (DSP) with the transferee’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card number to determine the validity of the transferee’s FOID Card.1 The seller must await approval by DSP before transferring the firearm. Approvals issued by DSP for the purchase of a firearm are valid for 30 days.2

...

Illinois law prohibits any person from knowingly selling firearms or ammunition to individuals who are ineligible to possess a firearm or who do not hold a Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) card. It is a Class 3 felony, for example, for any person to knowingly sell or give any firearm to any person who has been convicted of a felony.8 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers section for information about FOID cards.
Any person who transfers a firearm must keep records of all such transfers for a period of 10 years.9 See the Retention of Sales & Background Checks Records section for more information.
All firearms sellers must abide by statutory waiting periods.10 See the Waiting Periods section for more details.

Yep.  In the case brought up, that's how the state took away the right of the straw purchaser to buy a gun again from anyone.  It's currently impossible for Texas to take away this right from a straw purchaser.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on March 29, 2018, 09:49:20 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.



But in IL, home of Chicago and the cases in question...

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-illinois/

Quote
Any private (unlicensed) seller of a firearm who seeks to transfer a firearm to any unlicensed purchaser must, prior to transfer, contact the Department of State Police (DSP) with the transferee’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card number to determine the validity of the transferee’s FOID Card.1 The seller must await approval by DSP before transferring the firearm. Approvals issued by DSP for the purchase of a firearm are valid for 30 days.2

...

Illinois law prohibits any person from knowingly selling firearms or ammunition to individuals who are ineligible to possess a firearm or who do not hold a Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) card. It is a Class 3 felony, for example, for any person to knowingly sell or give any firearm to any person who has been convicted of a felony.8 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers section for information about FOID cards.
Any person who transfers a firearm must keep records of all such transfers for a period of 10 years.9 See the Retention of Sales & Background Checks Records section for more information.
All firearms sellers must abide by statutory waiting periods.10 See the Waiting Periods section for more details.

Yep.  In the case brought up, that's how the state took away the right of the straw purchaser to buy a gun again from anyone.  It's currently impossible for Texas to take away this right from a straw purchaser.

Why is Texas the gold standard?  Does Texas have an abnormally high amount of gun violence with illicitly acquired firearms?

Nope, Texas doesn’t even crack the top 20 for states on gun violence rates. So why are you so hung up on Texas given that it isn’t a significant problem there?

 https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on March 29, 2018, 09:50:48 AM
So can we put to rest the whole “no one’s trying to take your guns away” tripe?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Yes, the total failure of gun enthusiasts to do anything about the problem has caused many of us to no longer care about your right.

I no longer agree that it is important, and I support a wholesale ban of all firearms and the uncompensated confiscation of all firearms.

To change my mind, all you have to do is literally anything to take responsibility for the potential harm caused by misuse of the right you hold so dear.  Make any move in the direction of giving the slightest shit that mass shootings occur.  Self-police as manufacturers, as sellers, as enthusiasts.

Protect your right if it means that much to you.  Because you've done literally nothing to address the problem in two decades.  This isn't a case of tried and failed, looking for new solutions.

You just don't give even one fuck.

And as is pointed out, non gun-enthusiasts lack the knowledge to fix it and protect your rights.  I'm ceding that argument.  You are correct.  We can't fix it and protect your rights.  You won't fix it.  So fuck your rights.

+1.  I wish the current congress would pass something meaningful that also retained our right to bear arms, but if they don't I will fully support whatever solutions democrats come up with when they regain power.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 29, 2018, 09:54:46 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.



But in IL, home of Chicago and the cases in question...

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-illinois/

Quote
Any private (unlicensed) seller of a firearm who seeks to transfer a firearm to any unlicensed purchaser must, prior to transfer, contact the Department of State Police (DSP) with the transferee’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card number to determine the validity of the transferee’s FOID Card.1 The seller must await approval by DSP before transferring the firearm. Approvals issued by DSP for the purchase of a firearm are valid for 30 days.2

...

Illinois law prohibits any person from knowingly selling firearms or ammunition to individuals who are ineligible to possess a firearm or who do not hold a Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) card. It is a Class 3 felony, for example, for any person to knowingly sell or give any firearm to any person who has been convicted of a felony.8 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers section for information about FOID cards.
Any person who transfers a firearm must keep records of all such transfers for a period of 10 years.9 See the Retention of Sales & Background Checks Records section for more information.
All firearms sellers must abide by statutory waiting periods.10 See the Waiting Periods section for more details.

Yep.  In the case brought up, that's how the state took away the right of the straw purchaser to buy a gun again from anyone.  It's currently impossible for Texas to take away this right from a straw purchaser.

Why is Texas the gold standard?  Does Texas have an abnormally high amount of gun violence with illicitly acquired firearms?

Nope, Texas doesn’t even crack the top 20 for states on gun violence rates. So why are you so hung up on Texas given that it isn’t a significant problem there?

 https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/

It's not, it was just a matter of picking a state that doesn't require what Illinois does.

Besides that, I'm not sure what your point is. Texas isn't in the top 20 in gun violence so we shouldn't bother trying to prosecute straw purchasers?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 10:01:24 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.



But in IL, home of Chicago and the cases in question...

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-illinois/

Quote
Any private (unlicensed) seller of a firearm who seeks to transfer a firearm to any unlicensed purchaser must, prior to transfer, contact the Department of State Police (DSP) with the transferee’s Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) Card number to determine the validity of the transferee’s FOID Card.1 The seller must await approval by DSP before transferring the firearm. Approvals issued by DSP for the purchase of a firearm are valid for 30 days.2

...

Illinois law prohibits any person from knowingly selling firearms or ammunition to individuals who are ineligible to possess a firearm or who do not hold a Firearm Owner’s Identification (“FOID”) card. It is a Class 3 felony, for example, for any person to knowingly sell or give any firearm to any person who has been convicted of a felony.8 See the Licensing of Gun Owners & Purchasers section for information about FOID cards.
Any person who transfers a firearm must keep records of all such transfers for a period of 10 years.9 See the Retention of Sales & Background Checks Records section for more information.
All firearms sellers must abide by statutory waiting periods.10 See the Waiting Periods section for more details.

Yep.  In the case brought up, that's how the state took away the right of the straw purchaser to buy a gun again from anyone.  It's currently impossible for Texas to take away this right from a straw purchaser.

Why is Texas the gold standard?  Does Texas have an abnormally high amount of gun violence with illicitly acquired firearms?

Nope, Texas doesn’t even crack the top 20 for states on gun violence rates. So why are you so hung up on Texas given that it isn’t a significant problem there?

 https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/

I picked Texas because it's a right leaning state that doesn't have particularly high gun crime so that I couldn't be accused of comparing with the worst right leaning state.  If you would prefer to use Alaska (ranked most deadly in your list) we can do that.  It's similar to Texas but even more permissive:

Alaska does not:
- Penalize a firearms dealer for failing to conduct the federally required background check on a purchaser;
- Prohibit any person from giving false information or offering false evidence of his or her identity in purchasing or otherwise securing delivery of a firearm;
- Prohibit obtaining a firearm with the intent to provide it to someone the person knows is ineligible to possess a firearm; or
Have any other laws aimed at firearms trafficking.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/firearms-trafficking-in-alaska/ (http://lawcenter.giffords.org/firearms-trafficking-in-alaska/)

The point still applies of course.  It's not possible to prosecute straw purchasers in these states.  Which means they care less, not more about the problem of straw purchasers.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 29, 2018, 10:09:46 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 10:13:39 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on March 29, 2018, 10:49:21 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

I'm going to have to agree with GuitarStv here.  I think stripping someone of their constitutionally guaranteed right is a pretty serious punishment, with or without jail time.  I know locking people up is our go to solution here, but it doesn't always solve the problem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 29, 2018, 10:51:31 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 10:56:11 AM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check. 

I'm not moving goalposts at all.  You said the crime was not being treated as serious, but it is.  It's just not getting the maximum possible jail time.

I'm not entirely sure that jail time is the best option anyway.  At least not for all cases.

If it's a girlfriend or an elderly mother who is being coerced to buy the weapon in the first place and is afraid to go to the police about it, does it really make sense to send them to jail?  By removing their right to buy a gun, you fix the problem without unjustly punishing people who may be caught up in something they don't necessarily want to be.

All gun transfers should absolutely be subject to a background check, nothing to do with straw purchasers.  Otherwise as a good guy selling a gun there's no way of knowing that you're selling your gun to another good guy.  It could be a bad guy or a crazy guy.  As a responsible gun owner, I don't understand how you could argue against that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on March 29, 2018, 11:06:04 AM
So can we put to rest the whole “no one’s trying to take your guns away” tripe?


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Yes, the total failure of gun enthusiasts to do anything about the problem has caused many of us to no longer care about your right.

I no longer agree that it is important, and I support a wholesale ban of all firearms and the uncompensated confiscation of all firearms.

To change my mind, all you have to do is literally anything to take responsibility for the potential harm caused by misuse of the right you hold so dear.  Make any move in the direction of giving the slightest shit that mass shootings occur.  Self-police as manufacturers, as sellers, as enthusiasts.

Protect your right if it means that much to you.  Because you've done literally nothing to address the problem in two decades.  This isn't a case of tried and failed, looking for new solutions.

You just don't give even one fuck.

And as is pointed out, non gun-enthusiasts lack the knowledge to fix it and protect your rights.  I'm ceding that argument.  You are correct.  We can't fix it and protect your rights.  You won't fix it.  So fuck your rights.
+1

It really does come down to the fact that it portrays an attitude of not wanting to do anything to fix the problem and playing hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil and pretending the only problem is that non gun enthusiasts just are making it all up.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on March 29, 2018, 11:58:15 AM
So could the straw purchaser relocate out of state and regain the ability to buy guns again?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 29, 2018, 12:04:32 PM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check.

Since this discussion of catching and prosecuting straw purchasers began you've claimed:

1) A registry doesn't make catching straw purchasers that much easier - but it does
2) Straw purchasers in states like Texas can be caught if we just put in the effort - but often they can't
3) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted - they are
4) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted harshly enough based on the fact that they do not receive jail time - GuitarStv makes a good argument for why that may be a bad idea anyway.

Who is moving the goalposts?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 12:11:55 PM
So could the straw purchaser relocate out of state and regain the ability to buy guns again?

In most lax gun law states anyone can buy a gun privately without verification of ID or doing a background check.  So yeah, absolutely.  You can also buy a gun if you're a criminal, or have mental health issues.




For anyone still interested in straw purchasers in Baltimore in particular, there was actually a study done about the impact on crime:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236 (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236)

Quote
Research demonstrates that laws designed to prevent such diversion by increasing the accountability of gun sellers and buyers are associated with lower levels of guns diverted to prohibited persons in cross-sectional studies. These laws include permit-to-purchase (PTP) laws for handguns, the extension of background check requirements to gun transfers between private parties, mandatory reporting of lost or stolen guns by owners, and strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers

Quote
the FSA was associated with an 82 percent reduction in the risk of a handgun being recovered from a criminal possessor who was not the retail purchaser less than twelve months after its retail sale in Maryland. The data suggest that the new legislation, most probably the licensing requirement for handgun purchasers, may have also contributed to a reduction in the number of legal purchasers subsequently involved in a crime with the gun. In further support of the theory that the FSA reduced diversion of handguns into the underground gun market, Maryland saw a 30 percent reduction in in-state handguns recovered in crime less than a year after retail sale. Pennsylvania and Virginia, neighboring states that did not change their laws, did not see a similar decline.

Quote
Forty percent of the survey respondents, who were prohibited under Maryland law from legally purchasing or possessing guns, reported that the new law made it more difficult to get guns. More than 30 percent indicated that the law affected the willingness of other individuals to purchase guns on behalf of the respondents. Additionally, 25 percent reported that the law affected the ease of finding a trusted source who would sell guns to the respondents.


The goal of having a legal system is to minimize or prevent bad stuff from happening.  That appears to be exactly what these gun regulations are doing.  You can certainly make the argument that you believe the improvement would be even better if straw purchasers were sentenced to jail time.  You can't argue that a state that doesn't implement any way to catch straw purchasers is somehow better or tougher on them than a state that is having success in preventing the crime from happening through prosecution and gun control.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 29, 2018, 01:41:33 PM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check.

Since this discussion of catching and prosecuting straw purchasers began you've claimed:

1) A registry doesn't make catching straw purchasers that much easier - but it does
2) Straw purchasers in states like Texas can be caught if we just put in the effort - but often they can't
3) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted - they are
4) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted harshly enough based on the fact that they do not receive jail time - GuitarStv makes a good argument for why that may be a bad idea anyway.

Who is moving the goalposts?

Why don't you provide quotes of those statements.  I'm certainly as guilty as the next person of speaking (or typing) imprecisely, but I explicitly acknowledged that a registry does make catching some straw purchaser easier.  I'm pretty sure I've never made any representation regarding Texas other than I doubt that there's no law making straw purchases for ineligible buyers illegal.   I'm pretty sure I never said those found guilty of straw purchases are not prosecuted (as you can't be found guilty without being prosecuted). 

I have stated that straw purchasers are not punished harshly enough.  Pretty sure I haven't ever claimed anything different, so of course I'm not moving the goal post.  If you don't think straw purchasers deserve jail time, that's fine.  But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 02:24:47 PM
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 29, 2018, 02:33:41 PM
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

You don't need a registry to require background checks on all sales.  Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 02:43:44 PM
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

You don't need a registry to regulate background checks on all sales.  Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it.

I agree that you don't need a registry to create a regulation requiring background checks on all sales.

Without a record of what background check was done (along with when, and who was involved), anyone can still claim that they privately sold a gun and then forgot the name of the person they sold to and the date it was sold . . . so you would still be unable to prevent straw purchases.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on March 29, 2018, 03:03:14 PM
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

You don't need a registry to regulate background checks on all sales.  Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it.

I agree that you don't need a registry to create a regulation requiring background checks on all sales.

Without a record of what background check was done (along with when, and who was involved), anyone can still claim that they privately sold a gun and then forgot the name of the person they sold to and the date it was sold . . . so you would still be unable to prevent straw purchases.

Require a 4473 for each sale be submitted to the ATF just like any other transfer , require sale to go through a dealer, or require record keeping on the part of the seller.    Gifts, inheritances, and loans are exempted.  Require stolen guns to be reported and if guns associated with you keep turning up with criminals, you have some explaining to do.

Related to this and on punishment of straw purchasers.  If you are willing to intentionally purchase a gun for a prohibited person, I doubt having your gun rights taken away is that much of a deterrent.  Make an announcement, going forward we catch you, you will do time.  When you catch violent felons with guns, serious time.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on March 29, 2018, 03:16:50 PM
But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

Nobody in this thread said that.

It's important to have a registry to prevent straw purchasers.  Preventing guns getting to violent criminals is a big deal.  The registry in Baltimore is working pretty well to prevent guns from getting to violent criminals.  In states with lax gun control laws (which tend to be right wing), there's no way to do this.

You don't need a registry to regulate background checks on all sales.  Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it.

I agree that you don't need a registry to create a regulation requiring background checks on all sales.

Without a record of what background check was done (along with when, and who was involved), anyone can still claim that they privately sold a gun and then forgot the name of the person they sold to and the date it was sold . . . so you would still be unable to prevent straw purchases.

I'm gonna jump back in here because I actually strongly agree with both points made above...

"Open up the NICS to private transfers and set a numerical limit on the number of private sales per year and enforce it. "

Agreed.  And have both parties keep a receipt stating the Seller's name and ID, the Buyer's name and ID and the date and time of the BG check.  Do not include the firearm or serial number.  Both parties keep "proof" that they followed through with the law.

Also, in order to verify the sale, the bg check record will have to be stored BUT should require a signed warrant from a judge, and it should be explicitly illegal to issue a warrant for more than (2) individuals at any one time (no "whole data release" warrants).

Also, make it illegal to not report the loss of a weapon, lets say within (7) days of the loss or theft.  If there is a theft, the expectation is a police report should accompany the report.

The prosecution now has an offensive plan as to why a straw purchaser either (1) didn't report it stolen, (2) illegally sold the firearm without a BG check or (3) acted as a straw purchaser.

I am also strongly in agreement that a straw purchase should be a low-punishment felony, but one that bars the purchase of a firearm for a non-insignificant amount of time...  I would say 20 years or so.  That means they lose the 'straw purchase' capabilities for a significant enough time that (hopefully) they won't ever want to make that decision again.

Also, it should be illegal and punishable for a know felon to attempt to pressure a straw purchase.  GF's or relatives or friends (with evidence) should be able to find legal recourse against attempted straw purchase 'pushing'.  Right now, they are on their own entirely and the DA's hands are tied as there is no actual offense for trying it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on March 29, 2018, 03:28:27 PM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check.

Since this discussion of catching and prosecuting straw purchasers began you've claimed:

1) A registry doesn't make catching straw purchasers that much easier - but it does
2) Straw purchasers in states like Texas can be caught if we just put in the effort - but often they can't
3) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted - they are
4) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted harshly enough based on the fact that they do not receive jail time - GuitarStv makes a good argument for why that may be a bad idea anyway.

Who is moving the goalposts?

Why don't you provide quotes of those statements.  I'm certainly as guilty as the next person of speaking (or typing) imprecisely, but I explicitly acknowledged that a registry does make catching some straw purchaser easier.  I'm pretty sure I've never made any representation regarding Texas other than I doubt that there's no law making straw purchases for ineligible buyers illegal.   I'm pretty sure I never said those found guilty of straw purchases are not prosecuted (as you can't be found guilty without being prosecuted). 

I have stated that straw purchasers are not punished harshly enough.  Pretty sure I haven't ever claimed anything different, so of course I'm not moving the goal post.  If you don't think straw purchasers deserve jail time, that's fine.  But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

1) You said it's often easy to prove a straw purchase. I guess it depends on your definition of 'often' but since I think it's closer to never I would disagree. You did say a registry would make catching them easier but you also explained how simple it would be without one on several occasions. Your 'simple' arguments were thorougly refuted.
2)
Quote
"It's not that there is no way to prove the charge.  That's such a stupid talking point.  If it's not "worth the effort" to prove the charge...
implies that they can be caught but there is a lack of effort.
3) I guess this one makes me 'the next person' you were referring to :) I read
Quote
if you're not actually putting people in jail for straw purchasers, then you're not really in favor of treating straw purchasing as a serious crime.
as "not actually prosecuting people."
4) My point was that this is where we stand now, the most recent goal post.

I absolutely think providing guns to criminals is a big deal. Why does the fact that I don't think jail time is always the answer imply that I do not? I'm more worried about stopping straw purchasers from doing what they're doing than making them suffer and paying for it with taxes. Unfortunately jailtime is not an effective way to reform most people and if they were just  someone who was pressured to buy guns for a relation, then I definately don't think jail is the answer; the efficacy of prison to reform criminals is a whole other argument.

In fact, I never even said they shouldn't go to jail, maybe they should. Maybe these states need to do a better job of enforcing the laws. Maybe they need to use tougher punishments. I don't know enough about the current situation to be certain, but I do know that throwing your hands up and saying "what's the point of a registry, no one going to jail when they get caught?" isn't a great argument against a reliable way to catch criminals.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on March 29, 2018, 04:07:35 PM
Having no law to enforce in this case is bad.

Having a law, and choosing not to enforce it, which is mostly the case in leftists states being discussed, is just as bad if not worse.

That's not what we were talking about though.

The leftist state (Maryland) being discussed enforced their law (but not aggressively enough for those in this thread), the right state (Texas) doesn't bother to enforce the law because they've made it impossible to do so through lax gun laws.

If it's not what you're talking about it's because you've moved the goal post:



No, the best way to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers is to aggressively prosecute straw purchasers.  Straw purchasers aren't prosecuted out of political convenience and/or laziness, not because the ownership of the gun can't be traced. 

Certainly if straw purchasers were already aggressively prosecuted and punished, a gun registry would make it easier to identify and prosecute more straw purchasers, but since politicians and elected prosecutors aren't willing to treat straw purchasing as the serious crime it is, that's a pretty iron clad tip off that the gun registry, if it does anything, is just going to hassle law abiding gunowners. 

If the left would start treating straw purchasing as a serious crime, it would be pretty manageable to pass a law requiring that any sale of a gun within 12 or 24 months of purchase has to be through a federally licensed fire arm dealer.  Then you cut out the true straw purchasers with a pretty minimal impact to law abiding gun owners.

Again, leftists want to hassle law abiding gun owners, but they don't want to treat straw purchasing as a serious crime.  I'm not sure how many anti-registry people would change their mind, if any, but it's an easy argument for them now.

You don't consider losing the right to own a firearm ever again a punishment?  Cool.  Let's talk gun control then.

You are attempting to move the goal posts again.  Noboby was talking about whether or not barring somebody from owning a firearm is a punishment.  It's clearly a punishment.  But it's not a punishment handed out as the primary or sole punishment for a serious crime. 

It's hard to credibly claim that an appropriate punishment for helping a violent criminal bypass restrictions on his ability to procure a gun is a bar from purchasing future guns, and also claim that straw purchasing is so serious we need to mandate all gun transfers be subject to a background check.

Since this discussion of catching and prosecuting straw purchasers began you've claimed:

1) A registry doesn't make catching straw purchasers that much easier - but it does
2) Straw purchasers in states like Texas can be caught if we just put in the effort - but often they can't
3) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted - they are
4) Those found guilty of straw purchases in states with some form of registry are not prosecuted harshly enough based on the fact that they do not receive jail time - GuitarStv makes a good argument for why that may be a bad idea anyway.

Who is moving the goalposts?

Why don't you provide quotes of those statements.  I'm certainly as guilty as the next person of speaking (or typing) imprecisely, but I explicitly acknowledged that a registry does make catching some straw purchaser easier.  I'm pretty sure I've never made any representation regarding Texas other than I doubt that there's no law making straw purchases for ineligible buyers illegal.   I'm pretty sure I never said those found guilty of straw purchases are not prosecuted (as you can't be found guilty without being prosecuted). 

I have stated that straw purchasers are not punished harshly enough.  Pretty sure I haven't ever claimed anything different, so of course I'm not moving the goal post.  If you don't think straw purchasers deserve jail time, that's fine.  But don't act like it's sooooo important to have a registry if you don't think providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal.

The problem here is that you can think that providing guns to violent criminals is a big deal and also think that straw purchasers don't necessarily need to be given jail time (regardless of what they "deserve").
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on March 29, 2018, 04:09:13 PM
I really am glad that this is a law abiding community, because if a lot of you engaged in crime, I think you'd be shocked to find that criminal prosecution doesn't work on the honor system, where they let anybody go that denies the crime. 

But, just so you know, one simple way would be:
ask the gun purchaser where their gun is. 
- if they say it was stolen, you ask if they reported it; if they did, you immediately charge the gun user with larceny (which will often be another felony with real jail time to tack on) if it was actually reported.  If it wasn't reported, you get them to issue an affidavit saying it was stolen, when they were aware it was stolen, etc.  If they swear out the affidavit, again, you charge the gun user with larceny.  If they won't swear out the affidavit, you can use that in impeaching them, either directly (if they take the stand) or indirectly, if you have the investigator testify to the fact that they wouldn't swear it was stolen.
- If they say they sold it to somebody else, you get them to identify them.  If they identify them, you start the process over with that person (if they deny purchasing the gun, then you use them to impeach the strawpurchaser at trial) go to them.  If they don't identify them, again, you have a case to present with strong circumstantial evidence.

Certainly not a slam dunk, but you should generally either get (1) additional time for the violent criminal (a win), (2) jail time for the straw purchaser, which should greatly deter future strawpurchaser (a win), or (3) a huge hassle for the straw purchaser (not a win, but not bad either, especially if it involves them spending a few days in jail, as again, the straw purchasers will be people with clean records and who spending any time in jail is less palatable than it might be for the typical criminal, although granted some of the straw purchasers may already be fairly enmeshed in criminal life and just not been caught yet, in which case that probably wouldn't be a big deterrent)

You're not required to know the name of the person you sell a gun to, or to verify their identity.  So, I'm a straw purchaser and I say 'I sold the gun to a guy with dark hair'.  Not only not a slam dunk, but your investigation is now over.

- No additional time for the violent criminal
- No jail time for the straw purchaser
- No hassle for the straw purchaser

Again, that's not the way investigations or prosecutions work (at least with good ones).  They don't say, wow, it sure is a coincidence that you sold a gun to somebody you can't identify, and the gun just happened to end up with your brother.  Nothing we can do about that, enjoy your day.  Again, these are people that can pass a background check.  They are mostly not hardened criminals. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Michael in ABQ on March 29, 2018, 05:17:54 PM
Quote
Other countries have people who own guns and they do not have it in their documents.  They just have a set of rules that their society agreed to about how to handle that.

I think this quote is quite informative, especially when viewing the issue of gun violence through the lense of public health as NoStacheOhio mentioned. While I think it’s a good idea to try to design guns with safety in mind as  we do cars, the issue is not one without solid answers and evidence, which leads me to the conclusion that all this talk about the definition of assault rifles and the like is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Every other developed nation does not have a gun violence problem. They have the solutions. We can just adapt what they do to our own legal environment and likely see the mass reductions in gun deaths that everyone wants, balanced against respecting ownership rights. Rates may still be higher than in other countries, but I imagine they would be far lower than currently.

The problem is, pretty much every other developed country in the world has stricter gun control rules.  Gun advocates don't believe that guns are a problem because they like guns.  To them, the deaths and injury caused by guns are the price of freedom to use whatever toys you want, whenever you want . . . and no amount of death is worth the slightest inconvenience on that front.  I don't believe you'll ever get them on board.

You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enshrine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.

If you look at countries where masses of citizens were killed by their own government (Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) you will see a correlation with low rates of gun ownership and in many cases outright bans and confiscations in the years before most of the killing. That is not to say that gun control causes mass killing by governments, but it is usually one of the steps. After all, it's pretty hard to go round up people for internment, reeducation, execution, etc. when many of them might be armed. Gun control, whether in the form of limitations on who can possess guns, or what kind of guns they can possess, or registering those guns, is a slippery slope towards confiscation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zoltani on March 29, 2018, 05:48:24 PM
Quote
Other countries have people who own guns and they do not have it in their documents.  They just have a set of rules that their society agreed to about how to handle that.

I think this quote is quite informative, especially when viewing the issue of gun violence through the lense of public health as NoStacheOhio mentioned. While I think it’s a good idea to try to design guns with safety in mind as  we do cars, the issue is not one without solid answers and evidence, which leads me to the conclusion that all this talk about the definition of assault rifles and the like is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Every other developed nation does not have a gun violence problem. They have the solutions. We can just adapt what they do to our own legal environment and likely see the mass reductions in gun deaths that everyone wants, balanced against respecting ownership rights. Rates may still be higher than in other countries, but I imagine they would be far lower than currently.

The problem is, pretty much every other developed country in the world has stricter gun control rules.  Gun advocates don't believe that guns are a problem because they like guns.  To them, the deaths and injury caused by guns are the price of freedom to use whatever toys you want, whenever you want . . . and no amount of death is worth the slightest inconvenience on that front.  I don't believe you'll ever get them on board.

You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enshrine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.

If you look at countries where masses of citizens were killed by their own government (Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) you will see a correlation with low rates of gun ownership and in many cases outright bans and confiscations in the years before most of the killing. That is not to say that gun control causes mass killing by governments, but it is usually one of the steps. After all, it's pretty hard to go round up people for internment, reeducation, execution, etc. when many of them might be armed. Gun control, whether in the form of limitations on who can possess guns, or what kind of guns they can possess, or registering those guns, is a slippery slope towards confiscation.

I doubt your puny little semi auto will be effective over the types of weapons the government and elite posses. Your nervous system can be manipulated through the screen you are reading this thread through. 

"Physiological effects have been observed in a human subject in response to stimulation of the skin with weak electromagnetic fields that are pulsed with certain frequencies near ½ Hz or 2.4 Hz, such as to excite a sensory resonance.Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause such excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal. The image displayed on a computer monitor may be pulsed effectively by a simple computer program. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensity."

"Certain monitors can emit electromagnetic field pulses that excite a sensory resonance in a nearby subject, through image pulses that are so weak as to be subliminal. This is unfortunate since it opens a way for mischievous application of the invention, whereby people are exposed unknowingly to manipulation of their nervous systems for someone else's purposes. Such application would be unethical and is of course not advocated. It is mentioned here in order to alert the public to the possibility of covert abuse that may occur while being online, or while watching TV, a video, or a DVD."

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6506148B2/en


Terrifying isn't it?

I guess if we want to travel down this rabbit hole then we could assume that this technology is being used and has been used to manipulate people into doing things that they normally wouldn't do. If that is the case how do we know that these technologies aren't being used to drive people mad and coerce them into committing atrocities?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 29, 2018, 07:08:30 PM
You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles.

Sigh.  The types of weapons effective in resisting a tyrannical government have already been banned for private use.  Nukes, rockets, land mines, bioweapons, tanks, bombers (and the munitions to load 'em up).

Just for the heck of it let's pretend that all you need against the most powerful modern military in the world are a few rifles, whatever.  We'll ignore the fact that a true tyrant can wipe you out by isolating you, releasing some bio-weapons, letting you all die horribly, then doing some minor cleanup a year later . . .

Can you point to a single instance in the last hundred and fifty years where a tyrant has been overthrown by a band of hardy guerrillas and not immediately been replaced with another tyrant?  I'll give you some time.  No?  Yeah, that's because the people who are most effective at leading effective guerrilla forces are assholes like Osama.  They don't tend to want to give power back to the people once they've finally seized it.



The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enshrine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.

Yes, it was.  And it made sense at the time it was written.



If you look at countries where masses of citizens were killed by their own government (Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) you will see a correlation with low rates of gun ownership and in many cases outright bans and confiscations in the years before most of the killing. That is not to say that gun control causes mass killing by governments, but it is usually one of the steps. After all, it's pretty hard to go round up people for internment, reeducation, execution, etc. when many of them might be armed. Gun control, whether in the form of limitations on who can possess guns, or what kind of guns they can possess, or registering those guns, is a slippery slope towards confiscation.

Cambodia was actually an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  Rwanda was an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  China was an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  Russia?  Yeah, same story.  This is your blueprint to 'fix' the US and save it from tyranny.


As far as your Germany argument, I've got a whole wikipedia page for you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument)

Quote
The Nazi gun control argument is counterfactual history argument claiming that gun regulations in the Third Reich rendered victims of the Holocaust weaker to such an extent that they could have more effectively resisted oppression if they had been armed or better armed.[1][2] Various mainstream sources describe the argument as historically "dubious",[3] "questionable",[4] "preposterous,"[5] "tendentious",[2] and "problematic".[1]

This argument is prevalent and primarily used within U.S. gun politics. Questions about its validity, and about the motives behind its inception, have been raised by scholars. Proponents in the United States have used it as part of a "security against tyranny" argument, while opponents have referred to it as a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum.[6]
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on March 29, 2018, 10:26:34 PM
Again, that's not the way investigations or prosecutions work (at least with good ones).  They don't say, wow, it sure is a coincidence that you sold a gun to somebody you can't identify, and the gun just happened to end up with your brother.  Nothing we can do about that, enjoy your day.  Again, these are people that can pass a background check.  They are mostly not hardened criminals.
I don't think you really understand how the legal system works.

There's this pesky thing called presumption of innocence.  Along with that are the protections in place so that citizens do not have to incriminate themselves by signing affidavits and such like.

Combined that means the Prosecution actually has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed and if they can't do that they don't just get to force citizens to incriminate themselves so they can charge them with other crimes instead.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Michael in ABQ on March 30, 2018, 02:02:47 AM
It's too late to try and format this with the embedded quotes so my responses are in Bold

You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles.

Sigh.  The types of weapons effective in resisting a tyrannical government have already been banned for private use.  Nukes, rockets, land mines, bioweapons, tanks, bombers (and the munitions to load 'em up).

Just for the heck of it let's pretend that all you need against the most powerful modern military in the world are a few rifles, whatever.  We'll ignore the fact that a true tyrant can wipe you out by isolating you, releasing some bio-weapons, letting you all die horribly, then doing some minor cleanup a year later . . .

The civil war in Syria and Libya both showed that a tyrant was not able to easily wipe out an armed resistance.

Can you point to a single instance in the last hundred and fifty years where a tyrant has been overthrown by a band of hardy guerrillas and not immediately been replaced with another tyrant?  I'll give you some time.  No?  Yeah, that's because the people who are most effective at leading effective guerrilla forces are assholes like Osama.  They don't tend to want to give power back to the people once they've finally seized it.

Well if we go back 250 years you would have the American Revolution, the slave revolt in Haiti, and the Spanish guerillas in the peninsular campaign against Napoleon. However, my point was that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government from coming to power because of the threat of having an armed populace that would outnumber the government's military forces. There are tens of millions of gun owners in the US in comparison to a total active and reserve military of about two million. Many of which (myself included) would be more likely to resist a tyrannical government than fire upon US citizens. My oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not the president.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enshrine the right of Americans to keep and bear arms to resist a tyrannical government.

Yes, it was.  And it made sense at the time it was written.


If you look at countries where masses of citizens were killed by their own government (Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc.) you will see a correlation with low rates of gun ownership and in many cases outright bans and confiscations in the years before most of the killing. That is not to say that gun control causes mass killing by governments, but it is usually one of the steps. After all, it's pretty hard to go round up people for internment, reeducation, execution, etc. when many of them might be armed. Gun control, whether in the form of limitations on who can possess guns, or what kind of guns they can possess, or registering those guns, is a slippery slope towards confiscation.

Cambodia was actually an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  Rwanda was an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  China was an armed revolution by a group of people who thought the government was tyrannical.  Russia?  Yeah, same story.  This is your blueprint to 'fix' the US and save it from tyranny.

Yes, Pol Pot overthrew the existing government and was a dictator who killed many of his own people after seizing power.

Rwanda was genocide committed by the majority ethnic group (which was in power) against a minority ethnic group, primarily with machetes. It ranks near dead last in the world for the rate of gun ownership. I'll be there's a lot of Tutsis who wished they had a gun when a mob of machete armed Hutu neighbors showed up and hacked them to death.

Most of the deaths in China occurred after the communists seized power during the cultural revolution. That was when they rounded up and killed the professors, business owners, intellectuals, and generally what would be considered societal elites. Same with Russia. Lenin took over in 1917 but majority of killings by the communist government occurred in the 1930s and 1940s when, just like in China, dissidents and intellectuals were rounded up and either killed outright or indirectly in labor/reeducation camps.


As far as your Germany argument, I've got a whole wikipedia page for you:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument)

Quote
The Nazi gun control argument is counterfactual history argument claiming that gun regulations in the Third Reich rendered victims of the Holocaust weaker to such an extent that they could have more effectively resisted oppression if they had been armed or better armed.[1][2] Various mainstream sources describe the argument as historically "dubious",[3] "questionable",[4] "preposterous,"[5] "tendentious",[2] and "problematic".[1]

This argument is prevalent and primarily used within U.S. gun politics. Questions about its validity, and about the motives behind its inception, have been raised by scholars. Proponents in the United States have used it as part of a "security against tyranny" argument, while opponents have referred to it as a form of Reductio ad Hitlerum.[6]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/

Quote
Gun ownership was banned outright for all German citizens in 1919. A 1928 revision of the law lifted the ban, while still requiring individuals to obtain permits to own, sell, carry, or manufacture firearms. According to Stephen Halbrook, author of Gun Control in the Third Reich: Disarming the Jews and ‘Enemies of the State’ (Independence Institute, 2013), the Nazis used the extant law when they came to power in 1933 to revoke the permits of communists, Jews, and other “undesirables,” and disarm them. The first gun law actually enacted under Nazi rule, the German Weapons Act of 1938, eased some of the permit requirements (those on rifles and ammunition, though not on handguns), and lowered the legal age for the possession of firearms, but also forbade Jews, specifically, from manufacturing or selling arms.

The Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons, enacted later that year, prohibited Jews from possessing or carrying any kind of weapon at all.
So, while the Nazis ultimately favored loosening gun restrictions on the German population as a whole, the disarmament of Jews and other targeted minority populations was an essential feature of Hitler’s genocidal program, which included the murder of six million Jews (and millions of others deemed unworthy to live under the Third Reich) between 1938 and the end of World War II.

Quote
The Khmer Rouge regime eliminated the previous elite, and in the process effectively ended private gun ownership. Memoirs of the time provide accounts of how Khmer Rouge cadres confiscated firearms along with watches, motorbikes, and foreign currencies during the first days of the takeover of power in Phnom Penh (Simkin and Rice, 1994, supra note 2, p. 306; referred to in Kopel,1995).

During the rule of the Khmer Rouge, all private firearms were moved from private ownership into the stockpiles of the regime.

Quote
WHAT'S TRUE
Mass killings of civilians by military dictatorships in the 1900s were more often than not preceded by the confiscation of firearms from targeted populations, a task made easier by laws requiring the registration and/or licensing of privately-owned weapons.

Quote
Claim: “Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.”
This simply isn’t true, and not just because historians still quibble over the exact numbers of those killed. Tens of millions of people became victims of genocide in the twentieth century because they were members of groups targeted for eradication for reasons of ethnicity, religion, or ideology by ruthless military dictatorships. More often than not, these massacres were preceded by (or concurrent with) concerted efforts to disarm the targeted populations, a task obviously made easier by the existence of gun registration requirements. But to say those millions died because of gun control is an abuse of the facts and logic.



As you can see there is a long history of government trying to disarm their citizens before killing them. It is not a causal relationship however. I don't expect the Australian government to erect concentration camps anytime soon. However, I prefer to live in a country where the right to resist a tyrannical government by force of arms exists, rather than just counting on the goodwill of the government to not use their monopoly on force to someday decide to target me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on March 30, 2018, 09:15:37 AM
China's cultural revolution happened after the country was solidly Communist.

Really, SYRIA?! Have you spent any time reading what has happened there? I actually know a few refugees (of the current war) and the general consensus is things weren't great before, but life was decent. Now, well, everyone's dying so they fled to save their lives.

Maybe some of you might want to start "resisting" some of the tyranny in America today. I mean, what's your threshhold for pulling out a gun? The only time I see gun owners stand up en masse is when the NRA starts freaking out about gun control. How about showing up for a BLM rally and standing against police violence? That's some pretty clear "tyranny" right there.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on March 30, 2018, 09:57:46 AM
So I will introduce a new question here.

My wife, who is a teacher, finds it very odd in all the news reports she sees on how gun background checks work.  When she was given a background check for her teaching job the process took nearly a week because of the checks with the FBI and others, but a gun purchaser can have a check done in a matter of minutes?  Her question is how good can this background check really be?  When a teacher is checked through multiple agencies but someone buying a deadly weapon is only checked through one database that everyone agrees is not well maintained (and what database ever is?), that seems to be a big problem.  So pardon me if I'm not comfortable that passing the gun background check actually does anything worthwhile other than a check a box on a form.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on March 30, 2018, 11:06:07 AM
So I will introduce a new question here.

My wife, who is a teacher, finds it very odd in all the news reports she sees on how gun background checks work.  When she was given a background check for her teaching job the process took nearly a week because of the checks with the FBI and others, but a gun purchaser can have a check done in a matter of minutes?  Her question is how good can this background check really be?  When a teacher is checked through multiple agencies but someone buying a deadly weapon is only checked through one database that everyone agrees is not well maintained (and what database ever is?), that seems to be a big problem.  So pardon me if I'm not comfortable that passing the gun background check actually does anything worthwhile other than a check a box on a form.

It has to do with the NCIS database's system of checks.

Some background here:
-I have had several standard NCIS checks done, and they are **typically** quick so I get the confusion.
- I have had a full federal BG check (of which I received a copy) in order to become a teacher.  I ultimately didn't pursue that degree path but I started it and had the BG check done.
- I have had a two-tier state and federal BG check done for my License to Carry (Texas CCW). 
- (And lets not even get into ATF's 4-8 month BG check for Class III items...)

Let me outline the differences:

NCIS's program works on a name/date of birth methodology with the SSN as a verifying factor.  It runs "Texas P Runner" DOB: "01/01/1990" against the listed names in the database.  If a social is not provided, it also runs a DL# check against the state system to verify no one lied about the name or DOB.  If a social is provided, it verified name and DOB against the social.  This process is fast because, essentially, its just a list of names.  If you are unlucky and named Brian J Smith (or some other common name), you almost always get a 'hit' and the approval turns into hours or days.  If you are lucky and there is no criminal out there with your name and date of birth, the check is really quick.

Federal Background Checks for teachers (from what I recall) have several tiers.  First, they verify your name and any aliases against where you were born and everywhere you have ever lived.  This includes that typo you made in 11th grade when applying for your drivers license (ask me how I know lol).  After verifying names, that BG check runs all names and aliases against criminal records in a CRAPTON of countries and sub databases, including every state and federal listings.  It takes a while and is quite in depth.  Considering it uses other countries databases, there are probably more 'false hits' that must be resolved.

Texas' LTC BG check is similar to the teacher's, that it runs all federal checks and every state check, but seems to concern itself more with a verified date of birth (hence the requirement to list the hospital in the application) and aliases, and doesn't work of names/aliases alone.  Pretty sure it runs through the NCIS database as well, just because its the easiest 'first check'.

ATF BG checks apparently go all the way into social media, school records, criminal checks and (if needed) a remote psych profile.  Hence, it take 6 months to get back because of the waiting list / time required.


All of this is to say, the "FIX NICS" bill is set up to require those names and DOBs to be put in from any source that can disallow ownership... Including all states, municipalities and the armed forces.  (The Navy didn't put in the Sutherland shooter's info).

Hopefully that helps you understand.  It isn't a background check as much as a computerized listing check that has to be investigated when there is a positive or a false positive.  There is no guarantee to get a result in under 5 minutes, it can take up to three days.  Also, there is process that if you have a common name, you can keep a 'pin' that allows the background check agent to look up your old NCIS pull and verify you are not the criminal "Brian J Smith" but the never-done-anything-illegal "Brian J Smith".

Good question.

:)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on March 30, 2018, 01:53:36 PM
You will not get me on board with banning the type of weapons that would be effective in resisting a tyrannical government, i.e. semi-automatic rifles.

Sigh.  The types of weapons effective in resisting a tyrannical government have already been banned for private use.  Nukes, rockets, land mines, bioweapons, tanks, bombers (and the munitions to load 'em up).

Just for the heck of it let's pretend that all you need against the most powerful modern military in the world are a few rifles, whatever.  We'll ignore the fact that a true tyrant can wipe you out by isolating you, releasing some bio-weapons, letting you all die horribly, then doing some minor cleanup a year later . . .

The civil war in Syria and Libya both showed that a tyrant was not able to easily wipe out an armed resistance.

An armed resistance, yes.  With small arms?  Lol.


Libya:

T55 battle tanks
Type 63 107mm Multi-barrel rocket launchers
DShK 12.7mm heavy machine guns
ZPU-2/ZPU-4 Anti-aircraft guns
106mm M40A1
84mm Swedish Carl Gustav
 . . . etc.
  - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12692068 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12692068)


Syria:
- Anti-air provided by Qatar and Russia
- Anti-tank provided by Russia and the US
- Field artillery provided by Russia
- Heavy machine guns provided by Russia, Saudi Arabia
- Rockets provided by Saudi Arabia
. . . etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_used_by_Syrian_opposition_forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_equipment_used_by_Syrian_opposition_forces)

You will be disturbed to find out that the very weapons used by the Libyan and Syrian rebels as part of their armed resistance have already been restricted in the US . . . and that both they Syrian and Libyan armies required the use of much more than small arms.  Of course, both armies are also exponentially weaker than the US army that you're planning to stand against.

You'll be interested to know that during Qaddafi's reign there was gun control.  The Libyan revolution wasn't won by some guys who could go to the local store and buy a semi-auto AR-15.  That would have been suicide.  It was won when real arms were supplied by other countries.

In Syria it also took foreign heavy duty military weapons (the kind currently prohibited from private ownership in the US) for them to get going.  Because attempting to


Can you point to a single instance in the last hundred and fifty years where a tyrant has been overthrown by a band of hardy guerrillas and not immediately been replaced with another tyrant?  I'll give you some time.  No?  Yeah, that's because the people who are most effective at leading effective guerrilla forces are assholes like Osama.  They don't tend to want to give power back to the people once they've finally seized it.

Well if we go back 250 years you would have the American Revolution, the slave revolt in Haiti, and the Spanish guerillas in the peninsular campaign against Napoleon. However, my point was that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a tyrannical government from coming to power because of the threat of having an armed populace that would outnumber the government's military forces. There are tens of millions of gun owners in the US in comparison to a total active and reserve military of about two million. Many of which (myself included) would be more likely to resist a tyrannical government than fire upon US citizens. My oath is to the Constitution of the United States, not the president.

A simple 'No' is fine.  No, in the last 150 years (the entire history of modern warfare) every rebel group that has ever risen up and replaced a dictator has merely put their own brand of dictatorship into power.  That is the nature of guerrilla revolution in the modern era.  If you actually want to replace a dictator with a democracy, that tends to take decades of small changes.  Changes fought for in political and legal cases rather than with six-shooters and a cowboy hat.



Yes, Pol Pot overthrew the existing government and was a dictator who killed many of his own people after seizing power.

Yep.  Armed revolutionary doing what armed revolutionaries do in modern times - putting a dictator into power.

Rwanda was genocide committed by the majority ethnic group (which was in power) against a minority ethnic group, primarily with machetes.  It ranks near dead last in the world for the rate of gun ownership. I'll be there's a lot of Tutsis who wished they had a gun when a mob of machete armed Hutu neighbors showed up and hacked them to death.


I'll bet that a lot of Tutsis were happy that the machete armed Hutu neighbours didn't have easy access to guns.  Either way, it's yet another example of armed revolutionaries doing what they do in modern times.  Putting a dictator into power.

Most of the deaths in China occurred after the communists seized power during the cultural revolution. That was when they rounded up and killed the professors, business owners, intellectuals, and generally what would be considered societal elites.  Same with Russia. Lenin took over in 1917 but majority of killings by the communist government occurred in the 1930s and 1940s when, just like in China, dissidents and intellectuals were rounded up and either killed outright or indirectly in labor/reeducation camps.


Yep.  That's what happens after an armed revolution.  You institute a dictator.  The pattern happens over and over again.  The revolution is not a solution to the problem (tyrannical government) because it always leads to a new tyrannical government.  That's why your whole argument is kinda silly.

First we have to totally suspend reality and assume that some small arms are really going to do shit against the most powerful and well coordinated military in the world, led by a tyrannical government.  Then we have to pretend that all of modern military history doesn't exist, and that your guerrilla leader who emerges will voluntarily relinquish power to restore a peaceful democratic order.  If you're willing to make those leaps, I've got a bridge to sell you.


As you can see there is a long history of government trying to disarm their citizens before killing them. It is not a causal relationship however. I don't expect the Australian government to erect concentration camps anytime soon. However, I prefer to live in a country where the right to resist a tyrannical government by force of arms exists, rather than just counting on the goodwill of the government to not use their monopoly on force to someday decide to target me.

Actually, on this I completely agree with you.  A tyrant tends to want to consolidate his power and reduce possible losses, so yeah . . . disarmament is pretty normal.  I also agree with you that the first world nations with gun control laws (Canada, Australia, Britain, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Japan, etc.) are not likely to start setting up concentration camps soon.  Why is that?

It's related to the point you're missing here.  They are democracies.  If you don't want a tyrannical government in a democracy, you don't need to stockpile small arms (which aren't useful in a revolution anyway without all the supporting military weapons, and even if your revolution works will ensure that a tyrant becomes your new leader).  You just need to stop voting for Cthulhu.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on March 30, 2018, 09:21:23 PM
FWIW, in Illinois, if you sell your gun as a private party, you are required to keep a record of the sale for 10 years, and you have to report a stolen firearm as well.  There are penalties applied if you fail to do so and your gun gets used in a crime.
I've read a whole lot of the gun control wishlists out there. Not a one says "ban all guns in the US". Even if all of them were implemented, you could still own a gun to defend yourself from a burglar. You just wouldn't be able to kill him in a giant hail of bullets. (Unless, of course, you're a felon.)

The first Amendment is absolutely curtailed: you can't slander people. You can lose your job by being an ass on social media. The 2nd absolutely should be curtailed in a way that other people's rights are not harmed. I don't want my kids to be terrified at school, something that is happening by asking them to do shooter drills, walk by armed cops every day, or go through metal detectors. These things harm their psyche more than they protect. If you have more hoops to jump through to own your gun so my kids can stop being reminded constantly that guns threaten them, yes, I fully support that.
1) Yes, there are plenty of people arguing for complete abolition of private gun ownership.*
2) You're a bit off-base on the 1st amendment limitations.  The limitation isn't slander per se--it's slander that causes damage to the other person, as I understand it.  The victim has to prove damages in order to be compensated.  In other words, you can say what you want, but you're responsible for the consequences.  The same is true of firearm ownership.  Fire into the air and hit someone?  Yeah, you're gonna be in trouble.

* Besides the Stevens quote mentioned elsewhere in the thread, it's also the very logical conclusion of what we have seen not only in this country, but in others.  If you're only willing to look at gun control as a potential solution to, say, school shootings, then the only way you're going to eliminate every possibility is by elimination of all guns in the country.  The losers who shoot up crowds either are able to pass background checks (Vegas), or are missed in the background check process (FL) or steal guns from others (Sandy Hook).  The fact is that none of the gun control measures that I see being proposed would have a meaningful impact.

Require a 4473 for each sale be submitted to the ATF just like any other transfer , require sale to go through a dealer, or require record keeping on the part of the seller.    Gifts, inheritances, and loans are exempted.  Require stolen guns to be reported and if guns associated with you keep turning up with criminals, you have some explaining to do.
4473's aren't actually submitted to the ATF.  They stay with the dealer.  It's not significantly more inconvenient to the ATF when tracing a gun, but it helps prevent the ATF from compiling a list of everyone who's bought a gun from a specific dealer.  When a dealer goes out of business or whatever, those records *should* get transferred to the ATF, so that traces can still be run.

Quote
See, I don't care if you're afraid all the time and think a gun will solve that just like you don't care about my fears. I don't care if you carry a gun as long as you do so responsibly. As long as lax gun laws don't mean your fear spills into my life. That is what I mean by wanting these shooter drills to stop being necessary. They never were when I was growing up, so I can only conclude our laws have become lax enough that something needs to change. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert and know how best to do that. I can only support those who think they have the answers.
I'm having trouble with the bolded section above.  When I think about changes in gun laws over the last 40 years or so, the following things come to mind:
1) Automatic weapons ban of 1986 (you can't own an automatic weapon that wasn't already registered pre-1986)
2) NICS, enacted 1998
3) "Assault weapons" Ban 1994-2004
4) General increase in states allowing concealed carry

You'll note that none of those really have any effect on mass school shootings, nor *can* they.  Nor do they represent gun laws becoming more lax.  So I'm afraid your premise is misplaced.  We can speculate all day about possible causes for the apparent rise in school shootings, or even if such an increase even exists, but you can't tie it to an increase in the availability of firearms.  Semiautomatic weapons have been in widespread private ownership for a century or more.

Quote
It has already been mentioned in this thread, but 45% of American gun owners with children keep at least one unsecured firearm in the home.  More than half of gun owners in the US store their weapons unsecured so that they can easily be stolen or used by an unauthorized person.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html

The real reason that suggestions for things like a gun registry strikes terror in the heart of gun owners is that it means they might have to accept responsibility for their actions.
Already discussed and beaten to death.

Quote
Yes, the total failure of gun enthusiasts to do anything about the problem has caused many of us to no longer care about your right.
...
And as is pointed out, non gun-enthusiasts lack the knowledge to fix it and protect your rights.  I'm ceding that argument.  You are correct.  We can't fix it and protect your rights.  You won't fix it.  So fuck your rights.
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on April 06, 2018, 01:26:48 PM
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on April 06, 2018, 01:39:26 PM
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

I assume you're one of those people who think it's law abiding Muslim's responsibility to "fix" the problem with islamic terrorism in the U.S., and if they can't, fuck their rights? 

Luckily, that's not how rights work (or at least, are supposed to work; actually upholding the rule of law is of course uncertain and inconsistent). 


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on April 06, 2018, 01:45:47 PM
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

I assume you're one of those people who think it's law abiding Muslim's responsibility to "fix" the problem with islamic terrorism in the U.S., and if they can't, fuck their rights? 

Luckily, that's not how rights work (or at least, are supposed to work; actually upholding the rule of law is of course uncertain and inconsistent).

Boy, you wouldn't know it from the things the right-wingers on my FB feed post.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 06, 2018, 01:48:49 PM
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.  It's just a way to easily prevent straw purchases and to enforce background checks.  Even imposing additional controls and limiting access to certain guns doesn't violate anything in the 2nd amendment . . . as seen by the additional measures and controls regarding ownership of fully automatic weapons.

But, if I were in the position of power that gun owners have in the United States . . . I certainly wouldn't give an inch either.  It's the strategy that has won every time in the past for you.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 06, 2018, 03:43:53 PM
Thank you for so succinctly explaining why gun owners are reluctant to give even one inch on gun regulation.  Here's why:
--It seems the only measures you're willing to consider are stricter gun control (see democratic opposition to Fix NICS)
--Those measures won't work, for many reasons
--Those measures will infringe on civil rights

What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?
...

Sure. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/gun-vote-senate.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/gun-vote-senate.html)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/washington-congress-gun-control.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/washington-congress-gun-control.html)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.87042cce4f60 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/the-senate-will-vote-on-4-gun-control-proposals-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/?utm_term=.87042cce4f60)
https://www.npr.org/2016/06/20/482783071/here-are-the-4-gun-proposals-the-senate-is-voting-on-monday-again (https://www.npr.org/2016/06/20/482783071/here-are-the-4-gun-proposals-the-senate-is-voting-on-monday-again)

JUNE 20, 2016 Republicans push a gun control bill to counter the "Extreme" gun control bills pushed by the left.  Democrats block those bills out of spite.  One of the measures probably would have stopped the Sutherland, Tx church shooting. Just one example of many....

Please continue to play partisan politics and listen to only one side of the (biased both ways) news.  I'll be over here pushing for term limits and voting third party...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 06, 2018, 03:52:04 PM
What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

Oh, and one more about today's climate. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.ddca4daa77e4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.ddca4daa77e4)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 06, 2018, 03:58:40 PM
What I'm hearing here is "You won't fix it [in the way we want to 'fix' it]."

Oh, and one more about today's climate. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.ddca4daa77e4 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/02/28/why-senate-democrats-are-considering-holding-up-a-gun-control-bill-from-one-of-their-own/?utm_term=.ddca4daa77e4)

I'm all for punishing that don't submit criminal records for the national background check.  The Democrats are absolutely being assholes to oppose this measure.  That said . . . it's not really important that the national background check records are in order if you can easily buy a gun without a background check.  That's like making sure that there's a seat belt in an automobile built of paper mache.  So, plenty of failure on the side of both parties.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on April 06, 2018, 09:48:22 PM

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

I'd like to address these thoughts. As usual, I'll take a step back and write a long winded explanation, so apologies ahead of time :-).

I've been having continued discussions about the topic of gun control with a friend of mine. When we discussed the topic and I was bringing up some of our discussions on here about my frustrations with people saying, I want to ban this or that "blanket statement" without defining what it was, he said, they're getting frustrated because you're concerned about hardware details and they're concerned about people's lives. He was intentionally trying to dig at me a little/he's also legitimately on the other side of this issue than me (not an extremist, but more pro-gun control than I am). What he said got me to thinking, though.

That is what it seems like is being presented on this topic with the narrative of (at least some) gun control people on this issue. I want people talking about this issue to learn about it and define what they want, preferably with logical ties to how it would actually help. The push back I get is evidenced most clearly in this bit of demagoguery in your posts about "F you, I'd take away all of your rights (in regards to self defense with guns) if I could, and blanket statements such as "there's no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country." Now I'm not saying this extremism is representative of everyone, just that it highlights a thought process that is, I believe, underlying many gun control arguments. The example is the perspective my friend said, "you're caring about nuances, hardware, details - they're caring about lives of people." The unstated feeling behind all of this is, I have the moral high ground if I'm pro-gun control because I care about people's lives and you don't care about people's lives as much as you do your philosophical perspective on rights, so I don't have to be as detail oriented on things, I don't have to come up with solutions, I don't have to etc. etc. Well, the fact of the matter is, most pro-gun people I know do care about lives. The perspective is just caring about protecting the lives of people in their family if something terrible were to happen or of people they see in public if they're carrying concealed and something bad were to happen. They legitimately care about lives too and has been said numerous times, the statistics are not behind any of this. No one is likely to be shot or to shoot someone else in defense. It's just not likely to happen, but it doesn't mean pro gun people don't care about lives. So no, I will not cede to you your moral high ground and condescension of people who are pro guns. You don't get to act (at least unchallenged) like you're on the saintly path, so you can ignore learning about an issue and proposing rational and logically justified ideas because you're just so much better than all the ignorant gun owners/supporters. Because news flash, you don't have the moral high ground. I don't have the moral high ground. There's perspectives on both sides. Both people are wanting lives to be saved, they just see it in different ways. If you're wanting to change the status quo, you need to propose some ideas on how to do it.

To address the other side of things - the accusation of a lack of willingness to do anything. You comment something like "oh, everyone who is pro guns obviously doesn't want to do anything at all" and then act like it's all their fault if nothing gets done that you feel needs to get done. Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do? They're not dictator of this country. If they truly support gun rights, should they vote for a person who is for restrictions well beyond what they feel are effective or necessary just so they can "be doing something?" I don't believe anyone on here supporting gun rights has literally proposed nothing be done. Ideas have been brought up by pro-gun people too. Maybe you don't feel they're strong enough or good enough, but they are at least proposed ideas (hopefully) in good faith by the people on the board that you are bluntly deriding. These may not be the "reasonable measures" that you feel should happen, and nothing may actually get passed through congress, but again, you can sit on your high horse and act the martyr that has tried and failed to find any rational sense in any person you've ever talked to in your whole life who supports a person's rights to own even a black powder musket (I mean, hey, you're the one talking everything in absolutes), but that's not going to actually accomplish any exchange of dialogue or ideas.

 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on April 07, 2018, 03:40:09 AM
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on April 07, 2018, 11:46:13 AM
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on April 07, 2018, 04:14:15 PM
I think you don’t understand that these comments come from frustration, not a feeling of having the higher moral ground. It’s years of feeling the gun community is so sure there isn’t a problem that we’re done talking. I get that many of you think you are safer with guns. We feel the opposite. I have no idea how we all can bridge the gap, but complaining about incorrect terminology and that any restriction is worthless is not going to do that. I’m willing to preserve the 2nd amendment, but  I don’t value it or think my life would be less wihtthout it, so if it came down to it, I’d vote to kill it if it’s the only option. If gun owners came to the table with literally ANYTHING (except “arm more people”) I’m down with giving it a go.

Also, I think the definition of “responsible gun owner” is maybe different between both sides (with some variation, obviously, as no one is one general stereotype). I have a pretty high bar when it comes to guns. We don’t own one because we understand to have one is taking on a risk with our kids we consider too high. Many gun owners seem to have a cavalier attitude about risk and gun ownership. Accidents are acceptable in a way I find kind of shocking, actually.

An example: there was a recent town hall in my state with a local House member. An older guy there dropped his hand gun on the floor. He sheepishly picked it up, tucked it into his hat, said he was a CC holder, and made a hasty exit. The comments from gun owners ranged from conspiracy theory (it was a planted irresponsible gun owner!), to “accidents happen, no big deal, to “only criminals with no right to own guns shoot other people” (this one I can’t even sort of wrap my head around - people really believe this garbage?! Someone responded the Parkland and Vegas shooters were both legal gun owners and the guy ignored it).

Accidents are unacceptable to me when you are talking a deadly weapon. It’s the core reason I don’t support arming more people as a solution, especially since there is apparently this cavalier attitude amongst gun owners that accidents are expected and okay.

How am I supposed to trust gun owners are responsible when they don’t seem to consider gun ownership as a serious thing? If that gun had gone off and shot someone, would that still be a shoulder shrugging accident? I am afraid I know the answer to that...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 07, 2018, 09:19:46 PM
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 07, 2018, 09:27:55 PM
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on April 07, 2018, 10:40:49 PM
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on April 08, 2018, 02:36:29 AM
Quote
but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

If registration is compulsory, where non compliance results in instant confiscation, that will motivate many neighbors to follow the law.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 08, 2018, 07:15:13 AM
Quote
but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

If registration is compulsory, where non compliance results in instant confiscation, that will motivate many neighbors to follow the law.

Kind of like how no one will have drugs right?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 08, 2018, 07:18:24 AM
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on April 08, 2018, 10:10:15 AM
Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 08, 2018, 02:14:56 PM
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on April 08, 2018, 03:24:32 PM
Quote
but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

If registration is compulsory, where non compliance results in instant confiscation, that will motivate many neighbors to follow the law.

Kind of like how no one will have drugs right?

What drugs are you talking about?

Consumer drugs: caffeine, alcohol and over the counter medication?

Prescription medication?

Recreational drugs?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EricL on April 08, 2018, 05:37:24 PM
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

The Nazi's are finally here.  I thought the Nazi gun banning trope would be the other shoe to drop but it's the NRA instead.  We've hit the wall of Godwin's Law.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on April 09, 2018, 05:34:50 AM
Quote
but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

If registration is compulsory, where non compliance results in instant confiscation, that will motivate many neighbors to follow the law.

Kind of like how no one will have drugs right?

What drugs are you talking about?

Consumer drugs: caffeine, alcohol and over the counter medication?

Prescription medication?

Recreational drugs?

Comparing illegal addictive narcotics (I assume) to legal firearms is a great example of why there is no such thing as "compromise" with the NRA type. It always goes back to why have laws at all, you know, since people are going to break them anyways?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: NoStacheOhio on April 09, 2018, 06:28:11 AM
Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/09/us/florida-governor-gun-limits.html

If you don't think that's compromise, then I can't help you.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 09, 2018, 07:30:29 AM
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

The Nazi's are finally here.  I thought the Nazi gun banning trope would be the other shoe to drop but it's the NRA instead.  We've hit the wall of Godwin's Law.

By finally . . . you mean about a month after you brought them up?  (You'll also notice that people considered and responded to your comments in both cases, rather than attempting to dismiss the argument out of hand simply because they mentioned Nazis.)


Here's you telling us that Trump is a tyrant . . . because he supports Nazis:
The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":
...
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
...

Here's you saying that guns are necessary to face Nazis in reality (also declaring victory, and saying that you won't post in the thread again as posting here is pointless ego masturbation):
I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality...

I’ve stated my opinions.  I’m gonna declare victory.  Not because I “won.”  I’m convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because I’m not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic.  That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.

:P
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TheOldestYoungMan on April 09, 2018, 02:33:57 PM

That may be what you're hearing, but what you're actually doing is nothing to fix it.  Literally nothing.  Show me the bill where fixing NICS was introduced, brought to a vote, and failed?  Show me anything at all done to improve the situation in any way in the last twenty years?

Total abdication of responsibility does not lend credence to the "responsible gun ownership is fine."  Like I said, I was 100% a defender of the second amendment until I realized that all of the arguments are so much horseshit.  It's just more important to you to be able to go down to the range and fire off a few rounds than it is to prevent the wholesale slaughter of children.

You've done NOTHING.  You will never support any reasonable measure, because "give 'em an inch."  So fuck it, take all the guns.  Make it illegal to own a gun.  At this point, there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country.  You're all biting your noses off to spite your face.

I'd like to address these thoughts. As usual, I'll take a step back and write a long winded explanation, so apologies ahead of time :-).

I've been having continued discussions about the topic of gun control with a friend of mine. When we discussed the topic and I was bringing up some of our discussions on here about my frustrations with people saying, I want to ban this or that "blanket statement" without defining what it was, he said, they're getting frustrated because you're concerned about hardware details and they're concerned about people's lives. He was intentionally trying to dig at me a little/he's also legitimately on the other side of this issue than me (not an extremist, but more pro-gun control than I am). What he said got me to thinking, though.

That is what it seems like is being presented on this topic with the narrative of (at least some) gun control people on this issue. I want people talking about this issue to learn about it and define what they want, preferably with logical ties to how it would actually help. The push back I get is evidenced most clearly in this bit of demagoguery in your posts about "F you, I'd take away all of your rights (in regards to self defense with guns) if I could, and blanket statements such as "there's no such thing as a responsible gun owner in this country." Now I'm not saying this extremism is representative of everyone, just that it highlights a thought process that is, I believe, underlying many gun control arguments. The example is the perspective my friend said, "you're caring about nuances, hardware, details - they're caring about lives of people." The unstated feeling behind all of this is, I have the moral high ground if I'm pro-gun control because I care about people's lives and you don't care about people's lives as much as you do your philosophical perspective on rights, so I don't have to be as detail oriented on things, I don't have to come up with solutions, I don't have to etc. etc. Well, the fact of the matter is, most pro-gun people I know do care about lives. The perspective is just caring about protecting the lives of people in their family if something terrible were to happen or of people they see in public if they're carrying concealed and something bad were to happen. They legitimately care about lives too and has been said numerous times, the statistics are not behind any of this. No one is likely to be shot or to shoot someone else in defense. It's just not likely to happen, but it doesn't mean pro gun people don't care about lives. So no, I will not cede to you your moral high ground and condescension of people who are pro guns. You don't get to act (at least unchallenged) like you're on the saintly path, so you can ignore learning about an issue and proposing rational and logically justified ideas because you're just so much better than all the ignorant gun owners/supporters. Because news flash, you don't have the moral high ground. I don't have the moral high ground. There's perspectives on both sides. Both people are wanting lives to be saved, they just see it in different ways. If you're wanting to change the status quo, you need to propose some ideas on how to do it.

To address the other side of things - the accusation of a lack of willingness to do anything. You comment something like "oh, everyone who is pro guns obviously doesn't want to do anything at all" and then act like it's all their fault if nothing gets done that you feel needs to get done. Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do? They're not dictator of this country. If they truly support gun rights, should they vote for a person who is for restrictions well beyond what they feel are effective or necessary just so they can "be doing something?" I don't believe anyone on here supporting gun rights has literally proposed nothing be done. Ideas have been brought up by pro-gun people too. Maybe you don't feel they're strong enough or good enough, but they are at least proposed ideas (hopefully) in good faith by the people on the board that you are bluntly deriding. These may not be the "reasonable measures" that you feel should happen, and nothing may actually get passed through congress, but again, you can sit on your high horse and act the martyr that has tried and failed to find any rational sense in any person you've ever talked to in your whole life who supports a person's rights to own even a black powder musket (I mean, hey, you're the one talking everything in absolutes), but that's not going to actually accomplish any exchange of dialogue or ideas.

I wasn't talking absolutes in 1999.  I wasn't talking absolutes in 2005.  I wasn't talking absolutes in 2009 or 2012 or 2015.  I'm talking absolutes now.

What do I expect them to do?  Anything.

Have the gun manufacturers done anything to make sure their guns aren't used in crimes?  No.

Gun rights person's response:  Well they don't have to do that!

My response:  That's correct.  They do not have a legal obligation to do that.  But every person who values the right to own a gun should be fucking insist they do it, and refuse to purchase from those that don't.

If the argument is essentially "we don't need a law" just know that all of the ideas that support that argument, all of the philosophy behind it, are born of the American experiment that people can govern themselves.  In this case, the entire group engaged in the sales/distribution of fireams has failed to govern themselves.  Where the perpetrators of this shit were thwarted from purchasing firearms legally, it was exclusively the result of legislation that was opposed by the NRA.

And then when any sort of legislation is proposed, as a completely constitutional way of forcing the distributors of firearms to behave in a way that any free-thinking person can see is totally reasonable, the "they're coming to take our guns" crowd argues against the entirely non-existent goal of gun control folks.

So I've had it.  I'm done.  They didn't want to talk about solutions and they aren't engaging with the argument in an honest way.  Every argument hinges on that right, and as they like to point out, we're a nation of laws, not one where people can govern themselves and so are often left to do just that.  So those laws are enacted in a certain way, and one of them is an amendment to the constitution, lets strip that amendment out.

And fucking take their guns.

Right now, it's not a serious policy position, and hasn't been for the last couple hundred years.  But it gets brought up in these conversations by the gun right's folks.  Nobody WAS suggesting stripping YOUR ability to own a gun and shoot it for legally and morally acceptable reasons.  But then you totally failed to rectify this situation on your own.  So now I'm proposing it, and it's enough of an issue that I'll switch my vote to whichever candidate supports it.  I can say that with confidence that it will never change my vote, because it isn't a thing anyone is actually trying to do.  But gun rights people will continue to insist that this possibility is why they "cannot give an inch."  It's also why they won't think of anything as a compromise, because they've forgotten the whole deal with having the right in the first place is that they would be responsible about it.  That responsibility includes holding each other accountable.

If after Columbine no gun owner in the U.S. ever purchased a Stevens again, other manufacturers would have taken note of that.  Instead, hardly anything is as good for business as one of their weapons being involved in a mass shooting.  Out of fears that the weapon will soon be banned, gun enthusiasts rush out to buy it.  The maker of Stevens, Savage, also produced one of the weapons used by the Sandy Hook asshole.  His other weapon of choice was made by Bushmaster Firearms International.  If after even one of these incidents those people in this country that care about the right to own guns boycotted a manufactuer, you'd have 100% never-false-fail biometrics on every gun made in the U.S. within a year.  Or some other workable solution.

There's no push to protect the right from the people with a vested interest in protecting the right, that's what they aren't seeing, that's what they don't get.  And one at a time, people without a vested interest in that right are converted to the realization that those folks honestly do not give a shit.  They just can't be bothered, their right is constitutionally protected so go fuck yourself.

I am not taking the moral high ground here, there's nothing moral about the right to own a gun, there's nothing immoral about the right to own a gun.  Rights are something that should only be curtailed due to gravest need.

At its heart, this is an issue of personal responsibility.  And all of our efforts to curtail access to firearms to those that are incapable or unwilling to exercise personal responsibility are met with resistance from groups like the NRA.  Those that refuse to govern themselves will find government forced upon them.  That's just how it goes.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EricL on April 09, 2018, 10:47:14 PM
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

The Nazi's are finally here.  I thought the Nazi gun banning trope would be the other shoe to drop but it's the NRA instead.  We've hit the wall of Godwin's Law.

By finally . . . you mean about a month after you brought them up?  (You'll also notice that people considered and responded to your comments in both cases, rather than attempting to dismiss the argument out of hand simply because they mentioned Nazis.)


Here's you telling us that Trump is a tyrant . . . because he supports Nazis:
The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":
...
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
...

Here's you saying that guns are necessary to face Nazis in reality (also declaring victory, and saying that you won't post in the thread again as posting here is pointless ego masturbation):
I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality...

I’ve stated my opinions.  I’m gonna declare victory.  Not because I “won.”  I’m convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because I’m not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic.  That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.

:P

I will concede I went back on what I said I would.  But I never directly compared anyone to Nazis - the "White Rose" reference was a hypothetical statement.  Though the movement is worth reading about. 

YOU compared the NRA to Nazis.  :P

Since we're here: The NRA are not Nazis or Nazi like.  If the "NRA has all the power" they a damn poor job of exercising it.  To date they've: not repealed severe (sometimes stupid) Blue state gun regulations, kept the conservative President they endorsed from flipping on them, failed to ensure open or concealed carry nationwide.  Instead it's an organization that's an extension of toxic gun industry marketing and PR.  And doing a pretty shitty job at it, IMO.  They're helped a lot when anti-gun advocates give speeches and carry signs that say "Confiscate All Guns" and "Repeal the 2nd Amendment."  That those Liberals aren't mainstream Democrats or doing that just to trigger gun advocates doesn't matter.  It still gives the NRA credibility for a "no compromise stance."  Curiously, the NRA DID offer to compromise on bump stocks.*  They need as much credibility as they can get. 

To say gun advocates value their lives more than other people's is straight up insulting.  Cars kill more people than guns.  I understand it's not an apt comparison.  But I don't see you campaigning so relentlessly for banning cars.  Does that mean YOU don't value human life?  I trash talk about cars but don't advocate banning them either.  There's a whole host of causes as desperate, if not more desperate, than US gun policies neither of us do jack squat about.  Does that make us BOTH insensitive fucks? 

Just because the NRA advocates policies you don't like but can't let go even though you don't have a dog in this fight doesn't make them Nazis.  Trump is not a Nazi.  He's a stupid asshole easily influenced by his far right element hangers on to be a Nazi stooge.  But he's no Nazi.  The Liberals (and often Republicans) who want to regulate guns (rationally or irrationally) are not Nazis.  Not even radical Liberals ready to leverage the US's militarized police force to confiscate them without due process.  And they're not "proof" the anti-gun movement won't compromise or has ulterior motives either. 

The Holocaust comparison is almost as bad as the insult above.  There was no negotiation with the Nazis because they never offered to negotiate.  They successfully demonized the Jews (and gays and communists and Gypsies and Slavs) to such an extent there was no negotiation - just a slippery slope of rights infringement, incarceration and extermination.  They have no place in the US gun control debate.  The Nazi gun banning trope is common in dumber pro gun circles - usually hand in hand with equally lame "Nazis were Socialists" argument.  German gun regulations were restrictive before Nazis came to power.  They restricted ownership for targeted groups, loosened restrictions for party members, and eased them for young men to further marksmanship for future cannon fodder Soldiers.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfVQutaXRk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfVQutaXRk) (Yeah, I think the NRA panicked.  Whatever you think should be done about guns, bump stock regulations will do nothing.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 10, 2018, 07:48:23 AM
I'd like to point out that literally nothing about a gun registry violates anybody's rights in any way.

In and of itself, you’re basically correct. However, if you did want to violate my rights and confiscate, ( see, NOLA post Katrina, etc) you’d have a tool to do that where previously you had none.  So no, I am not ever going to agree to allow a registration. Even in Illinois we have FOIDs but there’s nothing that says what guns I have or even if I have a gun, just that I have the ability and license to buy one.

If I was a corrupt government and I wanted to violate your rights and confiscate your weapons, I'd release a bioweapon in the upper atmosphere over your state.  Then I'd close the borders, and wait a few weeks until everyone was dead.  Then I'd confiscate your weapons.

No registry needed.

If I'm in a democratically elected government that is held answerable to the people, I can't do that of course.  I also can't use the registry to confiscate all your guns.


Besides, those types of things have come to bite us in the ass in the past:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html

That's pretty goofy logic there.

Wikileaks got a hold of an awful lot of secret information written by people in the US government.  Therefore it should be illegal for anyone in government to write anything down.  I mean, that solves the problem of future similar leaks . . . consequences be damned, right?

If someone does something illegal or wrong with information, then sue them.  The legal system exists to enforce the law.  If it's not illegal to do something with information collected, then enact a new law.  The whole political system exists to do this.  Saying that it's possible to do something bad, so we should ignore all the certain good that will come from an action doesn't make much sense.

And, even if you succeeded in getting a registry of all new gun sales, which you won’t, but if you did, how are you going to register the 100M+ guns out there now?  I mean, I was inspired by those YouTube clips of people cutting up their guns after Parkland and did the same, so my guns are long gone, but what are you going to do about the guns my neighbor owns?  How are you going to register those?

It will certainly require some thought, effort, and time. It's hard to be convinced by your argument that because something is difficult it should be given up on.

Make it very easy and free to register a gun that already exists.  Do spot checks at shooting ranges.  Make it standard policy to destroy any unregistered firearm found by police, and to levy a punitive fine upon anyone who is found to fails to register a firearm.  Create a hotline and reward people for reporting unregistered firearms.  There's lots of stuff that can be done.





Quote
Well, let's get down to the details. What do you want the average gun guy to do?

Engage in the dialog about solutions, present their ideas and listen. Then express their concern, and ideas to their representatives.

That and stop engaging in the slippery slope arguments.  As it stands you don't want any solutions that place any kind of burden on legal gun owners but you also don't want to do anything else because it may lead to a burden on legal gun owners later.  This stance makes it impossible for you to comprise.

Again with the word “compromise”.  I have yet to see a bill or law proposed that represents a give and take for both sides, I.e. a “compromise”.  I’ve only seen where people are trying to take away my rights. Why would I acquiesce to that?

So why hasn't your side proposed one?

You mean like this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-26/quick-action-on-gun-background-checks-bill-held-up-in-senate

Yeah, no.  That's not a compromise.  The fix NICS bill would be a bare minimum that everyone already agrees to.  That bill on it's own should pass no problem, all it's doing is attempting to fix the problems with the current background check system. But of course conservatives think they can just add expanded concealed carry without adding anything from the other side like universal background checks because they obviously don't know what the word compromise means.  If you truly want to change my mind how about you show me a gun bill brought up for a vote in the current congress that included a single proposal from the left (universal background checks, a registry, magazine limits, etc)?

The NRA has won on every front for decades by not compromising.  It's possible to openly carry a firearm in 45 states, to covertly carry a firearm in every state, to own any type of firearm (yes, you have to pay more for machine guns and sawed off shotguns).  It's not necessary to have a background check to buy a firearm from someone.  No record of private sales is kept in most states.  No registry of ownership is kept in most states.  It's illegal to keep usable, searchable records of firearms sales for police use.

The NRA has all the power.  They have purchased most of the Republican party, and get the legislation that they want passed.  They have been able to place supreme court judges in power who have altered interpretation of the US Constitution to be more friendly to their cause.  They have deep pockets, which they use to fuel a vast media and advertising empire.  Best of all, they have a sizable army of gun advocates who value their firearms much more than the lives of other people, and who are perfectly happy with the way things are.

When someone is asking for 'compromise' it's a bit disingenuous.  That's like the Nazis saying they'll negotiate with Jews in the concentration camp, and then leaving the discussion in a huff because they didn't get enough concessions.  "The Jews want food, water, medicine, and to not be gassed to death . . . but they're not willing to offer us anything!  They're obviously not negotiating in good faith.  Maybe they'll come back to the table later when they're serious.  Until then I guess it's best we just carry on with the status quo."

The Nazi's are finally here.  I thought the Nazi gun banning trope would be the other shoe to drop but it's the NRA instead.  We've hit the wall of Godwin's Law.

By finally . . . you mean about a month after you brought them up?  (You'll also notice that people considered and responded to your comments in both cases, rather than attempting to dismiss the argument out of hand simply because they mentioned Nazis.)


Here's you telling us that Trump is a tyrant . . . because he supports Nazis:
The irony is that the “theoretical tyranny":
...
- Endorses White Supremacy and Nazis
...

Here's you saying that guns are necessary to face Nazis in reality (also declaring victory, and saying that you won't post in the thread again as posting here is pointless ego masturbation):
I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality...

I’ve stated my opinions.  I’m gonna declare victory.  Not because I “won.”  I’m convinced nobody is ever convinced by internet argument. But because I’m not gonna come back again and again as gun control pops up as a MMM forum topic.  That seems like pointless ego masterbation to me.

:P

I will concede I went back on what I said I would.  But I never directly compared anyone to Nazis - the "White Rose" reference was a hypothetical statement.  Though the movement is worth reading about. 

YOU compared the NRA to Nazis.  :P

Since we're here: The NRA are not Nazis or Nazi like.  If the "NRA has all the power" they a damn poor job of exercising it.  To date they've: not repealed severe (sometimes stupid) Blue state gun regulations, kept the conservative President they endorsed from flipping on them, failed to ensure open or concealed carry nationwide.  Instead it's an organization that's an extension of toxic gun industry marketing and PR.  And doing a pretty shitty job at it, IMO.  They're helped a lot when anti-gun advocates give speeches and carry signs that say "Confiscate All Guns" and "Repeal the 2nd Amendment."  That those Liberals aren't mainstream Democrats or doing that just to trigger gun advocates doesn't matter.  It still gives the NRA credibility for a "no compromise stance."  Curiously, the NRA DID offer to compromise on bump stocks.*  They need as much credibility as they can get. 

To say gun advocates value their lives more than other people's is straight up insulting.  Cars kill more people than guns.  I understand it's not an apt comparison.  But I don't see you campaigning so relentlessly for banning cars.  Does that mean YOU don't value human life?  I trash talk about cars but don't advocate banning them either.  There's a whole host of causes as desperate, if not more desperate, than US gun policies neither of us do jack squat about.  Does that make us BOTH insensitive fucks? 

Just because the NRA advocates policies you don't like but can't let go even though you don't have a dog in this fight doesn't make them Nazis.  Trump is not a Nazi.  He's a stupid asshole easily influenced by his far right element hangers on to be a Nazi stooge.  But he's no Nazi.  The Liberals (and often Republicans) who want to regulate guns (rationally or irrationally) are not Nazis.  Not even radical Liberals ready to leverage the US's militarized police force to confiscate them without due process.  And they're not "proof" the anti-gun movement won't compromise or has ulterior motives either. 

The Holocaust comparison is almost as bad as the insult above.  There was no negotiation with the Nazis because they never offered to negotiate.  They successfully demonized the Jews (and gays and communists and Gypsies and Slavs) to such an extent there was no negotiation - just a slippery slope of rights infringement, incarceration and extermination.  They have no place in the US gun control debate.  The Nazi gun banning trope is common in dumber pro gun circles - usually hand in hand with equally lame "Nazis were Socialists" argument.  German gun regulations were restrictive before Nazis came to power.  They restricted ownership for targeted groups, loosened restrictions for party members, and eased them for young men to further marksmanship for future cannon fodder Soldiers.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfVQutaXRk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcfVQutaXRk) (Yeah, I think the NRA panicked.  Whatever you think should be done about guns, bump stock regulations will do nothing.)

You said "I’ll take my “Red Dawn freedom fighter gun fantasy” vs. tyranny over The White Rose resistance vs. Nazis reality...".  Typically people use the term reality to denote that something isn't a hypothetical situation, but whatever.  I'm not going to argue about your logical inconsistencies, because it's well beside the point.

But my arguments all still stand whether you choose to focus on the last four sentences or not.

Gun rights advocates are in a very powerful position over the rest of US society.  They've enjoyed this position for quite a while, they've steadily increased this power (typically by refusing to compromise), and many people die every year because of the power that they hold.  Given this, it's completely unreasonable to complain that people aren't willing to 'compromise' with you.

Sure, it's true that in states where they've been unable to buy politicicians they have less power.  I'll concede that.  However, by influencing supreme court appointments and steadily working against even the most common sense gun laws, they have created the current situation in the US.

I don't believe that gun advocates value their own lives over the lives of others.  I believe that they value their ability to own a gun over the lives of others.  That directly explains their actions regarding gun rights.

If you'll recall, you are the one who compared Trump to a Nazi . . . not me.  I don't believe that conservatives (beyond a very small fringe element who happen to be very vocally pro-Trump supporters and like to hold Nazi flags at rallies), or the people in the NRA (again, beyond perhaps those who happen to have swastika tattoos) are Nazis.  I did compare the situation of power that the NRA has over the American people to Jewish people bargaining with Nazis, because it's a similar disparity.  There was no negotiating with the Nazis for the Jews because the Nazis felt no real need to negotiate . . . and that certainly seems to be the same thing that's happening with the NRA and gun advocates right now.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 10, 2018, 08:43:01 AM
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 10, 2018, 08:54:58 AM
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

Good Point.  Also relevant...

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/ (https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/)

Quote
Gun Ownership
According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013).   Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.

Conclusion
This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year.  Murder isn’t a nationwide problem.  It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on April 10, 2018, 08:59:22 AM
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

The real irony of that is the vast majority were obtained from legal "law abiding gun owners." You are correct they are illegally gotten. But what's staggering is that roughly 30% were stolen (with 40% of those folks failing to even report the theft) from law abiding gun owners. Over 60% of guns recovered, the original law abiding owner had no clue where they even lost the firearm. 

Yeah I suppose NRA members aren't killing anyone, but they are providing guns at an astounding rate to those with ill intent. I suppose if we leave out the word responsible, all is well. ( :

I suppose you could be correct though. No laws are going to prevent bad people form obtaining and doing bad things with firearms. So long as there are good people with guns, there were be an abundant supply of guns for the bad folks as well (they just take them from the good guys).  How's that for irony?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 10, 2018, 09:16:19 AM
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.
I'm going to suggest another point here and see where it goes.

Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 10, 2018, 09:17:23 AM
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

The NRA stands in the way of gun control laws.  Things like universal background checks, and a gun registry.  Preventing criminals from being caught is the same thing as arming them.  The NRA works hard to ensure that this occurs.  Remember a couple pages earlier where we proved that a background check and gun registry result in higher prosecution for straw purchasers, and lower rates of criminals getting guns using the case of Baltimore?

That's what the NRA and gun owners appear to be fighting against.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on April 10, 2018, 10:40:50 AM
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

The NRA stands in the way of gun control laws.  Things like universal background checks, and a gun registry.  Preventing criminals from being caught is the same thing as arming them.  The NRA works hard to ensure that this occurs.  Remember a couple pages earlier where we proved that a background check and gun registry result in higher prosecution for straw purchasers, and lower rates of criminals getting guns using the case of Baltimore?

That's what the NRA and gun owners appear to be fighting against.

Didn't Canada give up on the gun registry?  You keep hammering on US gun owners, but my understanding is even your own country has largely given up on the idea -
 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#1d048fd45a1b

You don't need a registry to open up the NICS to citizens and require background checks on sales.  Most gun owners in the forum have agreed to that.

If you catch a violent felon with a gun, ruin their life.  Not a 2 or 3 year sentence.  For the most part, these are the people who are going to do bad things with guns.

Those 2 changes would give you more impact than an unenforceable gun registry.

For the record, I'm not an NRA member.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 10, 2018, 11:14:57 AM
You’d have a point if NRA members were killing people. Except in exceptionally rare cases...they aren’t. The vast majority of gun violence is caused by illegally-gotten handguns.  Slandering NRA members for not wanting to sacrifice the rights of law-abiding citizens to put up another barrier that will be easily trampled by criminals is absurd.

The NRA stands in the way of gun control laws.  Things like universal background checks, and a gun registry.  Preventing criminals from being caught is the same thing as arming them.  The NRA works hard to ensure that this occurs.  Remember a couple pages earlier where we proved that a background check and gun registry result in higher prosecution for straw purchasers, and lower rates of criminals getting guns using the case of Baltimore?

That's what the NRA and gun owners appear to be fighting against.

Didn't Canada give up on the gun registry?  You keep hammering on US gun owners, but my understanding is even your own country has largely given up on the idea -
 https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#1d048fd45a1b

Yep.  When we were ruled by a right wing government, they scrapped our long gun registry (over law enforcement protests) largely as a cost savings measure.



You don't need a registry to open up the NICS to citizens and require background checks on sales.  Most gun owners in the forum have agreed to that.

If you catch a violent felon with a gun, ruin their life.  Not a 2 or 3 year sentence.  For the most part, these are the people who are going to do bad things with guns.

Those 2 changes would give you more impact than an unenforceable gun registry.

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.



For the record, I'm not an NRA member.

Me neither.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 10, 2018, 11:25:36 AM

Yep.  When we were ruled by a right wing government, they scrapped our long gun registry (over law enforcement protests) largely as a cost savings measure.


A government that was probably our most right wing ever.  A government that only lasted one term with a majority mandate. A political party that got funding from right wing American businessmen (and Americans fuss over the Russians).  A government that ignored the wishes of a province that wanted to keep it (Quebec, the province that had the first long-gun massacre in recent memory).

And don't forget that was only long guns, our basic gun laws are still pretty tight, and hand guns are very strictly regulated. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 10, 2018, 11:32:46 AM

Yep.  When we were ruled by a right wing government, they scrapped our long gun registry (over law enforcement protests) largely as a cost savings measure.


A government that was probably our most right wing ever.  A government that only lasted one term with a majority mandate. A political party that got funding from right wing American businessmen (and Americans fuss over the Russians).  A government that ignored the wishes of a province that wanted to keep it (Quebec, the province that had the first long-gun massacre in recent memory).

And don't forget that was only long guns, our basic gun laws are still pretty tight, and hand guns are very strictly regulated.

The same government that mysteriously axed Canada's long form census over the protests of both businesses and governmental department heads alike.  What a strange period the Harper years were . . .
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on April 10, 2018, 01:04:16 PM

Yep.  When we were ruled by a right wing government, they scrapped our long gun registry (over law enforcement protests) largely as a cost savings measure.


A government that was probably our most right wing ever.  A government that only lasted one term with a majority mandate. A political party that got funding from right wing American businessmen (and Americans fuss over the Russians).  A government that ignored the wishes of a province that wanted to keep it (Quebec, the province that had the first long-gun massacre in recent memory).

And don't forget that was only long guns, our basic gun laws are still pretty tight, and hand guns are very strictly regulated.

The same government that mysteriously axed Canada's long form census over the protests of both businesses and governmental department heads alike.  What a strange period the Harper years were . . .

Oh yes.  I read somewhere that a lot of his thinking was to decrease federal power and increase provincial power, which is odd in a federal politician but makes sense in a weird way, because that is something you can only accomplish at the federal level.  So first you cut taxes (especially to your big business friends) so the federal government has less revenue, and then you cut programs because the money is no longer there for them, and you cut the programs you don't like anyway.  (Like the long form census, God forbid you have actual data on which to make decisions.)  It wasn't obvious during the minority governments, but look at the majority one.  Not to mention the Phoenix fiasco, which might have worked if the civil service were half the size it actually is.  I don't agree with everything the Liberals are doing, but they sure have had lots of messes handed to them to try to clean up.

@GuitarStv   ETA to add  Just saw this:
http://pressprogress.ca/former-prime-minister-stephen-harper-condemned-for-congratulating-far-right-authoritarian-leader/ (http://pressprogress.ca/former-prime-minister-stephen-harper-condemned-for-congratulating-far-right-authoritarian-leader/)

I feel for conservative Canadians, this is the party they get?

And for the Americans, this is how a democracy gets subverted, not by registering guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on April 10, 2018, 01:20:50 PM

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.


If you require a 4473 and NICS on each sale, you can trace the transfers.  The ATF has 4473's on all sales from FFL now and can trace the weapons from those sales.  The ATF can store the 4473 just like they do for FFK gun sales.

You avoid turning lawful gun owners into criminals for failing to register and you don't create another significant burden for them. 

You don't need a registry for the above to work.

MW
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 10, 2018, 01:52:25 PM

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.


If you require a 4473 and NICS on each sale, you can trace the transfers.  The ATF has 4473's on all sales from FFL now and can trace the weapons from those sales.  The ATF can store the 4473 just like they do for FFK gun sales.

You avoid turning lawful gun owners into criminals for failing to register and you don't create another significant burden for them. 

You don't need a registry for the above to work.

MW

The current 4473 record keeping that you seem to be so enamored with (typically paper copies, extremely difficult/time consuming for law enforcement to search, destroyed after a period of time, no backups so data is lost if there's a flood/fire they are permanently lost, legally cannot be computerzed/searchable by the ATF) is rather problematic to begin with.

Here are some common use case problems that law enforcement runs into today:
- A gun is sold by an FFL and the 4473 record of sale is damaged in a flood.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  Time passes, the FFL destroys the records because they're older than 20 years.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  The FFL goes out of business.  As per the law, they box up their paper copies of 4473s and send them to the ATF.  It is illegal for the ATF to computerize these files and make them searchable . . . so they are stored in giant warehouses with millions of other similar files.  Every time a trace has to be done, these files are manually gone through (or more likely - not . . . because the chance of catching a straw purchaser isn't worth the expense required to actually find the records).

The above system will obviously miss a lot of people.  If you want law enforcement to use it to find straw purchasers, it needs to be fast and easy to search, or there needs to be a massive tax increase to fund the additional manpower necessary to jump through the ridiculous legal hoops surrounding these records.  Otherwise they won't be caught (this is what we currently see).  Pretending that the system as it exists works well does everyone a big disservice.


Lawful gun owners already have to register by filling out a 4473.  All that I'm suggesting is that these files be kept by law enforcement in a decentralized and searchable system.  That's zero additional burden on lawful gun owners.  When they sell their weapon, they inform law enforcement of the change of ownership (which can be done along with the NCIS check).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Midwest on April 10, 2018, 02:26:33 PM

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.


If you require a 4473 and NICS on each sale, you can trace the transfers.  The ATF has 4473's on all sales from FFL now and can trace the weapons from those sales.  The ATF can store the 4473 just like they do for FFK gun sales.

You avoid turning lawful gun owners into criminals for failing to register and you don't create another significant burden for them. 

You don't need a registry for the above to work.

MW

The current 4473 record keeping that you seem to be so enamored with (typically paper copies, extremely difficult/time consuming for law enforcement to search, destroyed after a period of time, no backups so data is lost if there's a flood/fire they are permanently lost, legally cannot be computerzed/searchable by the ATF) is rather problematic to begin with.

Here are some common use case problems that law enforcement runs into today:
- A gun is sold by an FFL and the 4473 record of sale is damaged in a flood.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  Time passes, the FFL destroys the records because they're older than 20 years.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  The FFL goes out of business.  As per the law, they box up their paper copies of 4473s and send them to the ATF.  It is illegal for the ATF to computerize these files and make them searchable . . . so they are stored in giant warehouses with millions of other similar files.  Every time a trace has to be done, these files are manually gone through (or more likely - not . . . because the chance of catching a straw purchaser isn't worth the expense required to actually find the records).

The above system will obviously miss a lot of people.  If you want law enforcement to use it to find straw purchasers, it needs to be fast and easy to search, or there needs to be a massive tax increase to fund the additional manpower necessary to jump through the ridiculous legal hoops surrounding these records.  Otherwise they won't be caught (this is what we currently see).  Pretending that the system as it exists works well does everyone a big disservice.


Lawful gun owners already have to register by filling out a 4473.  All that I'm suggesting is that these files be kept by law enforcement in a decentralized and searchable system.  That's zero additional burden on lawful gun owners.  When they sell their weapon, they inform law enforcement of the change of ownership (which can be done along with the NCIS check).

Despite your love of a registry, your own country gave up on the idea for most firearms despite your much smaller population and lower guns per capita.

As to the 4473 and destruction, straw purchasers aren't keeping the guns for 20 years.  Under the scenario I gave you, entirely traceable.  If they are sold during the 20 year period, clock resets.

A registry is a burden on gun owners because it will be hacked or misused.  It's already happened -  https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html so this isn't just theoretical.

You want to fix this, punish the lawbreakers not the legal gun owners.  When I suggested throwing the book at straw purchasers, there was pity for wives and girlfriends buying guns for felons. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: BlueMR2 on April 10, 2018, 06:49:25 PM
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on April 10, 2018, 09:12:17 PM

I wasn't talking absolutes in 1999.  I wasn't talking absolutes in 2005.  I wasn't talking absolutes in 2009 or 2012 or 2015.  I'm talking absolutes now.

What do I expect them to do?  Anything.

Have the gun manufacturers done anything to make sure their guns aren't used in crimes?  No.

Gun rights person's response:  Well they don't have to do that!

My response:  That's correct.  They do not have a legal obligation to do that.  But every person who values the right to own a gun should be fucking insist they do it, and refuse to purchase from those that don't.

If the argument is essentially "we don't need a law" just know that all of the ideas that support that argument, all of the philosophy behind it, are born of the American experiment that people can govern themselves.  In this case, the entire group engaged in the sales/distribution of fireams has failed to govern themselves.  Where the perpetrators of this shit were thwarted from purchasing firearms legally, it was exclusively the result of legislation that was opposed by the NRA.

And then when any sort of legislation is proposed, as a completely constitutional way of forcing the distributors of firearms to behave in a way that any free-thinking person can see is totally reasonable, the "they're coming to take our guns" crowd argues against the entirely non-existent goal of gun control folks.

So I've had it.  I'm done.  They didn't want to talk about solutions and they aren't engaging with the argument in an honest way.  Every argument hinges on that right, and as they like to point out, we're a nation of laws, not one where people can govern themselves and so are often left to do just that.  So those laws are enacted in a certain way, and one of them is an amendment to the constitution, lets strip that amendment out.

And fucking take their guns.

Right now, it's not a serious policy position, and hasn't been for the last couple hundred years.  But it gets brought up in these conversations by the gun right's folks.  Nobody WAS suggesting stripping YOUR ability to own a gun and shoot it for legally and morally acceptable reasons.  But then you totally failed to rectify this situation on your own.  So now I'm proposing it, and it's enough of an issue that I'll switch my vote to whichever candidate supports it.  I can say that with confidence that it will never change my vote, because it isn't a thing anyone is actually trying to do.  But gun rights people will continue to insist that this possibility is why they "cannot give an inch."  It's also why they won't think of anything as a compromise, because they've forgotten the whole deal with having the right in the first place is that they would be responsible about it.  That responsibility includes holding each other accountable.

If after Columbine no gun owner in the U.S. ever purchased a Stevens again, other manufacturers would have taken note of that.  Instead, hardly anything is as good for business as one of their weapons being involved in a mass shooting.  Out of fears that the weapon will soon be banned, gun enthusiasts rush out to buy it.  The maker of Stevens, Savage, also produced one of the weapons used by the Sandy Hook asshole.  His other weapon of choice was made by Bushmaster Firearms International.  If after even one of these incidents those people in this country that care about the right to own guns boycotted a manufactuer, you'd have 100% never-false-fail biometrics on every gun made in the U.S. within a year.  Or some other workable solution.

There's no push to protect the right from the people with a vested interest in protecting the right, that's what they aren't seeing, that's what they don't get.  And one at a time, people without a vested interest in that right are converted to the realization that those folks honestly do not give a shit.  They just can't be bothered, their right is constitutionally protected so go fuck yourself.

I am not taking the moral high ground here, there's nothing moral about the right to own a gun, there's nothing immoral about the right to own a gun.  Rights are something that should only be curtailed due to gravest need.

At its heart, this is an issue of personal responsibility.  And all of our efforts to curtail access to firearms to those that are incapable or unwilling to exercise personal responsibility are met with resistance from groups like the NRA.  Those that refuse to govern themselves will find government forced upon them.  That's just how it goes.

OK, so, not to be offensive, but you’re kind of all over the place on this one. With that in mind, I’ll hit a few of the highlights as I see them.

First, you pick 1999 but fail to mention it is right in the middle of an assault weapons ban that had very debatable at best impact on any crime rates. Something literally was done in the time you mentioned. It either failed or certainly was no rousing success.

You comment "And then when any sort of legislation is proposed, as a completely constitutional way of forcing the distributors of firearms to behave in a way that any free-thinking person can see is totally reasonable, the "they're coming to take our guns" crowd argues against the entirely non-existent goal of gun control folks." The problem is, blanket statements like "any free-thinking person can see is totally reasonable," are seen very differently by actual free-thinking people, and your anger and animosity towards those people fights against your cause.

Let's take, for example, your statement "It's also why they won't think of anything as a compromise, because they've forgotten the whole deal with having the right in the first place is that they would be responsible about it.  That responsibility includes holding each other accountable." Yet gun rights is great example of an issue where this is not nearly as clear as you pretend it to be. Yes, there are other rights that are held in check. They difference is, they're pretty typically held in check when they're misused. You can't yell fire in a theater. It's the misuse of a right that's regulated by the person who does the offending typically. This is a more special case of something that is declared a right and being regulated against people who have not done anything wrong (a harder sell on personal responsibility when they have done nothing to be responsible for)...not to say we can't regulate against people who have done nothing wrong, but it's not the same as typical regulations on Constitutional rights.

Along this line, you mention again and again that people who don't want regulations "don't give a shit." You talk of only removing rights in if we have to because it's in "gravest need." Every death is a tragedy, certainly to the family and friends of the people that it happens to. Every shooting is a tragedy. That being said, I don't see how our situation in America with regards to guns is in the gravest of needs. As has been mentioned countless times, there's tons of things that affect more people's lives than guns (especially if you take out suicides, which I think is a very fair thing to do). Alcohol kills more people. More young kids die in swimming pools than from guns. We can parse the numbers a million ways, but the fact of the matter is we have a very small chance of dying by a gun. I fully expect to be berated over this standpoint, and yes, again, every death is a tragedy and should be grieved, but when blanket statements like we're in the gravest of needs are made, we have to rely on some level of scope to see if this even makes sense, and I can't see how the numbers say that.

Look, I get that you're frustrated. Thanks to TrudgingAlong for expressing this point. Although, I feel that your examples show a bit of how, in my opinion, your frustration has taken you into some strange places (because a bad guy at Columbine used a particular brand of gun, people should boycott the brand of gun, why...just because it was a particular brand...?...it doesn't seem like sound logic to me). Back to the point of frustrations - I personally am not a big NRA fan. They present themselves as a bunch of jerks IMO. Their presentation doesn't define the situation though. I also agree that if something is not done that there will be a backlash and gun rights will be curtailed more significantly when political powers shift. That's just a fact of human nature, though, not an inherent rightness or wrongness of a cause.

Gun rights people are not happy when people are hurt. They're not abdicating themselves of responsibilities. If they do feel that their rights to have guns outweigh the potential of risk for others, though, it's not a ridiculous point at least from an overall logical premise. We give away safety all the time in favor of rights. Safety would mean we live in total surveillance with no privacy, freedom of movement, etc. (not that we're not moving in that direction). People on this thread have commented about how we submit to curtailing things like restrictions on driving all the time, and it's true. The other side of it that is rarely mentioned is that we "submit" to rights that put us at risk all the time as well without this level of scrutiny. Sorry that you don't see it as worth it. Many people do.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 11, 2018, 08:21:31 AM

We've already discussed this, but it's not possible to prove that private citizens are using background checks when selling weapons without a dated record of the transaction - effectively a gun registry.  I know that some people would adhere to this new law simply out of the desire to do the right thing . . . but I suspect that the type of person who would be comfortable selling a weapon to a criminal now would probably abuse this honor system related to gun sales.

Sure, you can argue for stricter jail terms for felons caught with guns.

A gun registry isn't unenforcable.  It's pretty easy to enforce.  You buy a new gun, it is recorded.  You sell the gun, it is recorded.  If you bought a gun and didn't sell it . . . but then the gun turns up somewhere else you are legally responsible for any damages done with the weapon, and given an appropriate penalty.


If you require a 4473 and NICS on each sale, you can trace the transfers.  The ATF has 4473's on all sales from FFL now and can trace the weapons from those sales.  The ATF can store the 4473 just like they do for FFK gun sales.

You avoid turning lawful gun owners into criminals for failing to register and you don't create another significant burden for them. 

You don't need a registry for the above to work.

MW

The current 4473 record keeping that you seem to be so enamored with (typically paper copies, extremely difficult/time consuming for law enforcement to search, destroyed after a period of time, no backups so data is lost if there's a flood/fire they are permanently lost, legally cannot be computerzed/searchable by the ATF) is rather problematic to begin with.

Here are some common use case problems that law enforcement runs into today:
- A gun is sold by an FFL and the 4473 record of sale is damaged in a flood.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  Time passes, the FFL destroys the records because they're older than 20 years.  Now the gun is untraceable.
- A gun is sold by an FFL.  The FFL goes out of business.  As per the law, they box up their paper copies of 4473s and send them to the ATF.  It is illegal for the ATF to computerize these files and make them searchable . . . so they are stored in giant warehouses with millions of other similar files.  Every time a trace has to be done, these files are manually gone through (or more likely - not . . . because the chance of catching a straw purchaser isn't worth the expense required to actually find the records).

The above system will obviously miss a lot of people.  If you want law enforcement to use it to find straw purchasers, it needs to be fast and easy to search, or there needs to be a massive tax increase to fund the additional manpower necessary to jump through the ridiculous legal hoops surrounding these records.  Otherwise they won't be caught (this is what we currently see).  Pretending that the system as it exists works well does everyone a big disservice.


Lawful gun owners already have to register by filling out a 4473.  All that I'm suggesting is that these files be kept by law enforcement in a decentralized and searchable system.  That's zero additional burden on lawful gun owners.  When they sell their weapon, they inform law enforcement of the change of ownership (which can be done along with the NCIS check).

Despite your love of a registry, your own country gave up on the idea for most firearms despite your much smaller population and lower guns per capita.

Yep.  Scrapping the registry was an unpopular, politically motivated move by a government intent on ignoring the advice of law enforcement.  I'll be the first to admit . . . we screw up sometimes.



As to the 4473 and destruction, straw purchasers aren't keeping the guns for 20 years.  Under the scenario I gave you, entirely traceable.  If they are sold during the 20 year period, clock resets.

Sure, I can agree that most straw purchasers are probably buying new guns.  (You then run into the problem of anyone with a gun older than 20 years knowing that it's OK to sell to a criminal . . . but let's ignore that for now as you appear to want to do.)

Are you arguing that the records we do have are easily searchable by law enforcement . . . or do they end up not being searched because of the ridiculous rules regarding storage?  The records are never destroyed by flood/fire/natural disaster, or does this happen under the (flawed) current system?



A registry is a burden on gun owners because it will be hacked or misused.  It's already happened -  https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html so this isn't just theoretical.

This is a patently ridiculous argument.

Driver's license records have been hacked in the past.  This will be a burden to drivers.  Therefore we should not have driver's licenses.  Just operate your vehicles on the honor system.

If a database is hacked, go after the hackers.  Go after the people in charge of security for the database.



You want to fix this, punish the lawbreakers not the legal gun owners.

Again I ask you, how exactly are the legal gun owners punished by having a registry?  The same way that people with a driver's license are punished?  Is that really so onerous?



When I suggested throwing the book at straw purchasers, there was pity for wives and girlfriends buying guns for felons.

It's impossible to 'throw the book' at someone if you can't prosecute.

We were discussing Maryland - a place where registering guns was allowing prosecution of straw purchasers to take place, resulting in significant drops in criminals getting guns this way (you obviously forgot to read the results of the gun registry on straw purchasers - https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236 (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236)).

You can certainly argue that harsher penalties for straw purchasers will be beneficial if you want.  The facts show that even without implementing harsher penalties though, a gun registry significantly reduced straw purchases.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 11, 2018, 12:50:25 PM
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 11, 2018, 08:21:49 PM
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus?

OTOH, you don’t premptively lose your 1A rights because of something you or someone else MIGHT do.  You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater but no one makes you wear a muzzle to prevent you from doing it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 12, 2018, 09:52:34 AM
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus?

OTOH, you don’t premptively lose your 1A rights because of something you or someone else MIGHT do.  You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater but no one makes you wear a muzzle to prevent you from doing it.
I still have had no one actually answer the question.  Nor has the question of why anyone feels if the Second Amendment did not exist that that automatically translates to you cannot own a gun.  There is not an amendment to own a house, or a car or a toothbrush.  There is not an amendment to allow my to buy alcohol.  The only way you could NOT own a gun if the Second Amendment was repealed would be to have added legislation making it illegal to own a gun.  This attachment to the Second Amendment being the only way you can own a gun is way overblown.  As I said before, people in other countries own guns yet we are the only one to address anything about it in our founding documents because at that time it was a big deal since King George did not allow armed insurreciton, but guess what, the colonists still owned guns before that.  It was not illegal even under a monarch that understood a colony could rebel.  So in that time people did not feel hindered because there was no legislation to stop them, and without the Second Amendment you'd be in the same place.  The NRA rhetoric has only added in the belief that without it it would be banned.  That is a bridge too far.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 12, 2018, 11:47:28 AM
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus?

OTOH, you don’t premptively lose your 1A rights because of something you or someone else MIGHT do.  You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater but no one makes you wear a muzzle to prevent you from doing it.
I still have had no one actually answer the question.  Nor has the question of why anyone feels if the Second Amendment did not exist that that automatically translates to you cannot own a gun.  There is not an amendment to own a house, or a car or a toothbrush.  There is not an amendment to allow my to buy alcohol. The only way you could NOT own a gun if the Second Amendment was repealed would be to have added legislation making it illegal to own a gun.  This attachment to the Second Amendment being the only way you can own a gun is way overblown.  As I said before, people in other countries own guns yet we are the only one to address anything about it in our founding documents because at that time it was a big deal since King George did not allow armed insurreciton, but guess what, the colonists still owned guns before that.  It was not illegal even under a monarch that understood a colony could rebel.  So in that time people did not feel hindered because there was no legislation to stop them, and without the Second Amendment you'd be in the same place.  The NRA rhetoric has only added in the belief that without it it would be banned.  That is a bridge too far.

And that has happened in other countries. And it would happen here. Chicago has a handgun ban until it was thrown out. In other countries they have the right to “own” a gun where own means keep locked up at a shooting club except when in use for sporting purposes

Note that in the US we don’t have the right to own a gun, we have the right to “bear arms” which means “A person's right to bear arms is their right to own and use guns, as a means of defense.”  That’s different than “you can keep it at your sportsman’s club”.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/bear-arms

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 12, 2018, 03:05:21 PM
Why is it that there is not the perceived "need" of other amendments in our Constitution to have a group to "protect" it?  I don't see a group out there fighting for the need to avoid repeal of the right to due process or see a group out there fighting for the right of law-abiding citizens not to have to avoid incriminating themselves.  There is no need to "fight" for the 5th amendment because it makes sense.  We don't have foreign individuals talking with us saying they don't understand why that exists in our Constitution.  But yet we do have those types of questions about the 2nd Amendment, so should that not make us stand back and question why?  If the 2nd Amendment is so clearly good, then why does a group of vocal people who claim it is need to fight for it when that does not happen for nearly any other amendment.  I'm not talking about cases where an amendment is violated such as all the cases for the 1st Amendment which I'm sure would be the first "defense" against my question.  Those are legal cases where the law is violated.  If a legal gun owner was restricted from buying a gun after following all the regulations then they would have the right to do the same thing.  So can any of the pro-gun folks provide a clear answer on how an amendment that needs to be "protected" makes sense?  Isn't that the whole point of our process than if it needs to be protected then maybe it's wrong and needs to be changed or removed?  Isn't that what happened with the other things in the Constitution that needed to be "protected" like the three-fifths compromise and Prohibition?  The fact that the 2nd Amendment has faced the same treatment should open our eyes to the fact that we learned in Sesame Street:  one of these things doesn't belong, or at least maybe it needs to be changed a bit.

I find this approach fundamentally flawed.  I'm not sure how you exempt the first amendment.  It seems to match up very well with the second in regard to the assaults on it and the need to be protected in today's environment.  As far as lack of organizations protecting other aspects of the bill of rights in general, have you forgotten the ACLU (also vilified by segments of the population in a manner similar to the NRA)?
No did not forget about it.  The ACLU protects it as any other amendment would be, when violated they help with the legal case.  The NRA method is different.  The ACLU according to their own website exists to litigate against abuses, i.e. after something went wrong.  The NRA primarily exists to keep things from going wrong in their worldview, which they need to constantly defend because it is a twisted view of what the second amendment actually says.  The ACLU is not out there explaining why free speech needs to exist, they deal in minutiae of what free speech means from a legal sense.  No organization exists to protect the 13th Amendment.  So why does one exist who's main reason for being at this point is to focus on how it became politicized in the 70s and used their flawed view of the second amendment as their locus?

OTOH, you don’t premptively lose your 1A rights because of something you or someone else MIGHT do.  You don’t have the right to yell Fire in a crowded theater but no one makes you wear a muzzle to prevent you from doing it.
I still have had no one actually answer the question.  Nor has the question of why anyone feels if the Second Amendment did not exist that that automatically translates to you cannot own a gun.  There is not an amendment to own a house, or a car or a toothbrush.  There is not an amendment to allow my to buy alcohol. The only way you could NOT own a gun if the Second Amendment was repealed would be to have added legislation making it illegal to own a gun.  This attachment to the Second Amendment being the only way you can own a gun is way overblown.  As I said before, people in other countries own guns yet we are the only one to address anything about it in our founding documents because at that time it was a big deal since King George did not allow armed insurreciton, but guess what, the colonists still owned guns before that.  It was not illegal even under a monarch that understood a colony could rebel.  So in that time people did not feel hindered because there was no legislation to stop them, and without the Second Amendment you'd be in the same place.  The NRA rhetoric has only added in the belief that without it it would be banned.  That is a bridge too far.

And that has happened in other countries. And it would happen here. Chicago has a handgun ban until it was thrown out. In other countries they have the right to “own” a gun where own means keep locked up at a shooting club except when in use for sporting purposes

Note that in the US we don’t have the right to own a gun, we have the right to “bear arms” which means “A person's right to bear arms is their right to own and use guns, as a means of defense.”  That’s different than “you can keep it at your sportsman’s club”.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.collinsdictionary.com/us/amp/english/bear-arms
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on April 14, 2018, 01:30:18 AM
Not sure how helpful it is comparing the need for Canadian and American gun registries.

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year:

Canada 2.05

USA 11.96
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: BlueMR2 on April 14, 2018, 08:33:34 AM
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on April 14, 2018, 12:17:31 PM
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that. It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel. At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.

What exactly is the "terribly faulty view?" In the original context of the Bill of Rights, only able bodied males of a certain age had the right to bear arms (militia capable). DC vs Heller changed that narrowly. But that case also stated that right is not unlimited. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 16, 2018, 12:13:31 PM
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
We'll agree to disagree as to the degree.  I agree they do refer to the individual however I do think that the way it is utilized today could never have been envisioned by the founders.  It would have been unheard of for an individual to have a cache of weapons as the individual citizen can amass today because the wealth required to do so would have been exorbitant and out of reach of the common man, so they were likely thinking of a single gun, perhaps two, per individual. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on April 16, 2018, 04:11:43 PM
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
We'll agree to disagree as to the degree.  I agree they do refer to the individual however I do think that the way it is utilized today could never have been envisioned by the founders.  It would have been unheard of for an individual to have a cache of weapons as the individual citizen can amass today because the wealth required to do so would have been exorbitant and out of reach of the common man, so they were likely thinking of a single gun, perhaps two, per individual.

Citation please.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 17, 2018, 08:52:15 AM
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
We'll agree to disagree as to the degree.  I agree they do refer to the individual however I do think that the way it is utilized today could never have been envisioned by the founders.  It would have been unheard of for an individual to have a cache of weapons as the individual citizen can amass today because the wealth required to do so would have been exorbitant and out of reach of the common man, so they were likely thinking of a single gun, perhaps two, per individual.

Citation please.
If I could find you a citation of exactly what the founders were thinking I could have saved the Supreme Court a lot of time as we would not have apply our own interpretation to it.  I'm pretty sure your request was sarcastic, but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 17, 2018, 04:30:17 PM
If I could find you a citation of exactly what the founders were thinking I could have saved the Supreme Court a lot of time as we would not have apply our own interpretation to it.  I'm pretty sure your request was sarcastic, but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause.

How about the original iteration of the 2nd amendment...  Very clearly a personal right.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Clearly the dominant clause, with militia as the supporting (and expanded justification) clause.

James Madison (June 8, 1789). Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress Archived 2011-01-11 at the Wayback Machine., "Amendments to the Constitution", House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: pp. 448–459 [451].
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 17, 2018, 06:11:59 PM
We should just repeal the 2nd Amendment. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on April 18, 2018, 12:46:37 AM
If I could find you a citation of exactly what the founders were thinking I could have saved the Supreme Court a lot of time as we would not have apply our own interpretation to it.  I'm pretty sure your request was sarcastic, but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause.

How about the original iteration of the 2nd amendment...  Very clearly a personal right.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Clearly the dominant clause, with militia as the supporting (and expanded justification) clause.

James Madison (June 8, 1789). Gales & Seaton's History of Debates in Congress Archived 2011-01-11 at the Wayback Machine., "Amendments to the Constitution", House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: pp. 448–459 [451].

Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on April 18, 2018, 01:09:18 AM
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 18, 2018, 11:28:33 AM
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
The fact that the wording was reversed in the final inclusion also reverses the dominant clause and the supporting clause, so if we agree with @TexasRunner's logic, would seem the people are an expanded justification. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 18, 2018, 02:08:29 PM
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
The fact that the wording was reversed in the final inclusion also reverses the dominant clause and the supporting clause, so if we agree with @TexasRunner's logic, would seem the people are an expanded justification.

Sigh....

I'm sorry but thats just not accurate (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-grammar-and-syntax-in-the-Second-Amendment-so-weird/answer/Courtney-Ballard-2?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa).

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute)

And the fact that the militia cannot be disregarded, but even those on the opposing side of the debate recognize the syntax (https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/3721).

And if you look at the Bill of Rights in completion, please find any one other place where the rights therein described have not been directly, and personally attributable to individual persons of the citizenry.  The only exception being the 10th amendment, which was (probably) placed last in the list as a summarizing factor (that has been widely ignored by SCOTUS and the Federal Government...).

Or is it the right of Texas to have free speech?

Is it the right of Alaska to practice whatever religion it (she?) desires to hold?

The Bill of Rights is plainly attributable to individuals.  To state otherwise is to be blatantly dishonest.  If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, at least we are now being honest in the conversation.  I readily welcome that conversation over the back-bending reading of the 2nd amendment that somehow only applies it to states and not to the citizens of the state.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 18, 2018, 02:21:30 PM
I'm not going down that ridiculous rabbit hole again.  It's a right to bear arms in the context of a well regulated militia until spread more thinly by judicial rulings I think went too far.  I get you disagree with that.  It was never meant to be "just carry around your guns wherever you want" and the need for that is not something I feel.  At this point I'll just go back to my happy state where I just think the founding father who wrote that clause was dyslexic and he just wanted to give us the right to "bare arms".  After all it's hot as hell in Virginia and if I'm marching around in my well-regulated militia I certainly don't want to do it in the long duds they used to wear back then, so he was giving us the right the wear t-shirts but just misspelled the damn thing.  That's about as real an interpretation of the amendment as that is justifies individual citizens to just go get them some guns.

That's a popular, but terribly faulty view, when taken in context of the bill of rights.  The entire bill of rights are targeted at protecting individual rights (by way of enumerating the most fundamental human rights).  The militia clause provides additional justification for, not the whole justification of.
We'll agree to disagree as to the degree.  I agree they do refer to the individual however I do think that the way it is utilized today could never have been envisioned by the founders.  It would have been unheard of for an individual to have a cache of weapons as the individual citizen can amass today because the wealth required to do so would have been exorbitant and out of reach of the common man, so they were likely thinking of a single gun, perhaps two, per individual.

Citation please.
If I could find you a citation of exactly what the founders were thinking I could have saved the Supreme Court a lot of time as we would not have apply our own interpretation to it.  I'm pretty sure your request was sarcastic, but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause.

"No source documents from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause"

Presenting a source document from the mid 19th century outlining the 2nd amendment as a personal right...  Or was the NRA evil back then too?

I'm sure it will be ignored...

The Political Manual, 1861.

Look at page 205.

https://ia800304.us.archive.org/2/items/politicalmanualb00mansuoft/politicalmanualb00mansuoft.pdf (https://ia800304.us.archive.org/2/items/politicalmanualb00mansuoft/politicalmanualb00mansuoft.pdf)

Quote
The term militia is a Latin word, and signifies the being a soldier. In our country it is applied only to that species of soldiery which is composed wholly of enrolled citizens, held ready for service, but not actual- ly under arms. It is scarcely necessary to say, that the right of the people thus to bear arms is the foundation
of their liberties ; for, without it, they would be with- out any power of resistance against the existing gov- ernment.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 18, 2018, 02:23:03 PM
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
The fact that the wording was reversed in the final inclusion also reverses the dominant clause and the supporting clause, so if we agree with @TexasRunner's logic, would seem the people are an expanded justification.

Sigh....

I'm sorry but thats just not accurate (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-grammar-and-syntax-in-the-Second-Amendment-so-weird/answer/Courtney-Ballard-2?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa).

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute)

And the fact that the militia cannot be disregarded, but even those on the opposing side of the debate recognize the syntax (https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/3721).

And if you look at the Bill of Rights in completion, please find any one other place where the rights therein described have not been directly, and personally attributable to individual persons of the citizenry.  The only exception being the 10th amendment, which was (probably) placed last in the list as a summarizing factor (that has been widely ignored by SCOTUS and the Federal Government...).

Or is it the right of Texas to have free speech?

Is it the right of Alaska to practice whatever religion it (she?) desires to hold?

The Bill of Rights is plainly attributable to individuals.  To state otherwise is to be blatantly dishonest.  If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, at least we are now being honest in the conversation.  I readily welcome that conversation over the back-bending reading of the 2nd amendment that somehow only applies it to states and not to the citizens of the state.
Yes, I've read Scalia's argument of the same in Heller, and the opposing argument by Stevens that aligns with my view that the founders would have made the individual right aspect express if it was intended just as they do in all the other areas of the Bill of Rights.  I'm just not agreeing with you that because the others are that way, we should just assume that to be the case in the Second.  Legal minds that are much better than you or me, like Judge Stevens, Ginsburg et. al agree.  I'd encourage you to examine Breyer's further examination of the topic and how the civilian firearms application is flawed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 18, 2018, 02:51:29 PM
Yes, I've read Scalia's argument of the same in Heller, and the opposing argument by Stevens that aligns with my view that the founders would have made the individual right aspect express if it was intended just as they do in all the other areas of the Bill of Rights.  I'm just not agreeing with you that because the others are that way, we should just assume that to be the case in the Second.  Legal minds that are much better than you or me, like Judge Stevens, Ginsburg et. al agree.  I'd encourage you to examine Breyer's further examination of the topic and how the civilian firearms application is flawed.

So Scalise is an idiot and Judge Stevens, Ginsburg et. al are genius....

I have read both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion.

Can recognize that the SCOTUS is extremely politically partisan (unlike what it was intended to be) and that the dissent needed to be written as well to fit the partisan nature of the current SCOTUS.  Or do you think everything written that you agree with is genius and everything written that you disagree with is fabricated?

I get there are different opinions on the interpretation but to act as if Scalise made the whole thing up as he went along with no justification is lunacy.  Have you read the majority opinion?  In full? 

Quote
But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris)T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.4

Quote
It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

Quote
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999).

Quote
Justice Stevens points to a study by amici supposedly showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently used in the military context. See post, at 12–13, n. 9; Linguists’ Brief 24. Of course, as we have said, the fact that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any event, we have given many sources where the phrase was used in nonmilitary contexts. Moreover, the study’s collection appears to include (who knows how many times) the idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant. The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms … for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are “expressly qualified.” Linguists’ Brief 24. (Justice Stevens uses the same excuse for dismissing the state constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amendment that identify private-use purposes for which the individual right can be asserted. See post, at 12.) That analysis is faulty. A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.11

Quote
Finally, Justice Stevens suggests that “keep and bear Arms” was some sort of term of art, presumably akin to “hue and cry” or “cease and desist.” (This suggestion usefully evades the problem that there is no evidence whatsoever to support a military reading of “keep arms.”) Justice Stevens believes that the unitary meaning of “keep and bear Arms” is established by the Second Amendment ’s calling it a “right” (singular) rather than “rights” (plural). See post, at 16. There is nothing to this. State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple (related) guarantees under a singular “right,” and the First Amendment protects the “right [singular] of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights §§IX, XII, XVI, in 5 Thorpe 3083–3084; Ohio Const., Arts. VIII, §§11, 19 (1802), in id., at 2910–2911.14 And even if “keep and bear Arms” were a unitary phrase, we find no evidence that it bore a military meaning. Although the phrase was not at all common (which would be unusual for a term of art), we have found instances of its use with a clearly nonmilitary connotation. In a 1780 debate in the House of Lords, for example, Lord Richmond described an order to disarm private citizens (not militia members) as “a violation of the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.” 49 The London Magazine or Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer 467 (1780). In response, another member of Parliament referred to “the right of bearing arms for personal defence,” making clear that no special military meaning for “keep and bear arms” was intended in the discussion. Id., at 467–468.15

    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”16


...but if it was not not I thought I'd be kind enough to reply what I'm sure you already knew, that there have been no source documents back from the late 18th century that explain exactly what they meant for us to do with that clause. 

And Caracarn obviously hasn't read the majority opinion. Lots of stuff there from the time period in question...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 18, 2018, 03:05:01 PM
Wow.  Always fun to see how worked up people can become.

I never said Scala was an idiot or Stevens a genius.  You did.  I just pointed out there are opinions that differ from yours.  They may be partisan but our legal system as a common law system is based on these rulings.  All I said about Scalia's argument was that I've read it including his interpretation of all the writings which were from the 19th century (1800s).  I was speaking about writings from the founders themselves specifically about the Second Amendment.  I'm not talking about all the quotes from Jefferson where he clearly falls into your line of thinking.  I love Jefferson but a guy who's primary guiding force was that we should overthrow our government every few years is a little too radical for me. 

You've added a lot of things to fill in the gaps you think exist in my comment.  Not sure what that indicates as I'm not a psychiatrist.  I have equal respect for Scalia's and Steven's intellect.  Never said I thought one was an idiot and one was a genius.  I just said I find the dissenting arguments more compelling.  That's how common law works.  You state your case and then it is judged.  The whole individual rights law we live under now hinges mainly on this ruling.  I don't like it, you do.  Just because I think Scalia's points are flawed does not automatically imply I presume he's an idiot.  I agree with most of Scalia's arguments, just not this one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 18, 2018, 03:21:27 PM
Also... very clearly "the first iteration".

You're cherry picking.
Exactly.

Obviously, by the fact that the wording was changed prior to its inclusion in the Constitution, the intention of the writers was not what this first iteration stated.  If their intention had been that, they would not have chosen to reword it to state something different.
The fact that the wording was reversed in the final inclusion also reverses the dominant clause and the supporting clause, so if we agree with @TexasRunner's logic, would seem the people are an expanded justification.

Sigh....

I'm sorry but thats just not accurate (https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-grammar-and-syntax-in-the-Second-Amendment-so-weird/answer/Courtney-Ballard-2?utm_medium=organic&utm_source=google_rich_qa&utm_campaign=google_rich_qa).

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm (http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000390.htm)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nominative_absolute)

And the fact that the militia cannot be disregarded, but even those on the opposing side of the debate recognize the syntax (https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/3721).

And if you look at the Bill of Rights in completion, please find any one other place where the rights therein described have not been directly, and personally attributable to individual persons of the citizenry.  The only exception being the 10th amendment, which was (probably) placed last in the list as a summarizing factor (that has been widely ignored by SCOTUS and the Federal Government...).

Or is it the right of Texas to have free speech?

Is it the right of Alaska to practice whatever religion it (she?) desires to hold?

The Bill of Rights is plainly attributable to individuals.  To state otherwise is to be blatantly dishonest.  If you want to repeal the 2nd amendment, at least we are now being honest in the conversation.  I readily welcome that conversation over the back-bending reading of the 2nd amendment that somehow only applies it to states and not to the citizens of the state.

I tend to think that the right to bear arms is only valid within the context of serving within the militia (as the clause plainly states).  But it's a moot point if we repeal the 2nd Amendment.  And we should.  Many people will be unhappy.  But if the votes are there to repeal it, then that's the best option, IMO. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on April 19, 2018, 07:12:58 AM


Quote
The term militia is a Latin word, and signifies the being a soldier. In our country it is applied only to that species of soldiery which is composed wholly of enrolled citizens, held ready for service, but not actual- ly under arms. It is scarcely necessary to say, that the right of the people thus to bear arms is the foundation
of their liberties ; for, without it, they would be with- out any power of resistance against the existing gov- ernment.
[/quote]

Yes, exactly. Thank You TexasRunner.

This is the argument many of us are making.

"A well regulated militia..."


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 21, 2018, 01:12:35 PM
http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o#comment (http://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o#comment)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124326 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3124326)

Quote
It is less widely known that CDC itself conducted surveys in which huge nationally
representative samples of the U.S. adult population were asked about DGU (Defensive Gun Uses), as part of their
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). CDC never reported the results of those
surveys, does not report on their website any estimates of DGU frequency, and does not even
acknowledge that they ever asked about the topic in any of their surveys.

I only recently discovered that CDC had indeed asked about DGU in their BRFSS
surveys, stumbling across the DGU question while searching through the questionnaires used in
the surveys for questions on other topics. Once I found the key question in the questionnaire for
one year’s BRFSS, I searched through the questionnaires for all the other years, from 1984
through 2016, and found the DGU question had been asked in the 1996, 1997, and 1998 surveys.
3


Quote
A prevalence of 1.24% may seem quite small at first, but it implies enormous numbers of
DGUs. The adult (age 18+) resident population of the U.S. in 1997 was 198,108,000 (U.S.
Bureau of the Census 1998, p. 17). The final adjusted prevalence of 1.24% therefore implies that
in an average year during 1996-1998, 2.46 million U.S. adults used a gun for self-defense. This
estimate, based on an enormous sample of 12,870 cases (unweighted) in a nationally
representative sample, strongly confirms the 2.5 million past-12-months estimate obtained Kleck
and Gertz (1995).

Quote
Why didn’t the CDC report their DGU results? The agency clearly regarded the topic as
sufficiently important to insert DGU questions into a very expensive national survey that had
never previously included any questions about self-defense, and to do so in three of the surveys.
All surveys have limitations, but this cannot serve as a legitimate justification for completely
suppressing important results. Accepted scholarly standards dictate reporting the findings
accompanied by appropriate caveats about limitations and possible problems with the survey.
This allows readers to judge for themselves whether the limitations were so severe that the
10
findings must be discounted altogether. Every one of the critics’ claims that surveys overstate
DGU prevalence have been thoroughly refuted (Kleck and Gertz 1997; Kleck 2001), but even if
they had not the ethical course for CDC still would have been to release the DGU prevalence
findings.
If doubts about the validity of these findings cannot justify their suppression, why did
CDC personnel decide not to report them? One obvious explanation would be that they
recognized that their own surveys’ finding of a high DGU prevalence was unfriendly to gun
control efforts - efforts repeatedly endorsed by CDC-financed researchers (Kates 2001). Such a
decision could have been made at the level of administrators who supervise the BRFSS, or
perhaps just lower-level personnel who understood that these findings would be unwelcome
news to their bosses. Regardless of how the decision was made, it was a disservice to the
American people, who paid for the survey and the information it yielded, but who were not
allowed to see it and judge its worth for themselves.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 22, 2018, 12:00:39 PM
So nobody is going to touch this with a ten-foot-pole.  Got it.

:Sigh:
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on April 22, 2018, 04:08:27 PM
I'll bite.  What was the question?

Quote
“During the last 12 months, have you confronted another person with a firearm, even if
you did not fire it, to protect yourself, your property, or someone else?"

It's a well written question, and assuming it extrapolates across the population, that's a very worrying result.

2 million incidents ever year were adults felt they had to draw a firearm to defend what they value. Why has US society fallen into such a situation. That's fucking alarming, why are no further studies being conducted to track this over time, and address the root cause?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 22, 2018, 06:03:10 PM
Also valid to ask . . . are gun owners the proverbial man with a hammer, where everything looks like a nail to them?  We all like to think of ourselves as being the good guy.  Few people who draw a gun are going to admit that they did it for the wrong reason.  It would be interesting to have a similar defensive use survey question for taking up other arms (baseball bat, fists, etc.) to compare results.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on April 22, 2018, 08:53:24 PM
Also is drawing a gun to defend property really reasonable or desirable situation? I can understand using it for protection for your life or family's lives, but I'd never shoot someone who was trying to steal my tv (if I had a tv or a gun). Life > stuff, even if it is the life of someone committing a crime. And how many of those were drunken brawls where both people are better off not drawing at all? I just don't see how more guns = more safety in the vast majority of cases.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on April 23, 2018, 02:13:42 AM
Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on April 23, 2018, 07:42:08 AM
Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.



Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI.
-The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun.
-Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did  buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father. 

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 23, 2018, 08:28:55 AM
Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.



Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI.
-The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun.
-Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did  buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father. 

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.

It's true - when legal gun owners break the law and choose to give their arms to criminals then criminals will get guns no matter what regulations are in place.

The son told the secret service that he was a sovereign citizen and had the right to inspect the grounds of the white house last year.  The year before he told authorities that Taylor Swift was stalking him.  He had made comments about killing himself in the past as well.  The system worked.  His license was revoked before the incident could happen.  A registry prevented him from buying new weapons and from buying ammunition.

Unfortunately, his father also had an FOID . . . and armed his son so that the shooting could occur.  Hopefully the father will be held accountable for his actions.  Sadly, given the usual lack of accountability that gun owners are held to I'd be surprised if he even loses his firearms license, let alone does jail time.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 23, 2018, 08:35:23 AM
One argument I see is that gun laws make things harder for law-abiding gun owners and doesn't do much to deter criminals from breaking the law (because criminals are not going to respect the law in the first place).

I'd propose making it a felony to posses a firearm illegally.  That way the law abiding people aren't affected at all, but the criminals that have the guns in their possession are able to be prosecuted for the mere fact of having the gun.  In other words, treat guns like we treat drugs. 

We could even come up with a clever name for it like "The War on Violence".  Haha, I love the inherent contradiction in that name.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on April 23, 2018, 09:07:05 AM
Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.



Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI.
-The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun.
-Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did  buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father. 

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.

Not really a rant... more just a subtle frustration. No need to be rude.

It was reported earlier that the FBI had returned the guns.
I see now they are reporting that it was the FBI who requested local authorities to revoke his firearms card and seize the guns.

Think about how a gun registry might work.
If there was a gun registry, they wouldn't have simply given the guns to someone else would they?

In this case they would have destroyed the weapons as the owner no longer has the right to own them.

Soooooo, maybe we'd only be talking about assault with maple syrup and a butter pat right now?

 


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on April 23, 2018, 09:31:04 AM
Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.



Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI.
-The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun.
-Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did  buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father. 

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.

Not really a rant... more just a subtle frustration. No need to be rude.

It was reported earlier that the FBI had returned the guns.
I see now they are reporting that it was the FBI who requested local authorities to revoke his firearms card and seize the guns.

Think about how a gun registry might work.
If there was a gun registry, they wouldn't have simply given the guns to someone else would they?

In this case they would have destroyed the weapons as the owner no longer has the right to own them.?


Soooooo, maybe we'd only be talking about assault with maple syrup and a butter pat right now?

I'm very much in favor of a registry, but I don't think this incident is the best way to highlight the potential benefits. We know who provided the gun in this case despite the lack of registration.

This is making some assumptions that go beyond the implementation of a registry. They still could give the guns to a family member, why does registration = guns would be destroyed?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on April 23, 2018, 09:40:21 AM
Using an AR-15, a man kills four 20-somethings at a waffle house, with weapons that the FBI had taken from him and given to his Father for safekeeping ON A PROMISE!

Yep, no need for stricter gun laws or registries.

It's just the militia doing their job.

FFS.



Please use facts in your rants, as much as you can.

-Local police returned the gun, not the FBI.
-The kid HAD a FOID card (revoked after the whitehouse incident), which is a state issued license to buy a gun.
-Illinois requires all gun sales to verify the validity of the FOID card for private sales.

All indications are that his kid could have and did  buy those guns legally, and possessed them up until his whitehouse incident. At that point, the local law enforcement failed by giving the guns to the guys father. 

I fail to see how a registry would have prevented this.

Not really a rant... more just a subtle frustration. No need to be rude.

It was reported earlier that the FBI had returned the guns.
I see now they are reporting that it was the FBI who requested local authorities to revoke his firearms card and seize the guns.

Think about how a gun registry might work.
If there was a gun registry, they wouldn't have simply given the guns to someone else would they?

In this case they would have destroyed the weapons as the owner no longer has the right to own them.?


Soooooo, maybe we'd only be talking about assault with maple syrup and a butter pat right now?

I'm very much in favor of a registry, but I don't think this incident is the best way to highlight the potential benefits. We know who provided the gun in this case despite the lack of registration.

This is making some assumptions that go beyond the implementation of a registry. They still could give the guns to a family member, why does registration = guns would be destroyed?

You might be right. A simple registry by itself without tougher gun laws would be less useful.

On the other hand...
Why would they give the guns away at all?
Especially to a family member?
Shouldn't they be destroying confiscated weapons?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on April 23, 2018, 11:33:07 AM
What I want to know, is when we start demanding responsibility (and consequences) from gun owners?

In the Waffle House shooting, it appears that the father gave guns back to his obviously very mentally ill, very paranoid son, despite telling law enforcement he would not do so.  If this is true, then as a result of that action, 4 people are dead. 

This should not be covered by an 'oops, my bad'.  I don't care if he's a legal gun owner or if he had the 'right' to loan guns to his son.  4 people are dead.  His son did the shooting, but the father should be just as culpable.  He should be on the hook for homicide, and the full weight of the law brought against him.  But he won't be, because existing laws can't hold him accountable (and what few ones there are for this sort of thing are almost never enforced.)

Same goes for the parent who has a child shoot another because they left their loaded firearm on a side table, in easy reach.

Same goes for the 20-something guy who leaves his guns unsecured, so that his roommate can steal them and go on a shooting rampage at a nearby mall.

Same goes for the mother of the mentally ill boy who thought the answer to his mental illness was to give him access to guns.  (A glass-fronted gun case is not secure, folks).  In her case, she paid the ultimate price for that bit of stupidity--but so did a lot of little kids who didn't need to die.

That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns.  If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES.  If it's not on my person, it should be locked up.  If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime.  And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on April 23, 2018, 11:39:57 AM
That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns.  If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES.  If it's not on my person, it should be locked up.  If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime.  And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

+1
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 23, 2018, 11:51:01 AM
That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns.  If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES.  If it's not on my person, it should be locked up.  If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime.  And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

+1

+2
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 23, 2018, 12:48:31 PM
That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns.  If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES.  If it's not on my person, it should be locked up.  If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime.  And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

+1

+2
Sounds pretty simple.  Looking forward to all the reasons responsible gun owners rail against this because it makes it to hard to access when they need it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 23, 2018, 01:08:37 PM
That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns.  If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES.  If it's not on my person, it should be locked up.  If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime.  And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

+1

+2
Sounds pretty simple.  Looking forward to all the reasons responsible gun owners rail against this because it makes it to hard to access when they need it.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html)
 - More than half of gun owners in the US keep a firearm without any locks or deterrent to prevent use by an unauthorized person, or to prevent theft.
 - 45% of gun owners with kids under the age of 18 leave unsecured firearms lying around the home.
 - Only 35% of gun owning parents of children with mental health conditions keep weapons unloaded and locked away.

You're asking for responsibility for their actions from a large group of people who have proven by their actions that they're not willing to accept any.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on April 23, 2018, 01:34:09 PM
That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns.  If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES.  If it's not on my person, it should be locked up.  If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime.  And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

+1

+2
Sounds pretty simple.  Looking forward to all the reasons responsible gun owners rail against this because it makes it to hard to access when they need it.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-safe-gun-storage-20180223-story.html)
 - More than half of gun owners in the US keep a firearm without any locks or deterrent to prevent use by an unauthorized person, or to prevent theft.
 - 45% of gun owners with kids under the age of 18 leave unsecured firearms lying around the home.
 - Only 35% of gun owning parents of children with mental health conditions keep weapons unloaded and locked away.

You're asking for responsibility for their actions from a large group of people who have proven by their actions that they're not willing to accept any.

Perhaps good reason why the phrase "law abiding gun owner" is often used as opposed to "responsible gun owner." I brought up before the sobering statistics related to the number of firearms obtained from "law abiding gun owners" that were used in gun related crimes. The irony of the whole situation is staggering. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 24, 2018, 10:26:10 AM
That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns.  If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES.  If it's not on my person, it should be locked up.  If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime.  And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

At the risk of Clintoning this, what does "locked up" mean?  Because my weapons are always locked up in my house.  For anyone to take my weapons they have to forceably break into my house, and if they're willing to break into my brick house with metal security doors, they're not going to be stopped by any reasonable gun storage inside that house (a real safe is going to cost you probably $1500 or more, cheaper than that is some BS locking cabinet that's easily defeated by a person who can get past a deadbolted exterior door). 

You can't act like every situation is the same.  A child finding a loaded Glock in a bedside table is different than a father of an adult mentally disturbed child keeping guns accessible to that person, is different than some punk breaking into my house and stealing my guns and committing a crime with them.  You can't punish them all equally.  In some cases (the last one) I don't see how you can punish it at all.  "Well sir, I understand the thief kicked in your back door and ransacked your house, but he stole the shotgun in your closet and killed someone with it.  If only you had used a $10 cable trigger lock on it that would have been defeated in 3 seconds with the bolt cutters in your garage, we wouldn't be arresting you for 1st degree murder right now!" 


And this is before we get into the legality of trying to charge someone who had a gun taken from them with something like premeditated murder.  I am 100% in favor of holding gun owners responsible for negligence when they fail to secure their weapons and something bad happens as a result, but a victim of a crime (break in) is not negligent, and negligence can't be punished the same way that premeditated crimes are. 


But I guess if we want to ignore all nuance and reality we can get cute and propose ambiguous BS like "just charge gun owners with the crime!" and pretend that anyone who understands all of that is just irresponsible and wrong.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on April 24, 2018, 10:46:11 AM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 24, 2018, 10:55:24 AM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 24, 2018, 11:00:12 AM
That's where I'm at these days in regards to guns.  If I own a gun, then I should be F#@$!! responsible for it AT ALL TIMES.  If it's not on my person, it should be locked up.  If it's not, and someone else gets their hands on it and commits a crime with it, then I should be held equally responsible by the law for that crime.  And if I'm not comfortable with that responsibility, then I shouldn't own a gun.

At the risk of Clintoning this, what does "locked up" mean?  Because my weapons are always locked up in my house.  For anyone to take my weapons they have to forceably break into my house, and if they're willing to break into my brick house with metal security doors, they're not going to be stopped by any reasonable gun storage inside that house (a real safe is going to cost you probably $1500 or more, cheaper than that is some BS locking cabinet that's easily defeated by a person who can get past a deadbolted exterior door). 

You can't act like every situation is the same.  A child finding a loaded Glock in a bedside table is different than a father of an adult mentally disturbed child keeping guns accessible to that person, is different than some punk breaking into my house and stealing my guns and committing a crime with them.  You can't punish them all equally.  In some cases (the last one) I don't see how you can punish it at all.  "Well sir, I understand the thief kicked in your back door and ransacked your house, but he stole the shotgun in your closet and killed someone with it.  If only you had used a $10 cable trigger lock on it that would have been defeated in 3 seconds with the bolt cutters in your garage, we wouldn't be arresting you for 1st degree murder right now!" 


And this is before we get into the legality of trying to charge someone who had a gun taken from them with something like premeditated murder.  I am 100% in favor of holding gun owners responsible for negligence when they fail to secure their weapons and something bad happens as a result, but a victim of a crime (break in) is not negligent, and negligence can't be punished the same way that premeditated crimes are. 


But I guess if we want to ignore all nuance and reality we can get cute and propose ambiguous BS like "just charge gun owners with the crime!" and pretend that anyone who understands all of that is just irresponsible and wrong.


If you keep your guns locked up in a secure location and unloaded in your home then we have no problem.  You're a responsible gun owner.

If you keep a loaded gun that's not locked up in your home and your home also contains a young kid (as is the case with half of gun owners with children), then if a fully forseeable "accident" happens you should go to jail for manslaughter.  Your negligence caused the death or injury.  As a felon, you should then be prevented from ever owning a gun again . . . since you've proven that you are not responsible enough to do so.

If you have a mentally ill child and keep unsecured guns in your home, you should be held responsible for the deaths and injury that your child causes with your gun.  It is your responsibility to care for the child and prevent him from getting the gun.


The issue of theft is less clear cut.  Guns in the home should be locked up, separate from ammunition.  I'm picturing a sturdy lock on a room, a gun safe, or a strong locked cabinet.  It doesn't need to be thousands of dollars, you could probably cobble one together for less than a hundred dollars.

If you leave your gun out on the coffee table and someone walks in your unlocked back door and steals it  . . . you were negligent.  You should pay a fine for this negligence.  If the negligence happens several times, then maybe greater punishment could be levied.  If that gun is then used in a crime, it's obviously not fair to charge you with the crime, but you shouldn't just get to wash your hands of all responsibility.

If you have a gun locked away in a gun cabinet, and a thief breaks into your locked home, breaks into your gun cabinet and makes off with the weapon  . . . obviously you did what you could to prevent the theft and should not be held responsible for anything.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Fireball on April 24, 2018, 11:49:50 AM
This article from today seems relevant to this discussion. 13yr old steals grandfather's gun and murders his 11yr old brother with it.

www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-portage/police-11-year-old-boy-shot-and-killed-by-his-13-year-old-brother
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 24, 2018, 01:09:00 PM
This article from today seems relevant to this discussion. 13yr old steals grandfather's gun and murders his 11yr old brother with it.

www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-portage/police-11-year-old-boy-shot-and-killed-by-his-13-year-old-brother

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing.  Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it.  Look at the statistics.  This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long.  Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 24, 2018, 01:15:55 PM
Guns in the home should be locked up, separate from ammunition.

I really don't get the "Ammo in a different spot" thing.  Do you guys think guns magically load themselves?

As a gun owner with one of those 1500$ safes, I consider it rather prudent that my wife and I keep ALL guns and ammo within the (pretty dang strong) safe unless it is on our person.  But under California's storage laws, I would be committing a crime by keeping it in the same spot.

Is there something I am missing with the whole 'keep the ammo somewhere else' bit?


Also, it is rather dubious to make some of these claims about storage without linking out to the study or examining exactly what questions were asked.

If they were to ask "at any point during the day, do you keep an unloaded firearm unsecured in your home" and define "unsecured" as "not in a locked safe or disabled", I would have to say yes, because as a LTC it is on my person.  The wording of the questions is really important.  If you post a link to the study, I wouldn't mind looking through it to see exactly what they asked (and how substantial the survey's base was).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 24, 2018, 01:33:14 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 24, 2018, 01:44:53 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

No. nope. no. no nope. no nope no.

we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.

You do not have a constitutional right to drive a car.

You do have a constitutional right to vote.  Without a poll tax.

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry.  (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

I'm not really sure what else you want.  Basically every state does have criminal negligence laws on the books.  Texas is pretty dang stringent in that so much as leaving a loaded firearm accessible to someone under 18 is a criminal act, whether or not anything happens (As it should be, IMO).  Increases to manslaughter if death occurs.

Do you understand the laws on the books?  Why aren't they being enforced?  That is a local issue to which a local DA needs to be held accountable for failing to uphold the written law.  If these accidents are so common, and the laws to prosecute are present, why aren't they being prosecuted?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 24, 2018, 01:53:04 PM
This article from today seems relevant to this discussion. 13yr old steals grandfather's gun and murders his 11yr old brother with it.

www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-portage/police-11-year-old-boy-shot-and-killed-by-his-13-year-old-brother

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing.  Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it.  Look at the statistics.  This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long.  Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing."  I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

Texas relevant law:
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html (https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html)

Quote
A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm;  or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

Sounds like we have our shit together down in Texas....

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 24, 2018, 01:56:26 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

No. nope. no. no nope. no nope no.

we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.

You do not have a constitutional right to drive a car.

You do have a constitutional right to vote.  Without a poll tax.

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry.  (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

I'm not really sure what else you want.  Basically every state does have criminal negligence laws on the books.  Texas is pretty dang stringent in that so much as leaving a loaded firearm accessible to someone under 18 is a criminal act, whether or not anything happens (As it should be, IMO).  Increases to manslaughter if death occurs.

Do you understand the laws on the books?  Why aren't they being enforced?  That is a local issue to which a local DA needs to be held accountable for failing to uphold the written law.  If these accidents are so common, and the laws to prosecute are present, why aren't they being prosecuted?
Yup, and that's why I go back to removing the constitutional right, because it creates a basis of defense that abdicates responsibility.  Worded another way "the Constitution gives me the right to have guns.  It never says anything about me doing so responsibly, so I can not worry about that".    What I want is for all gun owners to get involved in fixing the death rate in this country and not just walk away and say "not my problem".  It's like when my kids leave crap around the house and it causes an issue.  They can choose to figure that out, or I just throw the crap out and the problem is solved.  That is why I am fine with just get rid of the guns if we can't figure out a way to address the harm they cause.  That's why I say remove the Constitutional protection and make it the same as owning a car.  You get to do it under certain rules, not just because it was written in this special document that removes any government ordained barriers to entry (which would include laws since they come from the government).  So IMO your defense is not really helping.  You just flat out said the government cannot infringe on my right, which by default removes creating laws around them, because as you said they are found unconstitutional, so we keep circling back to the problem resolution being to remove the protection for something that causes harm and is not being addressed.  It just gets talked about for a while and then forgotten and allowed to go on and on and on and on.  Insanity.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 24, 2018, 02:00:08 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?


As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc. 

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages. 

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic.  I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome.  You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works.  We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 24, 2018, 02:03:11 PM
Yup, and that's why I go back to removing the constitutional right

(https://i.imgur.com/eC4Qb8q.gif)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 24, 2018, 02:18:57 PM
Yup, and that's why I go back to removing the constitutional right

(https://i.imgur.com/eC4Qb8q.gif)
I'm not sure what the body count will need to be, but I am confident that at some point we will reach a tipping point that this will happen.  More and more people are getting fed up with the no-action of gun owners who just want to sit back and wait for the other side to solve it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 24, 2018, 02:20:56 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?


As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc. 

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages. 

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic.  I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome.  You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works.  We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

Soooo gun owners shouldn't be expected to be responsible, is what you are saying.  Your DUI example is actually perfect.  It used to not be a crime to drink and drive (and even if it was, it was rarely ever enforced).  Then we decided as a society that we weren't going to just accept deaths from the irresponsible behavior of a dangerous substance (alcohol) in a dangerous situation (driving a vehicle).  So we made it against the law to drink and drive.  That is, in fact, legislating a solution to the problem.  Its the very DEFINITION of legislating a solution to the problem.

So lets do the same with gun ownership.  You leave your guns laying around (or even "hidden") and not locked up, you're culpable for any harm that weapon causes.  And it's fair because the same rules apply to everyone.  No special exceptions of "but I teach my kid to be responsible!" bullshit.  You own a gun, you lock it up.  Period. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on April 24, 2018, 02:21:55 PM

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.



Holy shit.  This keeps me up at night.  I assume that, if I were to meet your family IRL, I would have no way of knowing that you were the kind of person who kept a loaded weapon accessible to children.  What happens during a playdate if an older sibling tags along who can lift that loaded shotgun?  When people ask you about gun storage before they let their kids come over, what do you say, or is that not a thing where you live?  Do you put the gun up when you have guests?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on April 24, 2018, 02:29:36 PM
You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry.  (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

That's not true at all. Taxation is not the same as regulation. Of course DC vs Heller concluded that regulation of firearms would continue. But, a tax is not a form of regulation. Seattle instituted a gun tax in 2015 and it was overwhelmingly upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. The folks challenging it didn't even invoke "unconstitutionality" as a means of attempting to repeal but rather claimed that it violated a specific state law that bans cities form regulating firearms.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 24, 2018, 02:36:40 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?

No. nope. no. no nope. no nope no.

we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.

You do not have a constitutional right to drive a car.

You do have a constitutional right to vote.  Without a poll tax.

You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry.  (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

I'm not really sure what else you want.  Basically every state does have criminal negligence laws on the books.  Texas is pretty dang stringent in that so much as leaving a loaded firearm accessible to someone under 18 is a criminal act, whether or not anything happens (As it should be, IMO).  Increases to manslaughter if death occurs.

Do you understand the laws on the books?  Why aren't they being enforced?  That is a local issue to which a local DA needs to be held accountable for failing to uphold the written law.  If these accidents are so common, and the laws to prosecute are present, why aren't they being prosecuted?
Yup, and that's why I go back to removing the constitutional right, because it creates a basis of defense that abdicates responsibility.

Sure, just like yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater.  lol. 

Worded another way "the Constitution gives me the right to have guns.  It never says anything about me doing so responsibly, so I can not worry about that".   

You and I both know that isn't how constitutional law works.

What I want is for all gun owners to get involved in fixing the death rate in this country and not just walk away and say "not my problem". 

Except, ya know, firearms accidents are a tiny TINY slice of deaths.  "Fixing the death rate" is a left dog-whistle for ignoring real statistics.  Firearms accidents (and adolescent murders outside of gang-related warfare) are basically non-existent in our 320 million population. 

In actual numbers, its 82 kids lost per year to firearm accidental fatalities.  82 out of 320 million.  82 out of 100 million gun owners.  That is 0.082 per 100,000 gun owners.  Or 1 death per 1,218,000 gun owners.  Why do you want to restrict the rights of 1,217,999 gun owners because of One idiot, when there are already laws on the books to punish that idiot?

All per this study:  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486)
(<-  See what I did there!  Actual Data!)

It's like when my kids leave crap around the house and it causes an issue.  They can choose to figure that out, or I just throw the crap out and the problem is solved.  That is why I am fine with just get rid of the guns if we can't figure out a way to address the harm they cause.  That's why I say remove the Constitutional protection and make it the same as owning a car.  You get to do it under certain rules, not just because it was written in this special document that removes any government ordained barriers to entry (which would include laws since they come from the government). 

Just like yelling FIRE in a crowded theater...  oh wait.  Ya thats not how the constitution works.  But, as a free society, we choose liberty and freedom with the recognition that we have responsibility for our actions-  After we have caused harm.  Not before.

I'm still waiting to see how I am guilty for some other murder's actions.

So IMO your defense is not really helping.  You just flat out said the government cannot infringe on my right, which by default removes creating laws around them, because as you said they are found unconstitutional, so we keep circling back to the problem resolution being to remove the protection for something that causes harm and is not being addressed.  It just gets talked about for a while and then forgotten and allowed to go on and on and on and on.  Insanity.

Please, write your congressman and ask to start the process of repealing the 2nd Amendment.  At least then we can have an honest discussion instead of legislating a constitutional right into oblivion (which should scare all of us, 2A supporter or not).

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 24, 2018, 02:39:36 PM
You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry.  (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

That's not true at all. Taxation is not the same as regulation. Of course DC vs Heller concluded that regulation of firearms would continue. But, a tax is not a form of regulation. Seattle instituted a gun tax in 2015 and it was overwhelmingly upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. The folks challenging it didn't even invoke "unconstitutionality" as a means of attempting to repeal but rather claimed that it violated a specific state law that bans cities form regulating firearms.

So poll taxes are legal, in your opinion?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 24, 2018, 02:43:58 PM

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.



Holy shit.  This keeps me up at night.  I assume that, if I were to meet your family IRL, I would have no way of knowing that you were the kind of person who kept a loaded weapon accessible to children.  What happens during a playdate if an older sibling tags along who can lift that loaded shotgun?  When people ask you about gun storage before they let their kids come over, what do you say, or is that not a thing where you live?  Do you put the gun up when you have guests?

Why is any kid in my master bedroom?  The way my house is set up, you can’t accidetnally be in there and accidentally stumble upon the gun.

No one has ever asked me about guns in my home.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 24, 2018, 02:48:51 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?


As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc. 

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages. 

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic.  I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome.  You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works.  We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

Soooo gun owners shouldn't be expected to be responsible, is what you are saying.  Your DUI example is actually perfect.  It used to not be a crime to drink and drive (and even if it was, it was rarely ever enforced).  Then we decided as a society that we weren't going to just accept deaths from the irresponsible behavior of a dangerous substance (alcohol) in a dangerous situation (driving a vehicle).  So we made it against the law to drink and drive.  That is, in fact, legislating a solution to the problem.  Its the very DEFINITION of legislating a solution to the problem.

So lets do the same with gun ownership.  You leave your guns laying around (or even "hidden") and not locked up, you're culpable for any harm that weapon causes.  And it's fair because the same rules apply to everyone.  No special exceptions of "but I teach my kid to be responsible!" bullshit.  You own a gun, you lock it up.  Period.

But again, with DUI, we legislated consequences for if you break the law.  We don’t legislate you can’t have any drinks in case you might break the law.
Same with “fire in a crowded theater”, if you yell it and cause a panic, you are held responsible; you don’t have to wear a ball gag so you can’t break the law.

And same here. If there’s an accident, I’m comfortable taking responsibility for my guns. I am not agreeing to your trying to legislate away any possibility of an accident because that’s not how rights work.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 24, 2018, 02:54:34 PM
This article from today seems relevant to this discussion. 13yr old steals grandfather's gun and murders his 11yr old brother with it.

www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-portage/police-11-year-old-boy-shot-and-killed-by-his-13-year-old-brother

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing.  Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it.  Look at the statistics.  This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long.  Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing."  I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

I didn't blame an inanimate object.  Gun owners tend to be law abiding, just like the majority of us.  They do the legal minimum necessary.  If the legal penalty is not significant enough, or the correct safeguards are not legislated then these accidents will continue to happen.



Texas relevant law:
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html (https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html)

Quote
A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm;  or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

Sounds like we have our shit together down in Texas....



You've obviously solved the problem then.  Keep up the good work.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/)  <-- BTW, this one is for Chris who keeps the loaded shotgun around his toddler
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/03/22/4-year-old-accidentally-shot-infant-texas-home-police-say (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/03/22/4-year-old-accidentally-shot-infant-texas-home-police-say)
http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/man-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-tornillo-boy (http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/man-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-tornillo-boy)
http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/4-year-old-boy-dies-in-accidental-shooting-at-texas-home (http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/4-year-old-boy-dies-in-accidental-shooting-at-texas-home)
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PD-Beaumont-teen-accidentally-shot-by-8-year-old-12747395.php (https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PD-Beaumont-teen-accidentally-shot-by-8-year-old-12747395.php)
http://
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 24, 2018, 02:58:08 PM
But again, with DUI, we legislated consequences for if you break the law.  We don’t legislate you can’t have any drinks in case you might break the law.

Correct.  It's not illegal to drink.  It's illegal to drink and drive (ie, drinking and driving is irresponsible behavior that puts other people at risk and can result in injury/death).

Same logic for gun ownership.  It's not illegal to own a gun.  It'd be illegal to own a gun and not lock it up (ie, owning an unsecured firearm is irresponsible behavior that puts other people at risk and can result in injury/death).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on April 24, 2018, 03:00:04 PM
This article from today seems relevant to this discussion. 13yr old steals grandfather's gun and murders his 11yr old brother with it.

www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-portage/police-11-year-old-boy-shot-and-killed-by-his-13-year-old-brother

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing.  Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it.  Look at the statistics.  This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long.  Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing."  I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

I didn't blame an inanimate object.  Gun owners tend to be law abiding, just like the majority of us.  They do the legal minimum necessary.  If the legal penalty is not significant enough, or the correct safeguards are not legislated then these accidents will continue to happen.



Texas relevant law:
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html (https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html)

Quote
A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm;  or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

Sounds like we have our shit together down in Texas....



You've obviously solved the problem then.  Keep up the good work.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/)  <-- BTW, this one is for Chris who keeps the loaded shotgun around his toddler
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/03/22/4-year-old-accidentally-shot-infant-texas-home-police-say (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/03/22/4-year-old-accidentally-shot-infant-texas-home-police-say)
http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/man-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-tornillo-boy (http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/man-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-tornillo-boy)
http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/4-year-old-boy-dies-in-accidental-shooting-at-texas-home (http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/4-year-old-boy-dies-in-accidental-shooting-at-texas-home)
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PD-Beaumont-teen-accidentally-shot-by-8-year-old-12747395.php (https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PD-Beaumont-teen-accidentally-shot-by-8-year-old-12747395.php)
http://

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on April 24, 2018, 03:06:33 PM

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.



Holy shit.  This keeps me up at night.  I assume that, if I were to meet your family IRL, I would have no way of knowing that you were the kind of person who kept a loaded weapon accessible to children.  What happens during a playdate if an older sibling tags along who can lift that loaded shotgun?  When people ask you about gun storage before they let their kids come over, what do you say, or is that not a thing where you live?  Do you put the gun up when you have guests?

Why is any kid in my master bedroom?  The way my house is set up, you can’t accidetnally be in there and accidentally stumble upon the gun.

No one has ever asked me about guns in my home.

Have you ever met any children?  They do stuff they aren't supposed to do. All of them-even yours. Your kids knows there is a gun in your bedroom.  All it takes is a little bragging (kids are known to do this, too), interest raised, and off they go. It wouldn't be an accident-it would be intentional.  They would be in there intentionally looking for the gun.  Because children are idiots, and they rely on us not to be idiots and leave a loaded gun for them to find.  Don't take my word for it, just look at some of these cases:
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/child-injured-killed

"but my kid will always listen" is not a gun storage plan.  Please do not be one of the 20-50% of gun owners who leave unsecured and loaded weapons for kids to find.  It just takes one anomalous situation to lead to tragedy.  Please be the responsible gun owner you claim to be.

Also, if you are reading this and you have children, always ask about gun storage.  And, if you own guns, please give an accurate and complete answer to how you store them.  Like "well, it's loaded and just kind of in my unlocked bedroom that is, you know, down the hall and no one should be in there, so I'm pretty sure that's the same as in a gun safe." 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on April 24, 2018, 03:08:08 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?


As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc. 

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages. 

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic.  I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome.  You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works.  We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

Soooo gun owners shouldn't be expected to be responsible, is what you are saying.  Your DUI example is actually perfect.  It used to not be a crime to drink and drive (and even if it was, it was rarely ever enforced).  Then we decided as a society that we weren't going to just accept deaths from the irresponsible behavior of a dangerous substance (alcohol) in a dangerous situation (driving a vehicle).  So we made it against the law to drink and drive.  That is, in fact, legislating a solution to the problem.  Its the very DEFINITION of legislating a solution to the problem.

So lets do the same with gun ownership.  You leave your guns laying around (or even "hidden") and not locked up, you're culpable for any harm that weapon causes.  And it's fair because the same rules apply to everyone.  No special exceptions of "but I teach my kid to be responsible!" bullshit.  You own a gun, you lock it up.  Period.

But again, with DUI, we legislated consequences for if you break the law.  We don’t legislate you can’t have any drinks in case you might break the law.
Same with “fire in a crowded theater”, if you yell it and cause a panic, you are held responsible; you don’t have to wear a ball gag so you can’t break the law.

And same here. If there’s an accident, I’m comfortable taking responsibility for my guns. I am not agreeing to your trying to legislate away any possibility of an accident because that’s not how rights work.

I'm in agreement with your idea that circumstances vary significantly and writing the rules as to how to responsibly secure a gun would be difficult.

I'm not in agreement with this analogy. A better analogy would be that you don't face consequences until your actions hurt someone. Which would suggest that you think driving drunk is fine, as long as you don't destroy property or kill anyone. This is actually a really good example of legislating irresponsible actions rather than legislating consequences.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on April 24, 2018, 03:44:49 PM
Maybe a $1500+ dollar gun safe bolted to the house ought to be a requirement of owning guns then.

Many of us are in states where we are required insure our cars before we can drive them on public streets...

Just a cost of doing business.

I hope the courts throw the book at the father. The kid was definitely off his rocker with beliefs that Taylor Swift was stalking HIM and hacking his phone. Father gives guns to a guy like this???

If you think a $1500 safe is reasonable I look forward to you support of a $10 ID required for voting.  You know, since we can charge for exercising rights now.
As said, we pay thousands of dollars a year for the right to drive a car.  Maybe $1,500 is too much, but once again, your response is full of all the reasons it would be too hard for you without any attempt at taking responsibility and saying how you do solve the problem without the pointless platitude of "enforce the laws we have".  That would be fine.  Work up a plan on how to do that since what we do now does not work.  Is your answer that everyone in those jobs a just lazy bums and they get attracted to those jobs, or can you admit that all the grumbling of the gun lobby makes it too difficult to enforce the laws and we should look at a different solution?


As I've said before, storage of firearms is highly personal and dependent on tons of factors such as type of firearm, typical inhabitants of the home, type of home, etc etc etc. 

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages. 

Anyways, because I find the issue of storage of firearms so situation-specific, I think the idea of mandating a solution is silly and simplistic.  I have zero problem with throwing the book at people when a problem happens, but I believe you simply can't legislate a solution that isn't needlessly burdensome.  You guys seem very hung up on creating a law that removes any possible way for a bad thing to happen, but that's not how a free society works.  We don't require that no one is able to have more than 2 drinks of alcohol ever so that no one gets in a DUI accident, we simply make the punishment for DUI so burdensome, and the alternatives so attractive (cabs, ridesharing, free overnight parking, etc) that we lessen the problem without creating ridiculous pre-emptive solutions.

Soooo gun owners shouldn't be expected to be responsible, is what you are saying.  Your DUI example is actually perfect.  It used to not be a crime to drink and drive (and even if it was, it was rarely ever enforced).  Then we decided as a society that we weren't going to just accept deaths from the irresponsible behavior of a dangerous substance (alcohol) in a dangerous situation (driving a vehicle).  So we made it against the law to drink and drive.  That is, in fact, legislating a solution to the problem.  Its the very DEFINITION of legislating a solution to the problem.

So lets do the same with gun ownership.  You leave your guns laying around (or even "hidden") and not locked up, you're culpable for any harm that weapon causes.  And it's fair because the same rules apply to everyone.  No special exceptions of "but I teach my kid to be responsible!" bullshit.  You own a gun, you lock it up.  Period.

But again, with DUI, we legislated consequences for if you break the law.  We don’t legislate you can’t have any drinks in case you might break the law.
Same with “fire in a crowded theater”, if you yell it and cause a panic, you are held responsible; you don’t have to wear a ball gag so you can’t break the law.

And same here. If there’s an accident, I’m comfortable taking responsibility for my guns. I am not agreeing to your trying to legislate away any possibility of an accident because that’s not how rights work.

I'm in agreement with your idea that circumstances vary significantly and writing the rules as to how to responsibly secure a gun would be difficult.

I'm not in agreement with this analogy. A better analogy would be that you don't face consequences until your actions hurt someone. Which would suggest that you think driving drunk is fine, as long as you don't destroy property or kill anyone. This is actually a really good example of legislating irresponsible actions rather than legislating consequences.

Great.  So do what Texas did and don't over define it.  Don't write nanny-state laws.

The problem is when you try to legislate solutions that may or may not work for everybody.  Trying to say "such and such safe" or "ammo in different spot"   (Still waiting for the logic on that one) instead of just "don't let a child access your guns" is the problem.  Nanny state, wherein our capitalist minded friends will find work around and methods of fulfilling the law without actually breaking it (See Featureless Rifles (https://www.pewpewtactical.com/featureless-ar-15-rifle/) for an example of stupid laws leading to stupid work arounds) but fully breaking the "spirit" of the law.

Texas relevant law:
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html (https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html)

Quote
A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm;  or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

I'll say it again:  Sounds like we have our shit together down in Texas....
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Fireball on April 24, 2018, 04:27:47 PM
This article from today seems relevant to this discussion. 13yr old steals grandfather's gun and murders his 11yr old brother with it.

www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-portage/police-11-year-old-boy-shot-and-killed-by-his-13-year-old-brother

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing.  Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it.  Look at the statistics.  This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long.  Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing."  I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

I didn't blame an inanimate object.  Gun owners tend to be law abiding, just like the majority of us.  They do the legal minimum necessary.  If the legal penalty is not significant enough, or the correct safeguards are not legislated then these accidents will continue to happen.



Texas relevant law:
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html (https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html)

Quote
A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm;  or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

Sounds like we have our shit together down in Texas....



You've obviously solved the problem then.  Keep up the good work.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/)  <-- BTW, this one is for Chris who keeps the loaded shotgun around his toddler
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/03/22/4-year-old-accidentally-shot-infant-texas-home-police-say (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/03/22/4-year-old-accidentally-shot-infant-texas-home-police-say)
http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/man-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-tornillo-boy (http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/man-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-tornillo-boy)
http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/4-year-old-boy-dies-in-accidental-shooting-at-texas-home (http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/4-year-old-boy-dies-in-accidental-shooting-at-texas-home)
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PD-Beaumont-teen-accidentally-shot-by-8-year-old-12747395.php (https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PD-Beaumont-teen-accidentally-shot-by-8-year-old-12747395.php)
http://

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.

If only Kurt Cobain had this same level of naivete' we'd have a lot better music right now.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on April 24, 2018, 04:52:51 PM
This article from today seems relevant to this discussion. 13yr old steals grandfather's gun and murders his 11yr old brother with it.

www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-portage/police-11-year-old-boy-shot-and-killed-by-his-13-year-old-brother

I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing.  Yes, it's their negligence that has directly caused the death . . . but if there's no law that says you have store a gun safely we know that people won't do it.  Look at the statistics.  This is a problem squarely at the feet of a government that has allowed lax gun storage laws to go on for too long.  Stiff penalties for irresponsible gun ownership need to be enacted, as do safe storage requirements.

"I don't blame gun owners for this type of thing."  I do.

But it makes sense in your worldview of blaming an inanimate object instead of a person for committing a wrong....

I didn't blame an inanimate object.  Gun owners tend to be law abiding, just like the majority of us.  They do the legal minimum necessary.  If the legal penalty is not significant enough, or the correct safeguards are not legislated then these accidents will continue to happen.



Texas relevant law:
https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html (https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-46-13.html)

Quote
A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal negligence:

(1) failed to secure the firearm;  or

(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or should have known the child would gain access.

Sounds like we have our shit together down in Texas....



You've obviously solved the problem then.  Keep up the good work.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/)  <-- BTW, this one is for Chris who keeps the loaded shotgun around his toddler
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/03/22/4-year-old-accidentally-shot-infant-texas-home-police-say (https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/03/22/4-year-old-accidentally-shot-infant-texas-home-police-say)
http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/man-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-tornillo-boy (http://kfoxtv.com/news/local/man-charged-in-accidental-shooting-of-tornillo-boy)
http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/4-year-old-boy-dies-in-accidental-shooting-at-texas-home (http://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/4-year-old-boy-dies-in-accidental-shooting-at-texas-home)
https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PD-Beaumont-teen-accidentally-shot-by-8-year-old-12747395.php (https://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/article/PD-Beaumont-teen-accidentally-shot-by-8-year-old-12747395.php)
http://

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.

If only Kurt Cobain had this same level of naivete' we'd have a lot better music right now.

I personally would be interested to see how many people in Texas have been prosecuted and gone to jail for those deaths--or for any others where guns were left out for children to find.  I'd be willing to bet good money that the answer is 'almost none'.  Laws on the books don't mean jack if a DA won't prosecute because 'the family has suffered enough'.  (Which is utter BS, in my not so humble opinion.)

And yes, I do believe that mandating you have to store your firearm in a sturdy, lockable steel safe that is either over a certain amount of weight (thereby making it hard to remove) or a lighter-weight safe secured via approved methods (bolting it to the floor or to a wall stud, chained down with chains/locks of a certain gauge, etc) is not as impossible as some gun owners seem to think.  Hell, we do it with water heaters.  We can't do it with gun safes? 

The fact that certain gun owners not only don't embrace this idea, but are coming up with ridiculous excuses about how it's inconvenient/impossible/too expensive/just not PRACTICAL, don't you understand? just makes it 100% clear to me what side of this debate they're on.  They don't care how many people die.  And sorry--if you have a LOADED shotgun in an open room that children can access, you're not a responsible gun owner.  How many other gun owners thought their kid 'couldn't possibly pull the trigger on XYZ gun', only to be proven wrong in the most horrible way possible?  You're playing russian roulette with your kid's life and the life of any other child that enters your home.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on April 24, 2018, 06:13:27 PM
You do have a constitutional right to purchase a firearm for self protection. Without significant, government ordained barriers to entry.  (Which is also why the various gun-tax laws on ammo and firearms being floated around would not be found constitutional, IMO).

That's not true at all. Taxation is not the same as regulation. Of course DC vs Heller concluded that regulation of firearms would continue. But, a tax is not a form of regulation. Seattle instituted a gun tax in 2015 and it was overwhelmingly upheld by the Washington Supreme Court. The folks challenging it didn't even invoke "unconstitutionality" as a means of attempting to repeal but rather claimed that it violated a specific state law that bans cities form regulating firearms.

So poll taxes are legal, in your opinion?

No they are unconstitutional per the 24th amendment since the original implementation violates the 15th amendment. You should get to know the Constitution.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 25, 2018, 07:47:57 AM
I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

My experience with young kids would indicate that your confidence that your kid will never disobey you is likely unfounded.


And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

You've previously argued that a 5 year old girl isn't strong enough to shoot your shotgun, so it's not a problem . . . but a 12 year old child who would certainly have the strength necessary only warrants a 'maybe' in changing the way you're leaving the gun lying around.  So, at this point you're 100% relying on the child to just do what you've said.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-boy-shoots-self-in-head-with-shotgun-authorities-say/)  <-- BTW, this one is for Chris who keeps the loaded shotgun around his toddler

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.

You've been provided with an actual example of a three year old who killed himself with a shotgun left lying around the home.  I'm not sure what you're arguing here . . . that it didn't happen?  That it could never happen to you because . . . ?



The same way that laws regarding seat-belts/child seats prevent folks from accidentally killing their kids through negligence, hopefully some safe gun storage laws will be implemented to prevent the same. As you've amply demonstrated, gun owners don't see their negligent behavior putting others at risk as a problem . . . so they can't be trusted to do the right thing.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on April 25, 2018, 09:24:11 AM
I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner.  I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future.  This has been a good lesson for me.  People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 25, 2018, 11:37:09 AM
I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner.  I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future.  This has been a good lesson for me.  People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Agreed.  Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them. 

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up.  Period.  And the law needs to be vigorously enforced. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Secret Stache on April 25, 2018, 12:14:25 PM
I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner.  I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future.  This has been a good lesson for me.  People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Agreed.  Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them. 

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up.  Period.  And the law needs to be vigorously enforced.

I had a gun rack hanging in my bedroom growing up (probably starting around 12-13).  Most friends did too.  We would routinely grab our guns for snake protection and walk dry creek beds or go hunting at night for raccoons or shoot skeet on our own.  Some of my fondest memories.  This was in a rural community that rarely saw any gun violence and if it did, it was just a by-product of other criminal activity.  That community operates exactly the same now as it did then. 

Just thought I'd add my anecdote for some additional flavor in this conversation. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on April 25, 2018, 12:49:16 PM
For reference, this is how guns must be stored in Canada:
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/storage-entreposage-eng.htm
It seems like those guidelines would prevent most if not all accidental shootings by children who find guns, and many thefts of guns, without significant expense or hassle. Since you still have to purchase guns (even though it is a "right", it's not like they are handed out for free), the requirement to purchase safe storage for the guns is not ridiculous. Any issues with a policy like that?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 25, 2018, 02:03:14 PM
I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner.  I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future.  This has been a good lesson for me.  People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Agreed.  Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them. 

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up.  Period.  And the law needs to be vigorously enforced.

I had a gun rack locker hanging in my bedroom growing up (probably starting around 12-13).  Most friends did too.  We would routinely unlock and grab our guns for snake protection and walk dry creek beds or go hunting at night for raccoons or shoot skeet on our own.  Some of my fondest memories.  This was in a rural community that rarely saw any gun violence and if it did, it was just a by-product of other criminal activity.  That community operates exactly the same now as it did then. 

Just thought I'd add my anecdote for some additional flavor in this conversation.

I fixed that for you, so you can see how DRASTICALLY different having a "lock up your gun" law would have affected your life (hint, almost zero impact).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on April 25, 2018, 11:46:26 PM
After reading through the last page or so of replies, plus this article today: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-met-dcfs-daycare-gun-ban-20180418-story.html. , I feel so justified in my distrust of gun owners with my kids. Definitely going to have to reinforce to my kids they are not allowed in ANYONE’S house where I know a weapon is there. Whether I trust them or not (I don’t because they are KIDS), I equally do not trust any other children present or the “responsible” gun owner who might be lying to me.

What. The. Fuck.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 26, 2018, 07:49:30 AM

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom. Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

That's a very different scenario than if I had a Glock handgun (no active safety) that I left loaded with one in the chamber in my nightstand and my kid or her friend could pick up and fire with little to no effort at all.

But both are "unsecured loaded firearms", but I think you can see how it isn't the same situation.  Therefore, the rules I have for each are different.  And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.



Holy shit.  This keeps me up at night.  I assume that, if I were to meet your family IRL, I would have no way of knowing that you were the kind of person who kept a loaded weapon accessible to children.  What happens during a playdate if an older sibling tags along who can lift that loaded shotgun?  When people ask you about gun storage before they let their kids come over, what do you say, or is that not a thing where you live?  Do you put the gun up when you have guests?

Why is any kid in my master bedroom?  The way my house is set up, you can’t accidetnally be in there and accidentally stumble upon the gun.

No one has ever asked me about guns in my home.
Is that going to be your defense when a kid finds the gun and shoots someone?   "Your honor, no one has ever asked me about guns in my home."  This whole description would be funny if the topic was not so serious.  So you think the kids that find firearms only do so because the layout of the house allowed it but somehow no kid can get through the labyrinth of mayhem that it takes to get to your room?  Or are you saying their is a guard or surveillance camera or trip wire setup so that you know someone is on the way and can intercept them?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 26, 2018, 08:01:24 AM

Except, ya know, firearms accidents are a tiny TINY slice of deaths.  "Fixing the death rate" is a left dog-whistle for ignoring real statistics.  Firearms accidents (and adolescent murders outside of gang-related warfare) are basically non-existent in our 320 million population. 

In actual numbers, its 82 kids lost per year to firearm accidental fatalities.  82 out of 320 million.  82 out of 100 million gun owners.  That is 0.082 per 100,000 gun owners.  Or 1 death per 1,218,000 gun owners.  Why do you want to restrict the rights of 1,217,999 gun owners because of One idiot, when there are already laws on the books to punish that idiot?

All per this study:  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486)
(<-  See what I did there!  Actual Data!)

I'm not sure how you felt all my ire was based only on firearms accidents.  When I refer the the death rate I mean anyone who is killed by a gun for any reason.  That number should be as close to zero as possible.  I don't honestly care about statistics because there is not an acceptable rate of death for something I do not consider a necessity to exist in the world.  Therefore my assessment is based on treating a gun as a luxury, and lining up what might be OK for injuries caused by that luxury.  For example, I understand people drown in swimming pools, but I also feel that the frequency of that would not warrant further involvement of laws.  Responsible pool owners usually fence their pool, put a lock on the gate or do other things to minimize accidental drowning from a toddler falling in.  If death did occur as a result my pool, I'd certainly be able to be punished for that.  Yet somehow you feel a gun, which has much less of a joyful purpose to exist, as a pool does should be treated differently?  I'll answer for you.  Your answer is yes because it is a constitutional right, and there we circle back to my rationale for why this protection is not warranted for something not needed for a good and happy life.  Free speech is important for that.  Having a gun, not so much.

The fear mongering of we should all shiver in fear when we talk casually about taking away constitutional rights carries little weight.  The Second Amendment is so unique that it is not hard for most people to understand.  It is only in trying to keep it protected are the arguments used to try to create the false equivalency.  The only thing the Second Amendment really has in common with the others with respect to protecting a good and happy life is that is an amendment and that it is in the Constitution.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 26, 2018, 08:14:34 AM
I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner.  I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future.  This has been a good lesson for me.  People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Agreed.  Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them. 

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up.  Period.  And the law needs to be vigorously enforced.

I had a gun rack locker hanging in my bedroom growing up (probably starting around 12-13).  Most friends did too.  We would routinely unlock and grab our guns for snake protection and walk dry creek beds or go hunting at night for raccoons or shoot skeet on our own.  Some of my fondest memories.  This was in a rural community that rarely saw any gun violence and if it did, it was just a by-product of other criminal activity.  That community operates exactly the same now as it did then. 

Just thought I'd add my anecdote for some additional flavor in this conversation.

I fixed that for you, so you can see how DRASTICALLY different having a "lock up your gun" law would have affected your life (hint, almost zero impact).

True, not disagreeing with that.  I don’t have any issue with the current laws or most of the proposals here for tighter restrictions.  I think either changing them or leaving them won’t do much either way and will have little If any effect on me personally.  I just wanted to illustrate that in some regional/local cultures having guns in the home accessible to minors is not inherently dangerous.
This is where the issue arises.  It is dangerous, just at an acceptable level of danger to you.  None of you or your friends got hurt, but some children in homes did.  I did not miss the fact that you indicated low criminal activity but there could still have been gun accidents, and as has already been discussed by some in this thread, gun owners for some reason sometimes find guns falling on the floor funny.  If I have a large DVD cabinet in my home not tethered to the wall, it can call over and kill someone, yet many times people just toss away the strap that comes with the product to keep the manufacturer from getting sued by the fool who just throws the strap away.  The world is full of people thinking things are not inherently dangerous that in fact are.  That DVD cabinet is constantly loaded with inertia and weight that can crush a human being in much the same way a gun is constantly ready to be used to shoot a projectile.  Saying neither of those things are dangerous is just choosing to adopt a different perspective on what constitutes danger.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on April 26, 2018, 09:15:05 AM
I’m glad that your kids won’t be coming to my home.  If they are old enough to be unsupervised and can ransack thru the house to find a firearm and know how to load it.  They should know better.  I’d be worried that these same kids, if they couldn’t find the firearms, could probably get out the kitchen knives and kill each other with those.  And what about the matches to start the grill? They could burn down the whole neighborhood.  Then there are the cleaning supplies.  And they probably wouldn’t have enough sense to stay out of the pool either.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 26, 2018, 09:37:43 AM
Look at all the false equivalencies.

You know this, but it bears pointing out . . . a knife is not as dangerous as a gun.  Not remotely.  It's possible to cut yourself with one, sure.  It's very difficult to accidentally kill someone with one.  Guns are designed to make it easy to kill someone - even if you are very weak.  It's therefore easy to accidentally kill someone with a gun.  That's why there are hundreds of children who die each year from firearms wielded by themselves (or other children), and very few who die from knife wounds by other children.

Matches and cleaning supplies are dangerous, and shouldn't be kept in a location where they're accessible by young children.  Failing to do this is unsafe behaviour.  If you're leaving young kids unsupervised around a pool well yeah, that's dangerous . . . you're being negligent.  This isn't remotely controversial, protecting your children and anticipating problems before they occur is part of being a good parent.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 26, 2018, 10:02:54 AM
I’m glad that your kids won’t be coming to my home.  If they are old enough to be unsupervised and can ransack thru the house to find a firearm and know how to load it.  They should know better.  I’d be worried that these same kids, if they couldn’t find the firearms, could probably get out the kitchen knives and kill each other with those.  And what about the matches to start the grill? They could burn down the whole neighborhood.  Then there are the cleaning supplies.  And they probably wouldn’t have enough sense to stay out of the pool either.

If you have open access to firearms, I'm glad my kid won't be coming over to your house either.  You keep talking about kids needing to be responsible about guns.  What about adults?  Shouldn't adults be responsible?  Maybe the adults should actually be more responsible than the kids?  You know, by locking up their DEATH WEAPONS so kids can't get to them? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 26, 2018, 10:10:11 AM
If there's one thing that this debate has taught me, it's that responsibility never lies with the gun owner.  It lies with criminals, crazy people, children, security guards, police, district attorneys, the US constitution, the supreme court . . . but never ever with the gun owner.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 26, 2018, 10:18:30 AM
If there's one thing that this debate has taught me, it's that responsibility never lies with the gun owner.  It lies with criminals, crazy people, children, security guards, police, district attorneys, the US constitution, the supreme court . . . but never ever with the gun owner.
I also learned that laziness lies with the gun owner, so not sure if that is more the driver than lack of responsibility.  It's always too hard, too expensive or too difficult to be responsible.  Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on April 26, 2018, 10:20:33 AM
I’m glad that your kids won’t be coming to my home.  If they are old enough to be unsupervised and can ransack thru the house to find a firearm and know how to load it.  They should know better.  I’d be worried that these same kids, if they couldn’t find the firearms, could probably get out the kitchen knives and kill each other with those.  And what about the matches to start the grill? They could burn down the whole neighborhood.  Then there are the cleaning supplies.  And they probably wouldn’t have enough sense to stay out of the pool either.

That's fine.  Please make sure that, if you have unsecured weapons, you give parents a fighting chance to make good decisions by practicing full disclosure if their children are in your home.  Honestly, if you don't want kids in your house, disclosure that you have unsecured weapons is a great way to decrease your juice box and goldfish budget.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486
"The most common circumstance surrounding unintentional firearm deaths of both younger (60%) and older children (49%) was playing with a gun. Older children, relative to younger children, more often died in incidents involving showing a gun to others and/or mistakenly thinking the gun was unloaded or the safety was engaged. A gun was mistaken for a toy in 16% of younger children’s deaths and in only 1 death involving an older child. Approximately the same percentage of deaths of younger and older children occurred while hunting or target shooting (14% and 17%, respectively). The majority of both younger and older children were fatally injured in a home. The proportion involving a handgun was similar for younger and older children (59% and 57%, respectively)."

I'm not sure why gun lovers magically think that hiding a gun in their bedroom is some kind of awesome trick designed to fool children.  And then asking, all perplexed, why would a kid be in their bedroom.  Like a child in their parent's bedroom is some kind of unexplained mystery akin to ending up in Narnia.  I don't know-it's the first place to go if they can't find you?  It's certainly where I went when I was a kid looking for my parents. 

Maybe when checking out potential houses that our kids are going to, we can ask how people feel about Moms Demand Action and assess the likelihood of unsecured weapons based on the spittle radius of the triggered rant about muh miltia and nanny states.  Add guns to the estimate if people bring up Ayn Rand or all taxes are theft/sovereign citizens.  Because this is all I care about.  I just want a way to keep my kids out of the houses of idiots with unsecured weapons.  I don't blame kids for being idiots, but I do blame parents.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DenverDad on April 26, 2018, 10:33:33 AM
When my son was 4, we went to a bbq at the neighbor's house across the street. He told my wife later that the 10 year old neighbor boy showed him his mom's gun. Our son is no longer allowed inside their house. The same neighbor's 8 year old son recently got upset at my now 5 year old son when they were playing basketball and told him he was going to slit his throat and watch him bleed out. As a responsible gun owner, there is no reason to not lock up the guns when kids live in or are going to be in the house. Gun safes are cheap.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 26, 2018, 10:46:24 AM
When my son was 4, we went to a bbq at the neighbor's house across the street. He told my wife later that the 10 year old neighbor boy showed him his mom's gun. Our son is no longer allowed inside their house. The same neighbor's 8 year old son recently got upset at my now 5 year old son when they were playing basketball and told him he was going to slit his throat and watch him bleed out. As a responsible gun owner, there is no reason to not lock up the guns when kids live in or are going to be in the house. Gun safes are cheap.

I know people like that too.  Sad that some people have such a negative and violent view of the world.  People like your neighbor remind me of a quote I read in one of Ebert's movie review a while back:  "Johnny carries a gun because he lives in a dangerous neighborhood.  The neighborhood would be safer if Johnny moved."  Or something similar, I'm going off memory here.

The people that own weapons and carry them around don't seem to realize that just the fact of bringing a gun into any situation raises the threat level for everyone involved.  But they see the world as so inherently bad, so inherently dangerous, that they must carry a gun "for protection", even though it increases the level of danger for everyone around them. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on April 26, 2018, 11:24:09 AM
My guns are locked up in the safe, because they are valuable.  But before that they were put up and unloaded.  Kids had there own guns early, B.B. guns around 6 then pellet guns, shooting real guns around 10 or so and most got their own shotgun or 22 around 12.  That was pretty much the norm in the Midwest and I’m sure other parts of the country.

They were taught to respect them and safe handling.  Kind of like it’s easier to teach them to swim than think your going to keep them out of the water.

I really don’t care what many here think, I wonder if you make your kids wear pads and helmets when they walk around in case they may fall.  You can hover over them all you want, but it’s better to educate them on what’s out there and to be responsible themselves.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on April 26, 2018, 11:27:24 AM
When my son was 4, we went to a bbq at the neighbor's house across the street. He told my wife later that the 10 year old neighbor boy showed him his mom's gun. Our son is no longer allowed inside their house. The same neighbor's 8 year old son recently got upset at my now 5 year old son when they were playing basketball and told him he was going to slit his throat and watch him bleed out. As a responsible gun owner, there is no reason to not lock up the guns when kids live in or are going to be in the house. Gun safes are cheap.

I know people like that too.  Sad that some people have such a negative and violent view of the world.  People like your neighbor remind me of a quote I read in one of Ebert's movie review a while back:  "Johnny carries a gun because he lives in a dangerous neighborhood.  The neighborhood would be safer if Johnny moved."  Or something similar, I'm going off memory here.

The people that own weapons and carry them around don't seem to realize that just the fact of bringing a gun into any situation raises the threat level for everyone involved.  But they see the world as so inherently bad, so inherently dangerous, that they must carry a gun "for protection", even though it increases the level of danger for everyone around them.

I live in a very safe neighborhood and don’t keep a gun for protection. I use to hunt, but now I like to target shoot.  Sporting clays and some bullseye pistol and rifle.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on April 26, 2018, 11:44:46 AM
My guns are locked up in the safe, because they are valuable.  But before that they were put up and unloaded.  Kids had there own guns early, B.B. guns around 6 then pellet guns, shooting real guns around 10 or so and most got their own shotgun or 22 around 12.  That was pretty much the norm in the Midwest and I’m sure other parts of the country.

They were taught to respect them and safe handling.  Kind of like it’s easier to teach them to swim than think your going to keep them out of the water.

I really don’t care what many here think, I wonder if you make your kids wear pads and helmets when they walk around in case they may fall.  You can hover over them all you want, but it’s better to educate them on what’s out there and to be responsible themselves.

Kids are dying because of irresponsible gun owners and your response is that the irresponsible gun owners should be better parents?  That's your solution?  Really?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 26, 2018, 12:01:40 PM
My guns are locked up in the safe, because they are valuable.  But before that they were put up and unloaded.  Kids had there own guns early, B.B. guns around 6 then pellet guns, shooting real guns around 10 or so and most got their own shotgun or 22 around 12.  That was pretty much the norm in the Midwest and I’m sure other parts of the country.

They were taught to respect them and safe handling.  Kind of like it’s easier to teach them to swim than think your going to keep them out of the water.

I learned to shoot around 12, and regularly went hunting after that.  Our guns were kept unloaded and locked in a cabinet.  I was taught to respect and handle both weapons that we had carefully and safely.  But I also did a lot of stupid shit as a kid.  It was safer that none of this could involve our guns.

I really don’t care what many here think, I wonder if you make your kids wear pads and helmets when they walk around in case they may fall.  You can hover over them all you want, but it’s better to educate them on what’s out there and to be responsible themselves.

I'd certainly let my kid fall a few times while learning to walk.  When you walk and fall, you survive and learn.

I wouldn't let my kid play in a busy street . . . he's likely not to survive, and it's not worth the risk.  That's why he can play alone in the back yard, but not the front where there's busy traffic.

By the same token, I wouldn't leave my kid alone with a gun sitting around.  He can learn to use it with supervision . . . but why risk it without?  Seems unnecessary and negligent.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on April 26, 2018, 12:03:38 PM
My guns are locked up in the safe, because they are valuable.  But before that they were put up and unloaded.  Kids had there own guns early, B.B. guns around 6 then pellet guns, shooting real guns around 10 or so and most got their own shotgun or 22 around 12.  That was pretty much the norm in the Midwest and I’m sure other parts of the country.

They were taught to respect them and safe handling.  Kind of like it’s easier to teach them to swim than think your going to keep them out of the water.

I really don’t care what many here think, I wonder if you make your kids wear pads and helmets when they walk around in case they may fall.  You can hover over them all you want, but it’s better to educate them on what’s out there and to be responsible themselves.

Falling results in scraped knees and in some cases broken bones. These things build character. I'm all for kids riding bikes (without helmets, depending on where they bike), climbing trees, playing sports, and even getting in the occasional fight (as long as the other kid started it :).

I also grew up around guns the way you described, just add a few years to all of your numbers. But I still support locking guns up when you have kids and especially their friends in the house. Kids can use the guns, but they need to ask for a parents permission. Is that really too much to ask?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on April 26, 2018, 12:52:02 PM
I’m glad that your kids won’t be coming to my home.  If they are old enough to be unsupervised and can ransack thru the house to find a firearm and know how to load it. They should know better.  I’d be worried that these same kids, if they couldn’t find the firearms, could probably get out the kitchen knives and kill each other with those.  And what about the matches to start the grill? They could burn down the whole neighborhood.  Then there are the cleaning supplies.  And they probably wouldn’t have enough sense to stay out of the pool either.

Except they are kids and do not know better. Thus why it's better to be safe than sorry. And much safer to assume your kid, the neighbors kid, or whoever doesn't "know better."

I don't have a gun, but we do have two dogs, one of which is very large and capable of causing damage and/or death. When the neighbor kids come over we lock the dogs in our bedroom. Our lock is only accessible with a key. We also do not leave the kids alone in the house. One of my daughters friends has tried to get into the bedroom several times despite being warned. Should they know better? Absolutely, except we know better than to assume they know better. If we had a gun it would be in a secure safe in a locked room with the kids in the house. 

Point being, you shouldn't have to worry about kids ransacking through the house if your firearms are in a secure place and not accessible, by any reasonable means, to kids.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 26, 2018, 02:59:46 PM
I really don’t care what many here think, I wonder if you make your kids wear pads and helmets when they walk around in case they may fall.  You can hover over them all you want, but it’s better to educate them on what’s out there and to be responsible themselves.
And this is why people are so hostile to the pro-gun group.  Because frankly if you don't care what people think about something whose purpose is to inflict severe damage easily and compare it to falling while walking which does very little harm and cannot see how the two are equal, we don't care what you think.  There is a much higher case of death with a gun than death from a fall from my toddler in my kitchen.  This nonchalant attitude about very harmful things is what is off putting.  I'd just as upset if a worker at a nuclear facility was as flippant about protective measures there.  It's serious stuff.  But it's clear to you it is not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on April 27, 2018, 02:25:09 AM
FWIW, as soon as a gun is fired in an incident, there is a 50% chance of injury, and a 25% chance of death.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on April 27, 2018, 10:35:02 AM
FWIW, as soon as a gun is fired in an incident, these a 50% chance of injury, and a 25% chance of death.

Source?

I would love to find out where you found this information.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on April 27, 2018, 10:51:47 PM
Source is here:
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

Seems fairly consistent over the last 5 years.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on April 28, 2018, 05:51:38 PM
Not quite buying their numbers.

They only use media for my area. That is highly inaccurate and limits the number and type of incidents. I was hoping to see them actually go through police reports and get data.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: BlueMR2 on April 28, 2018, 07:27:54 PM
I'd have to agree, that seems terribly hard to believe having seen reports in the not too distant past on the unexpectedly high probability of no one getting hit at all during a gunfire incident.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on April 30, 2018, 11:18:47 AM

Except, ya know, firearms accidents are a tiny TINY slice of deaths.  "Fixing the death rate" is a left dog-whistle for ignoring real statistics.  Firearms accidents (and adolescent murders outside of gang-related warfare) are basically non-existent in our 320 million population. 

In actual numbers, its 82 kids lost per year to firearm accidental fatalities.  82 out of 320 million.  82 out of 100 million gun owners.  That is 0.082 per 100,000 gun owners.  Or 1 death per 1,218,000 gun owners.  Why do you want to restrict the rights of 1,217,999 gun owners because of One idiot, when there are already laws on the books to punish that idiot?

All per this study:  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486)
(<-  See what I did there!  Actual Data!)

I'm not sure how you felt all my ire was based only on firearms accidents.  When I refer the the death rate I mean anyone who is killed by a gun for any reason.  That number should be as close to zero as possible.  I don't honestly care about statistics because there is not an acceptable rate of death for something I do not consider a necessity to exist in the world.  Therefore my assessment is based on treating a gun as a luxury, and lining up what might be OK for injuries caused by that luxury.  For example, I understand people drown in swimming pools, but I also feel that the frequency of that would not warrant further involvement of laws.  Responsible pool owners usually fence their pool, put a lock on the gate or do other things to minimize accidental drowning from a toddler falling in.  If death did occur as a result my pool, I'd certainly be able to be punished for that.  Yet somehow you feel a gun, which has much less of a joyful purpose to exist, as a pool does should be treated differently?  I'll answer for you.  Your answer is yes because it is a constitutional right, and there we circle back to my rationale for why this protection is not warranted for something not needed for a good and happy life.  Free speech is important for that.  Having a gun, not so much.

The fear mongering of we should all shiver in fear when we talk casually about taking away constitutional rights carries little weight.  The Second Amendment is so unique that it is not hard for most people to understand.  It is only in trying to keep it protected are the arguments used to try to create the false equivalency.  The only thing the Second Amendment really has in common with the others with respect to protecting a good and happy life is that is an amendment and that it is in the Constitution.

So if someone doesn't think pools should exist, they should be able to stop you from having one?  Seeing as drowning deaths in pools are a pretty big contributor to deaths of children under 12? 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 30, 2018, 11:35:17 AM

Except, ya know, firearms accidents are a tiny TINY slice of deaths.  "Fixing the death rate" is a left dog-whistle for ignoring real statistics.  Firearms accidents (and adolescent murders outside of gang-related warfare) are basically non-existent in our 320 million population. 

In actual numbers, its 82 kids lost per year to firearm accidental fatalities.  82 out of 320 million.  82 out of 100 million gun owners.  That is 0.082 per 100,000 gun owners.  Or 1 death per 1,218,000 gun owners.  Why do you want to restrict the rights of 1,217,999 gun owners because of One idiot, when there are already laws on the books to punish that idiot?

All per this study:  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486)
(<-  See what I did there!  Actual Data!)

I'm not sure how you felt all my ire was based only on firearms accidents.  When I refer the the death rate I mean anyone who is killed by a gun for any reason.  That number should be as close to zero as possible.  I don't honestly care about statistics because there is not an acceptable rate of death for something I do not consider a necessity to exist in the world.  Therefore my assessment is based on treating a gun as a luxury, and lining up what might be OK for injuries caused by that luxury.  For example, I understand people drown in swimming pools, but I also feel that the frequency of that would not warrant further involvement of laws.  Responsible pool owners usually fence their pool, put a lock on the gate or do other things to minimize accidental drowning from a toddler falling in.  If death did occur as a result my pool, I'd certainly be able to be punished for that.  Yet somehow you feel a gun, which has much less of a joyful purpose to exist, as a pool does should be treated differently?  I'll answer for you.  Your answer is yes because it is a constitutional right, and there we circle back to my rationale for why this protection is not warranted for something not needed for a good and happy life.  Free speech is important for that.  Having a gun, not so much.

The fear mongering of we should all shiver in fear when we talk casually about taking away constitutional rights carries little weight.  The Second Amendment is so unique that it is not hard for most people to understand.  It is only in trying to keep it protected are the arguments used to try to create the false equivalency.  The only thing the Second Amendment really has in common with the others with respect to protecting a good and happy life is that is an amendment and that it is in the Constitution.

So if someone doesn't think pools should exist, they should be able to stop you from having one?  Seeing as drowning deaths in pools are a pretty big contributor to deaths of children under 12?


You want to have a pool, have a pool.  But don't be surprised if there's support for a requirement that your pool be fenced to prevent accidental drownings. If you want your pool to be a 90 ft deep concrete lined moat around your property (right up to the sidewalk) with a 15 ft drop to the water below then you probably will be denied zoning rights for it - it's pretty damned unsafe.

(And don't be surprised if people ridicule you for openly carrying an inflatable pool with you while you're in a Walmart, decked out in your tacticool snorkel and flippers to publicly show your support for the NPA.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on April 30, 2018, 01:51:43 PM
Since I live very close to the gulf I wonder when we will be required to fence off the beaches and canals.  My pool is enclosed by a fenced in lanai, but that really only keeps the bugs and alligators out. 

How are we going to protect the children?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on April 30, 2018, 01:56:17 PM
Did you know that the vast majority of children who drown are not carrying a firearm?  Obviously, the best way to protect them is to arm them.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on April 30, 2018, 03:05:22 PM
Since I live very close to the gulf I wonder when we will be required to fence off the beaches and canals.  My pool is enclosed by a fenced in lanai, but that really only keeps the bugs and alligators out. 

How are we going to protect the children?
Yes, because once again the pro-gun method is to ridicule anything as not equal.  You know what, you are right they are not equal.  A pool is not primarily made to kill something whereas a gun is.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on April 30, 2018, 03:37:02 PM
Since I live very close to the gulf I wonder when we will be required to fence off the beaches and canals.  My pool is enclosed by a fenced in lanai, but that really only keeps the bugs and alligators out. 

How are we going to protect the children?
Yes, because once again the pro-gun method is to ridicule anything as not equal.  You know what, you are right they are not equal.  A pool is not primarily made to kill something whereas a gun is.

We teach the kids to swim, and to stay out of the water unless supervised. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on April 30, 2018, 03:41:41 PM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on April 30, 2018, 03:47:31 PM
Since I live very close to the gulf I wonder when we will be required to fence off the beaches and canals.  My pool is enclosed by a fenced in lanai, but that really only keeps the bugs and alligators out. 

How are we going to protect the children?
Yes, because once again the pro-gun method is to ridicule anything as not equal.  You know what, you are right they are not equal.  A pool is not primarily made to kill something whereas a gun is.

We have alligators and sharks in the water.  I’m pretty sure they are also made to kill.  Should we exterminate them? 

Do you really think you can get rid of all the guns?  There are 100 of millions. I believe I’ve read that there are more guns than people.  We can’t even get rid of the illegal aliens in the country. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on April 30, 2018, 07:11:11 PM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.

I have no objection to this. There's benefits to both sides if they're willing to work together and agree on a consistent country wide policy.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on May 01, 2018, 07:10:51 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.

I have no objection to this. There's benefits to both sides if they're willing to work together and agree on a consistent country wide policy.

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 01, 2018, 08:03:57 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.

I have no objection to this. There's benefits to both sides if they're willing to work together and agree on a consistent country wide policy.

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 01, 2018, 08:10:48 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.

I have no objection to this. There's benefits to both sides if they're willing to work together and agree on a consistent country wide policy.

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.

All vehicles should have a short range cell phone jammer active when the car electrics come on.  Very easy to design, very cheap to make, would radically improve safety on the road, and could be quickly checked by police during a stop.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PoutineLover on May 01, 2018, 08:14:53 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.

I have no objection to this. There's benefits to both sides if they're willing to work together and agree on a consistent country wide policy.

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.

All vehicles should have a short range cell phone jammer active when the car electrics come on.  Very easy to design, very cheap to make, would radically improve safety on the road, and could be quickly checked by police during a stop.
I like this idea but wouldn't it jam everyone's cells, not just the drivers? And what about navigation apps? Is there a way to just block the driver's cell, but still allow maps and music?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on May 01, 2018, 08:18:26 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.

I have no objection to this. There's benefits to both sides if they're willing to work together and agree on a consistent country wide policy.

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.

All vehicles should have a short range cell phone jammer active when the car electrics come on.  Very easy to design, very cheap to make, would radically improve safety on the road, and could be quickly checked by police during a stop.

And what happens when you need to call the police during a road rage incident?...  Just chill on the side of the road with the guy?

Man, you guys must have had your parents pay for babysitters when you were in college to be accustomed to this level nanny-state-ness.

/sarcasm off

The easy (and freedom loving) solution is to just make electronics use illegal, and then enforce it.  The human element of enforcement allows for odd situations (like road rage incident above) without infringing on 'freedom'. 

Prrof it can be done:  https://gizmodo.com/this-huge-camera-rig-busts-people-for-texting-and-drivi-1778628433 (https://gizmodo.com/this-huge-camera-rig-busts-people-for-texting-and-drivi-1778628433)

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--UtvN_6AW--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/jxebnpy0jq2pa3u7z9ja.jpg)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 01, 2018, 08:22:29 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.

I have no objection to this. There's benefits to both sides if they're willing to work together and agree on a consistent country wide policy.

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.

All vehicles should have a short range cell phone jammer active when the car electrics come on.  Very easy to design, very cheap to make, would radically improve safety on the road, and could be quickly checked by police during a stop.

And what happens when you need to call the police during a road rage incident?...  Just chill on the side of the road with the guy?

Man, you guys must have had your parents pay for babysitters when you were in college to be accustomed to this level nanny-state-ness.

/sarcasm off

The easy (and freedom loving) solution is to just make electronics use illegal, and then enforce it.  The human element of enforcement allows for odd situations (like road rage incident above) without infringing on 'freedom'. 

Prrof it can be done:  https://gizmodo.com/this-huge-camera-rig-busts-people-for-texting-and-drivi-1778628433 (https://gizmodo.com/this-huge-camera-rig-busts-people-for-texting-and-drivi-1778628433)

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--UtvN_6AW--/c_scale,f_auto,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/jxebnpy0jq2pa3u7z9ja.jpg)

Are you capable of arguing without belittling people? Because from here, it doesn't seem like it.

Frankly, your lack of being able to make a mature argument without resorting to childish insults weakens your point. I pretty much tuned out before you could make it. Which wasn't exactly your intention, was it?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 01, 2018, 08:33:09 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws.  I’m actually not against trigger locks or safe storage if kids are in the home.  And let’s make it so felons, who are not suppose to have a gun, face penalties that are severe if caught with one.

Also concealed carry holders are the most law abiding citizens, let’s not make it a crime if one simply crosses a state line.  Your carry permit should be good anywhere in the states.

I have no objection to this. There's benefits to both sides if they're willing to work together and agree on a consistent country wide policy.

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.

All vehicles should have a short range cell phone jammer active when the car electrics come on.  Very easy to design, very cheap to make, would radically improve safety on the road, and could be quickly checked by police during a stop.

And what happens when you need to call the police during a road rage incident?

I drive safely, and am capable of letting it go when someone is being a jerk on the road.  Calling the police during a road rage incident has therefore never been necessary.  If you have anger control problems though, this could certainly be an issue.

I'd figure it's better to avoid the higher taxes for the extra officers that would be necessary to catch enough people texting and driving to make a difference.  If you're in favor of a less effective, more expensive solution, that's your prerogative.  I feel like a cell jammer in your car is no more of a nanny state than hundreds of police camped out with telephoto lenses observing you remotely . . . but whatever.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: acroy on May 01, 2018, 08:33:50 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.

All vehicles should have a short range cell phone jammer active when the car electrics come on.  Very easy to design, very cheap to make, would radically improve safety on the road, and could be quickly checked by police during a stop.

Good grief, ya'lls response to every issue, real or perceived, is anger and mandates.
MOAR LAWS limiting the choices and freedom of your fellow citizens. How very 'illiberal' and intolerant.
Thanks for the concern, but keep your hands off my stuff. How bout we enforce personal responsibility and leave it at that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 01, 2018, 08:47:17 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.

All vehicles should have a short range cell phone jammer active when the car electrics come on.  Very easy to design, very cheap to make, would radically improve safety on the road, and could be quickly checked by police during a stop.

Good grief, ya'lls response to every issue, real or perceived, is anger and mandates.
MOAR LAWS limiting the choices and freedom of your fellow citizens. How very 'illiberal' and intolerant.
Thanks for the concern, but keep your hands off my stuff. How bout we enforce personal responsibility and leave it at that.


Sure. Because the dumb shit you do will never affect me.

Where's that eyeroll emoji?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 01, 2018, 08:58:13 AM
I am willing to compromise and have some common sense gun laws

Good, now that the gun problem is taken care of we can work on cell phone use while driving.  I think cell phones should be disabled at say speeds over 10 mph.  Think of the children!

I would love that. Few things make me angrier than people who phone or text while driving.

All vehicles should have a short range cell phone jammer active when the car electrics come on.  Very easy to design, very cheap to make, would radically improve safety on the road, and could be quickly checked by police during a stop.

Good grief, ya'lls response to every issue, real or perceived, is anger and mandates.
MOAR LAWS limiting the choices and freedom of your fellow citizens. How very 'illiberal' and intolerant.
Thanks for the concern, but keep your hands off my stuff. How bout we enforce personal responsibility and leave it at that.




Sure. Because the dumb shit you do will never affect me.

Where's that eyeroll emoji?

Of the times in the last few years that I have come closest to death/serious injury, almost all of them have been because someone was using their cell phone while they were driving. Some of them never even knew how close they came to killing/maiming another person -- BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO ENGROSSED IN THEIR PHONES TO EVEN NOTICE.

Note to all the "it all comes down to personal responsibility" types who regularly talk or text while they're driving: You don't have a leg to stand on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 01, 2018, 10:27:02 AM
I always wonder - the "freedom" lovers and "nanny-state" haters, are they all just anarchists at heart?  Because really, it can be argued at ANY law that affects their ability to do dumb/harmful things is an impingement on their "freedom".  Like DUI laws, or texting/driving laws, or gun regulatory laws, or .... it seems like they'd really be happier if ALL of that stuff went out the window. 

Their cries for "personal accountability" seem to have at root the idea that we should have no laws at all. 

Hell, if that's true, if they secretly desire anarchy, then it's no wonder they cling to their guns so desperately.  In a lawless society, you'd damn well better have a weapon to protect yourself. 

Of course, anarchy as a political ideal is a stupid fantasy.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 01, 2018, 10:38:36 AM
Of course, anarchy as a political ideal is a stupid fantasy.

Larry Niven nailed it.
http://larryniven.net/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml (http://larryniven.net/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 01, 2018, 10:50:50 AM
Of course, anarchy as a political ideal is a stupid fantasy.

Larry Niven nailed it.
http://larryniven.net/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml (http://larryniven.net/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml)

Classic sci-fi by one of the underappreciated greats.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 01, 2018, 12:14:03 PM
Of course, anarchy as a political ideal is a stupid fantasy.

Larry Niven nailed it.
http://larryniven.net/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml (http://larryniven.net/stories/cloak_of_anarchy.shtml)

Classic sci-fi by one of the underappreciated greats.

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 01, 2018, 12:52:41 PM
My take on it is that those who complain about the idea of a "nanny state" are referring to laws that prevent you from doing something wrong or surveilling you just in case you commit a crime rather than punishing you after the fact.

Personally I don't agree and I don't see an inherent problem with restricting someone's ability to commit a crime but in regards to jamming cell signals in all vehicles I do think there are some logistical issues. Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room. Also, this would make it impossible for passengers to make calls/text as well. Seems a little impractical and I doubt something like this would ever pass even if you could compile good data on the accidents it would prevent.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 01, 2018, 01:07:23 PM
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 01, 2018, 01:14:57 PM
I feel like I should point out that I don't even own a cellphone, let alone use one while driving.  :P
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 01, 2018, 01:19:43 PM
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.

I do and I considered that but it's far from the only reason I wouldn't support a law like this. Also I have no idea how to go about quantifying it, but don't you think cell phones being used in moving vehicles can be credited with some reduction in crime? We did cope before cell phones but crime rates have dropped significantly since the 70-80's. Again, no statistics to offer but technology has almost certainly played a role.

The world existed before lots of inventions that have greatly improved our lives. (this coming from someone who still doesn't own a smartphone)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 01, 2018, 01:25:47 PM
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.

I do and I considered that but it's far from the only reason I wouldn't support a law like this. Also I have no idea how to go about quantifying it, but don't you think cell phones being used in moving vehicles can be credited with some reduction in crime? We did cope before cell phones but crime rates have dropped significantly since the 70-80's. Again, no statistics to offer but technology has almost certainly played a role.

The world existed before lots of inventions that have greatly improved our lives. (this coming from someone who still doesn't own a smartphone)
I'd have to think about that but to credit the cell phone as the primary reason for drops in crime may be a bridge too far.  There were a LOT of pay phones around, and I can tell you for certain as a kid growing up in those times no one was shy about calling from home as they are now and tend to just hide in their homes and ignore the crime going on outside.  I think the drop of  people being willing to report now versus what happened then, offsets or was greater than any benefit a mobile phone provides. 

As a person who has called from a moving vehicle and helped try to guide police to a drunk driver we followed, ultimately to have nothing happen as the police could never connect with us, having the phone in a moving vehicle did nothing to help the situation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 01, 2018, 01:55:05 PM
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.

I do and I considered that but it's far from the only reason I wouldn't support a law like this. Also I have no idea how to go about quantifying it, but don't you think cell phones being used in moving vehicles can be credited with some reduction in crime? We did cope before cell phones but crime rates have dropped significantly since the 70-80's. Again, no statistics to offer but technology has almost certainly played a role.

The world existed before lots of inventions that have greatly improved our lives. (this coming from someone who still doesn't own a smartphone)
I'd have to think about that but to credit the cell phone as the primary reason for drops in crime may be a bridge too far.  There were a LOT of pay phones around, and I can tell you for certain as a kid growing up in those times no one was shy about calling from home as they are now and tend to just hide in their homes and ignore the crime going on outside.  I think the drop of  people being willing to report now versus what happened then, offsets or was greater than any benefit a mobile phone provides. 

As a person who has called from a moving vehicle and helped try to guide police to a drunk driver we followed, ultimately to have nothing happen as the police could never connect with us, having the phone in a moving vehicle did nothing to help the situation.

Definitely not my intention. Getting back on topic of the off topic in the off topic, I think the primary road block to legislation like this would be that passengers couldn't make calls.

Regarding the idea that we got along fine before cell phones, I'm usually one of the first to make that point and cite the social isolation they can create, but I'll also admit that once society has built around a modern convenience, suddenly taking it away has different implications than never having had it in the first place. For example, pay phones were more or less replaced by cell phones so now if I don't have one I'm sol for making a call while I'm on the road. Also social expectations have changed drastically.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 01, 2018, 02:23:27 PM
Not just road rage but I can think of other emergency situations where making a phone call from a moving vehicle would be helpful: being followed by a suspicious vehicle, calling ahead to an emergency room.

Not that I am advocating for this change, but you do realize the world did exists for thousands of years before we could do this from moving vehicles (including chariots and Conestoga wagons) and we found ways to cope.

I do and I considered that but it's far from the only reason I wouldn't support a law like this. Also I have no idea how to go about quantifying it, but don't you think cell phones being used in moving vehicles can be credited with some reduction in crime? We did cope before cell phones but crime rates have dropped significantly since the 70-80's. Again, no statistics to offer but technology has almost certainly played a role.

The world existed before lots of inventions that have greatly improved our lives. (this coming from someone who still doesn't own a smartphone)
I'd have to think about that but to credit the cell phone as the primary reason for drops in crime may be a bridge too far.  There were a LOT of pay phones around, and I can tell you for certain as a kid growing up in those times no one was shy about calling from home as they are now and tend to just hide in their homes and ignore the crime going on outside.  I think the drop of  people being willing to report now versus what happened then, offsets or was greater than any benefit a mobile phone provides. 

As a person who has called from a moving vehicle and helped try to guide police to a drunk driver we followed, ultimately to have nothing happen as the police could never connect with us, having the phone in a moving vehicle did nothing to help the situation.

Definitely not my intention. Getting back on topic of the off topic in the off topic, I think the primary road block to legislation like this would be that passengers couldn't make calls.

Regarding the idea that we got along fine before cell phones, I'm usually one of the first to make that point and cite the social isolation they can create, but I'll also admit that once society has built around a modern convenience, suddenly taking it away has different implications than never having had it in the first place. For example, pay phones were more or less replaced by cell phones so now if I don't have one I'm sol for making a call while I'm on the road. Also social expectations have changed drastically.
Agreed, we could not get rid of cell phones without re-establishing pay phones (or something in their place.  Those call boxes along the FL interstates are also long gone for example).  But the social isolation is not a result of the PHONE.  Let's be clear, it is a result of the COMPUTER in the phone, i.e. the smart phone.  The Motorola flip phone that could just make calls did not remove the connection of people and getting together.  It was only after I had a camera and could voice chat with someone i.e. see them or use Instagram or other apps that needed something more than a phone, did the isolation begin to occur.  We created a virtual portal to every other person on the planet as long as we were willing to share connection info (usually a phone number which ties our little handheld computers together).  A pure mobile PHONE in feature only, meaning it just makes and receives calls, no texts, nothing else, did not create that much of a shift.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 01, 2018, 06:30:27 PM
My state actually just did ban all except hands free cell use by the driver. Even red light checking. I don’t know if it’s effective, but I do seem to be honking less at people who don’t notice the red light changed.

Circling back to the gun issue, I think the one thing about it I find most incredulous is the whole idea of “good guys”with guns, as if just owning a weapon somehow keeps you from doing bad things. Which is, I fear, the main reasons laws are hard to come by. If you can’t believe a gun owner would ever do something bad, despite the ample evidence to the contrary, of course you don’t want any gun laws to change!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 01, 2018, 09:41:37 PM

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 02, 2018, 05:58:39 AM

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 02, 2018, 06:39:41 AM
@Wolfpack Mustachian , I think you are missing the point.  I'm not implying, suggesting, nor do I believe gun owners are irresponsible.  I believe they just do not actually care to make a change, and therefore it is incredibly frustrating when we talk about a topic that ends in death to just have someone who owns the tool used to initiate death just shrug their shoulders and constantly say "eh, I don't see a problem". 

If we could get gun owners to sit down and figure out a solution rather than just start from the position of either their is a problem, or that we already have everything we need to make the problem go away we are just not using it.  The lack of understanding that it is the result that matters and not the intent.  I'm not arguing that better enforcement of the laws could help.  But that's not happening, so what are we going to actually DO differently as a society to drive that result?  That's the engagement that is not happening.  I'm not OK with "I'm not the DA so I can't make attorneys change."  If that is still the result, then waiting for the impossible to happen is not a very viable solution, which is what makes it not a solution.  It's just an excuse.

Stop making excuses and come to the table with things you will work alongside us to change and then you can stop getting the hostility of people who want to make a change in needless deaths. 

And to your example of alcohol, I'm all for figuring out better ways to drive that down as well.  I will assume your stats is accurate.  10K deaths is a lot, and much more than 489.  But 489 is a lot too, especially if you or someone you care about is one of those 489 next year.  I make the same statement in nearly every post on this thread.  For me the difference between a gun and everything else people bring up (cars is very common), is the root purpose of the item in question.  A car is not made to cause harm.  A gun is.  It may only "harm" the paper target it is fired at for an owner who never does anything else than take it to the range every weekend, but its main purpose is still harm.  You cannot argue a gun will help me get to work, or take my kids to school or transport me anywhere.  Sure I can use it to feed me by hunting (but I need other tools to actually eat.  I can't just shoot something and dive into the carcass and chow down).  You could argue that I can use it to make money by being an entertainer that uses it for trick shooting or something that people pay me to come and watch, but that trick shooting still involves me using the  gun for its primary purpose of causing harm to the things I am shooting it.  I have yet to see a gun that launches a kitten who then licks the beer can it was shot at instead of blowing a hole in it or knocking it off its perch.  Because of this sole reason, I think comparing a gun to anything else will never resonate as a real argument.  Unless you compare it to something else who's main purpose is to cause harm.  But that won't work either because then gun owners would be forced to realize you cannot argue it successfully that way.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 02, 2018, 07:58:24 AM
I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

This is a waste of time.  Let's not go hypothetical at all.  Let's look at what Chris actually said:

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.



So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl
- It is impossible for a grown man (let alone a child) to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.


All three beliefs are demonstrably wrong.  Believing them will prevent Chris from taking simple, common sense steps to keep his kid away from his gun.  That's not a hypothetical - it's reality.  If the reality of the danger to his child doesn't terrify you, then I don't think you've fully thought through what he wrote.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on May 02, 2018, 08:23:08 AM
I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

This is a waste of time.  Let's not go hypothetical at all.  Let's look at what Chris actually said:

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.



So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl
- It is impossible for a grown man (let alone a child) to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.


All three beliefs are demonstrably wrong.  Believing them will prevent Chris from taking simple, common sense steps to keep his kid away from his gun.  That's not a hypothetical - it's reality.  If the reality of the danger to his child doesn't terrify you, then I don't think you've fully thought through what he wrote.

You're ignoring a lot of nuance or taking a lot of things way out of context.  Let's unpack.

Quote
So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents

What did I actually say?  I mean, you quoted it, did you read it?

"Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work."

IOW, "I told her not to, AND SHE'S ALSO NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY WORK THE ACTION."  It has the button to rack the slide Wolfpack alluded to.  She can't physically do it, dude, it's not just that I told her not to and so she won't. 

Quote
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

"And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution"

Quote
- It is impossible for a grown man (let alone a child) to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.

Nope. 

"I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger."

First off, I said MY shotgun.  I have an extended barrel on MY shotgun for trap shooting.  MY shotgun =/= ALL shotguns.  Second, I said "barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger" meaning that yeah, if you actually wanted to kill yourself, it would be easy enough to do with a string or lever or whatever else, but the context was a three year old boy accidentally shooting himself.  That would be difficult to impossible to do with my shotgun, given it's about the same length as my daughter (gun is probably ~40", daughter is 48"). 

I don't expect you to agree with my risk assessments necessarily, but don't pretend like they aren't occurring.  When I ordered my first pistol (thanks cooling off period) I Amazon'd myself a pistol safe before I even picked up the pistol because my risk assessment was that it was very dangerous if my kid should come across it, so I locked it up.  Due to a variety of other factors, I determined that the way I store my other weapons was not currently particularly dangerous, so I'm comfortable with the way they are stored. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 02, 2018, 08:50:59 AM
When I ordered my first pistol (thanks cooling off period) I Amazon'd myself a pistol safe before I even picked up the pistol because my risk assessment was that it was very dangerous if my kid should come across it, so I locked it up.  Due to a variety of other factors, I determined that the way I store my other weapons was not currently particularly dangerous, so I'm comfortable with the way they are stored.

Laudable.  I'm very glad you took this type of action and no doubt your family and neighbors are much safer because you did these things.  Were you required by law to learn these basics of gun safety? 

Because, and here's my broader point - just because you did these things does not mean everyone will.  In fact a large chunk of people will not do anything at all related to learning about or using proper gun safety. 

All I'm really saying is that not everyone is like you.  Gun safety laws may seem like "nanny state" encroachments to you, because you're already doing things for handgun safety. 

Gun safety laws wouldn't actually affect you if you're already doing reasonable things for safety.  The whole point of safety laws is to ensure that everyone has a bare minimum level of safety they have to comply with when they own a weapon. 

It's just like driving a car.  You can't just say "well I'm a safe driver so I can go as fast as I want", there's speed limits even if your Mario Andretti you still have to obey them because it keeps everyone around you safer.  Especially those fools who "think" they are Mario Andretti but are really just idiots (we all know people like that). 

Also, you can't just start driving a car without a license.  Which means you have to have a (legally mandated) demonstrable, basic bare minimum of competency and skill to operate it.  It should be the same with guns.  You should need a license to own one, and the license should be conditional on passing a course/test about gun handling, gun safety, and more importantly proper gun storage. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on May 02, 2018, 09:00:38 AM
When I ordered my first pistol (thanks cooling off period) I Amazon'd myself a pistol safe before I even picked up the pistol because my risk assessment was that it was very dangerous if my kid should come across it, so I locked it up.  Due to a variety of other factors, I determined that the way I store my other weapons was not currently particularly dangerous, so I'm comfortable with the way they are stored.

Laudable.  I'm very glad you took this type of action and no doubt your family and neighbors are much safer because you did these things.  Were you required by law to learn these basics of gun safety? 

Because, and here's my broader point - just because you did these things does not mean everyone will.  In fact a large chunk of people will not do anything at all related to learning about or using proper gun safety. 

All I'm really saying is that not everyone is like you.  Gun safety laws may seem like "nanny state" encroachments to you, because you're already doing things for handgun safety. 

Gun safety laws wouldn't actually affect you if you're already doing reasonable things for safety.  The whole point of safety laws is to ensure that everyone has a bare minimum level of safety they have to comply with when they own a weapon. 

It's just like driving a car.  You can't just say "well I'm a safe driver so I can go as fast as I want", there's speed limits even if your Mario Andretti you still have to obey them because it keeps everyone around you safer.  Especially those fools who "think" they are Mario Andretti but are really just idiots (we all know people like that). 

Also, you can't just start driving a car without a license.  Which means you have to have a (legally mandated) demonstrable, basic bare minimum of competency and skill to operate it.  It should be the same with guns.  You should need a license to own one, and the license should be conditional on passing a course/test about gun handling, gun safety, and more importantly proper gun storage.

I was not required by law to do anything other than submit to a background check (multiple, really, including my FOID) and pay $10 to buy a weapon.  To carry a weapon outside of my home, I would have to take extensive training. 

Same with a car.  If you want to drive a car, just buy a car and drive it on your property (absurd on a suburban lot, not at all absurd in a rural area if you own a ton of land).  If you want to drive it on public roads, you need to show a (very low) level of competency.

My problem with gun storage laws that are preventative in nature is that, as discussed, there are a ton of factors that go into what makes gun storage safe or unsafe, and I don't trust the government (look how they royally fucked up the first AWB) to build any nuance into it.  Plus, the govs tend to use new laws as an opportunity to place barriers to entry in, not because the ideas themselves are necessarily good.  "yeah, take all this training, we'll make it rare and expensive so no one actually can get a CCW permit even though they are technically available" etc.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 02, 2018, 09:07:00 AM
Well then we should apply your ideas to food prep at restaurants (for example).  I mean the government can make it hard for restaurant owners to gain entry into that business, because the government always acts in an incompetent and nefarious manner.  So they should get out of the food safety legal enforcement.  After all, it's a private business, if I don't want to serve safe food, that's my right. 

That was sarcasm, BTW.

My main point is this - there needs to be basic minimum standards for safety around gun ownership.  Being required to lock up a firearm is not an infringement on your rights.  And it keeps others around you safer.  And it keeps you safer, from them. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 02, 2018, 01:13:30 PM
You're ignoring a lot of nuance or taking a lot of things way out of context.  Let's unpack.

Quote
So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents

What did I actually say?  I mean, you quoted it, did you read it?

"Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

Why would you need to train your child, if they are incapable of operating the weapon in the first place? Seems strange. Telling your child to not touch something often results in the opposite happening. I think most parents would agree with that. And 20% of body weight is pretty damn light. My 100 lb teenager can pick up a 20 lb weight quite easily. My 40 lb daughter can easily pick up a 10 lb weight (25% of her body weight). Considering you used the word "confident" to describe their perceived strength that sets off alarm bells IMO. Just lock the damn gun up. You won't have to rely on "confidence" and "lectures."

Quote
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

"And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution"

The word "might" is subjective, not definitive. You basically didn't say whether you would or would not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 02, 2018, 01:26:46 PM
You're ignoring a lot of nuance or taking a lot of things way out of context.  Let's unpack.

Quote
So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents

What did I actually say?  I mean, you quoted it, did you read it?

"Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

Why would you need to train your child, if they are incapable of operating the weapon in the first place? Seems strange. Telling your child to not touch something often results in the opposite happening. I think most parents would agree with that. And 20% of body weight is pretty damn light. My 100 lb teenager can pick up a 20 lb weight quite easily. My 40 lb daughter can easily pick up a 10 lb weight (25% of her body weight). Considering you used the word "confident" to describe their perceived strength that sets off alarm bells IMO. Just lock the damn gun up. You won't have to rely on "confidence" and "lectures."

Quote
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

"And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution"

The word "might" is subjective, not definitive. You basically didn't say whether you would or would not.

Just the very fact that we have to argue with a gun owner and "convince" them to lock up their weapon, is exactly the reason we need basic, minimum standards of safety that apply to everyone. 

It reminds me of the conversation around drinking and driving.  There were a lot of people that opposed putting in basic minimum levels around that, too.  They said things like "I'm fine with a couple drinks", or "I process alcohol different than most people", or my favorite "I drive better when I'm drunk than most other people do when they are sober". 

Gun owners that oppose basic safety laws are the moral equivalent of drunks that want to do away with DUI laws. 

Although now that I think about it, a better analogy might be safety laws around electrical wiring in the home.  Now a freedom loving patriot might oppose wiring things to code in their house, because their house is private property and the government is a nanny state.  "And those wires don't need to be insulated - I teach my kids to not touch live electrical wires, and covering those wires takes away my freedoms!".  Sigh. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 02, 2018, 02:52:20 PM
You're ignoring a lot of nuance or taking a lot of things way out of context.  Let's unpack.

Quote
So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents

What did I actually say?  I mean, you quoted it, did you read it?

"Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

Why would you need to train your child, if they are incapable of operating the weapon in the first place? Seems strange. Telling your child to not touch something often results in the opposite happening. I think most parents would agree with that. And 20% of body weight is pretty damn light. My 100 lb teenager can pick up a 20 lb weight quite easily. My 40 lb daughter can easily pick up a 10 lb weight (25% of her body weight). Considering you used the word "confident" to describe their perceived strength that sets off alarm bells IMO. Just lock the damn gun up. You won't have to rely on "confidence" and "lectures."

Quote
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl

That's the exact OPPOSITE of what I said.

"And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution"

The word "might" is subjective, not definitive. You basically didn't say whether you would or would not.

Just the very fact that we have to argue with a gun owner and "convince" them to lock up their weapon, is exactly the reason we need basic, minimum standards of safety that apply to everyone. 

It reminds me of the conversation around drinking and driving.  There were a lot of people that opposed putting in basic minimum levels around that, too.  They said things like "I'm fine with a couple drinks", or "I process alcohol different than most people", or my favorite "I drive better when I'm drunk than most other people do when they are sober". 

Gun owners that oppose basic safety laws are the moral equivalent of drunks that want to do away with DUI laws. 

Although now that I think about it, a better analogy might be safety laws around electrical wiring in the home.  Now a freedom loving patriot might oppose wiring things to code in their house, because their house is private property and the government is a nanny state.  "And those wires don't need to be insulated - I teach my kids to not touch live electrical wires, and covering those wires takes away my freedoms!".  Sigh.

Yep. Hell I lock our dogs up before anyone comes into our house, especially kids. It's not that I don't trust the dogs, I don't trust the kids.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 03, 2018, 04:15:48 AM

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.

First of all, I wasn't accusing tyort of a straw man. He just was using a straw man plain and simple. Not just any sort of straw man but pretty much the definition of a straw man. People who are concerned about regulations on how guns are stored in houses (because that was the real conversation we were having at that point as I can tell) are either desiring the old "wild wild west" times where murder rates were insane or are wanting a situation where it would end up that way. Um.....no..... I'm not an expert on that time period, but I'm pretty sure it was more of the lack of law enforcement and a million other little things that have very little if any application in this discussion on securing guns properly.

On the other hand, I was simply making an analogy. I was not saying that people that want to add laws for gun storage want to ban crowbars or that it is a true like for like comparison. Feel free to disagree with the analogy, I guess, but it is an analogy of a very important distinction that people on here that support gun control seem to disregard often. There's a difference between making an act that directly takes away someone else's rights illegal and making the potential for that act illegal. Use whatever analogy you'd like. A computer is bad because it can be used to look up child pornography. Constant surveillance as mentioned could prevent enormous amounts of crime. And yes, restrictions on driving while intoxicated is also restricting things for potential harm not direct infringement on rights of others. One has to be looked at with more serious consideration as the other because it has a degree of separation, like it or not. We've decided as a society that it makes sense to restrict the freedom of people to drink and drive where they are not hurting someone because the potential is so high and there is no positive benefit or potential benefit to drinking and driving, and also because it's still killing thousands of people a year even after these "pre-restrictions" have been implemented. There's a difference in taking away people's freedom to do something and making it illegal for them to actually do it....which you would have known if you would have read past your great umbrage at your incorrect assertion of what you thought was a straw man. C'mon @Kris you're better than that. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 03, 2018, 05:59:21 AM

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.

First of all, I wasn't accusing tyort of a straw man. He just was using a straw man plain and simple. Not just any sort of straw man but pretty much the definition of a straw man. People who are concerned about regulations on how guns are stored in houses (because that was the real conversation we were having at that point as I can tell) are either desiring the old "wild wild west" times where murder rates were insane or are wanting a situation where it would end up that way. Um.....no..... I'm not an expert on that time period, but I'm pretty sure it was more of the lack of law enforcement and a million other little things that have very little if any application in this discussion on securing guns properly.

On the other hand, I was simply making an analogy. I was not saying that people that want to add laws for gun storage want to ban crowbars or that it is a true like for like comparison. Feel free to disagree with the analogy, I guess, but it is an analogy of a very important distinction that people on here that support gun control seem to disregard often. There's a difference between making an act that directly takes away someone else's rights illegal and making the potential for that act illegal. Use whatever analogy you'd like. A computer is bad because it can be used to look up child pornography. Constant surveillance as mentioned could prevent enormous amounts of crime. And yes, restrictions on driving while intoxicated is also restricting things for potential harm not direct infringement on rights of others. One has to be looked at with more serious consideration as the other because it has a degree of separation, like it or not. We've decided as a society that it makes sense to restrict the freedom of people to drink and drive where they are not hurting someone because the potential is so high and there is no positive benefit or potential benefit to drinking and driving, and also because it's still killing thousands of people a year even after these "pre-restrictions" have been implemented. There's a difference in taking away people's freedom to do something and making it illegal for them to actually do it....which you would have known if you would have read past your great umbrage at your incorrect assertion of what you thought was a straw man. C'mon @Kris you're better than that.

Lol sure.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 03, 2018, 11:52:21 AM
My wild west example was specifically directed at the underlying assumption by most conservatives (and ALL libertarians) that the government should never make any laws that don't derive from "don't initiate violence", and the implicit (sometimes explicit) embrace of anarchy as a desirable state.  Slightly off topic, but still relevant, I think.

The "electrical safety" standards example was more directly on point for this discussion.  But I see you either didn't read it or ignored it since you haven't addressed it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 03, 2018, 01:19:53 PM
My wild west example was specifically directed at the underlying assumption by most conservatives (and ALL libertarians) that the government should never make any laws that don't derive from "don't initiate violence", and the implicit (sometimes explicit) embrace of anarchy as a desirable state.  Slightly off topic, but still relevant, I think.

The "electrical safety" standards example was more directly on point for this discussion.  But I see you either didn't read it or ignored it since you haven't addressed it.
I've noticed a bit of that in this thread.  Certain items are ignored, such as my repeated attempts when I tried to explain why we feels guns should be treated differently than, say pools, being that a guns main purpose to exist is to cause harm.

I'm assuming these things are being ignored because they can't come up with a reply that isn't just another form of "put you're wrong and I don't have to do anything to fix the problem so I won't".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 03, 2018, 08:15:16 PM
I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

This is a waste of time.  Let's not go hypothetical at all.  Let's look at what Chris actually said:

I have a loaded, unsecured firearm in my house all of the time.  It's an old shotgun with a few in the pipe and none in the chamber.  It's somewhere in my bedroom.  Aside from the fact that my kid has been trained over and over and over to never ever ever touch the gun, and that she shouldn't be in our bedroom without us anyways, I'm confident that she isn't capable of picking up the thing (which weighs about 20% of her body weight) and manipulating the action to load it.  She's not strong enough and the gun is too big for her to work.

And if my kid was, say, a 12 year old boy instead of a 5 year old girl, I might use a different storage solution, and my solution may well evolve as my kid ages.

I’m a fully grown man and it would be physically impossible for me to shoot myself in the head with my shotgun barring some method of remotely pulling the trigger.



So, we have a gun owner who believes:
- Children will always listen to their parents
- A 12 year old boy doesn't warrant any different gun storage solution than a 5 year old girl
- It is impossible for a grown man (let alone a child) to shoot himself in the head with a shotgun.


All three beliefs are demonstrably wrong.  Believing them will prevent Chris from taking simple, common sense steps to keep his kid away from his gun.  That's not a hypothetical - it's reality.  If the reality of the danger to his child doesn't terrify you, then I don't think you've fully thought through what he wrote.

First of all, Chris has further explained his situation better than I could. I may not 100% agree with his rationale or how he handles things, but he's explaining the nuance. People here arguing on the other side seem to be trying to live in a world defined as how they see danger versus what the numbers are showing.

You're right, let's look at specifics - in this case quotes prompted me to respond:

Quote from you:

" - More than half of gun owners in the US keep a firearm without any locks or deterrent to prevent use by an unauthorized person, or to prevent theft.
 - 45% of gun owners with kids under the age of 18 leave unsecured firearms lying around the home.
 - Only 35% of gun owning parents of children with mental health conditions keep weapons unloaded and locked away.

You're asking for responsibility for their actions from a large group of people who have proven by their actions that they're not willing to accept any."

All of your three statement statistics are linked to your final statement which summed up could be said that anyone fitting into the "bad side" of any of these statistics is not willing to accept any responsibility (ergo is irresponsible).

I've just given you a rubber meets the road way that people could be very responsible and not meet the criteria of leaving all firearms "secure" with kids under 18 in the house. Yet you'd rather knee jerk and say it's irresponsible.

Wexler said this:

I have to admit that my mind is kind of blown (no pun intended) by the idea that someone can have an unsecured loaded weapon in a house with young children and think they are a responsible gun owner.  I am going to be a lot more skeptical of anyone claiming to be a responsible gun owner in the future.  This has been a good lesson for me.  People self-reporting how responsible they are with guns is like people saying they are good drivers: lots of them are wrong.

Tyort said this:

Agreed.  Not only are people like this engaging in irresponsible behavior, but they can't see how irresponsible it is, not even when it's directly pointed out to them. 

Which is why we need a law - guns get locked up.  Period.  And the law needs to be vigorously enforced.

And so on....

You claim that this or that is the reality. Let me reiterate the reality. 489 accidental gun deaths in a year. Almost certainly not all related to a child getting his parent's gun and shooting someone or himself. If my child was one of the 489, I'm sure I would be devastated, but it's probably not best to make decisions based on anecdotes. This total is very small both in light of overall deaths a year and also in perspective of how many guns are out there. My problem is, from these quotes and the general vibe, I'm getting the project of an assumption that gun owners are overall totally irresponsible or at least are if they have an "unsecured firearm" (however you define that) with kids in the house which your own statistics say is a significant portion of people. I know that I would always do what I could to keep my kids safe from real harm as best as I see it. My perspective is (and I feel this is very much backed up by numbers) that the vast majority of gun owning parents are acting in the same way. It may not be to your definition of what's safe, but the results are indicating that we're not in this widespread epidemic necessitating controls contradicting with people's desires to have weapons in a state that's more ready if there ever was a need for self defense.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 03, 2018, 08:19:18 PM

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.

First of all, I wasn't accusing tyort of a straw man. He just was using a straw man plain and simple. Not just any sort of straw man but pretty much the definition of a straw man. People who are concerned about regulations on how guns are stored in houses (because that was the real conversation we were having at that point as I can tell) are either desiring the old "wild wild west" times where murder rates were insane or are wanting a situation where it would end up that way. Um.....no..... I'm not an expert on that time period, but I'm pretty sure it was more of the lack of law enforcement and a million other little things that have very little if any application in this discussion on securing guns properly.

On the other hand, I was simply making an analogy. I was not saying that people that want to add laws for gun storage want to ban crowbars or that it is a true like for like comparison. Feel free to disagree with the analogy, I guess, but it is an analogy of a very important distinction that people on here that support gun control seem to disregard often. There's a difference between making an act that directly takes away someone else's rights illegal and making the potential for that act illegal. Use whatever analogy you'd like. A computer is bad because it can be used to look up child pornography. Constant surveillance as mentioned could prevent enormous amounts of crime. And yes, restrictions on driving while intoxicated is also restricting things for potential harm not direct infringement on rights of others. One has to be looked at with more serious consideration as the other because it has a degree of separation, like it or not. We've decided as a society that it makes sense to restrict the freedom of people to drink and drive where they are not hurting someone because the potential is so high and there is no positive benefit or potential benefit to drinking and driving, and also because it's still killing thousands of people a year even after these "pre-restrictions" have been implemented. There's a difference in taking away people's freedom to do something and making it illegal for them to actually do it....which you would have known if you would have read past your great umbrage at your incorrect assertion of what you thought was a straw man. C'mon @Kris you're better than that.

Lol sure.

Well, let me say thanks. I've explained in multiple ways the fact (that I see as irrefutable) that there's a difference between a law that says don't do something that hurts someone else and a law that says don't exist in this condition because you could eventually hurt someone else. I've not said that the latter means there shouldn't be laws regulating it but just that we should look at those laws with more scrutiny and hesitation.

You've replied with two snarky responses with no substance. Maybe you have a way to refute my thoughts and say there is no difference. Maybe you think that the differences are insignificant because of some reason you have. I guess I'll never know because you'd rather smart off.

Let me rephrase my last statement. I thought you were better than this, Kris.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 03, 2018, 08:29:20 PM
@Wolfpack Mustachian , I think you are missing the point.  I'm not implying, suggesting, nor do I believe gun owners are irresponsible.  I believe they just do not actually care to make a change, and therefore it is incredibly frustrating when we talk about a topic that ends in death to just have someone who owns the tool used to initiate death just shrug their shoulders and constantly say "eh, I don't see a problem". 

If we could get gun owners to sit down and figure out a solution rather than just start from the position of either their is a problem, or that we already have everything we need to make the problem go away we are just not using it.  The lack of understanding that it is the result that matters and not the intent.  I'm not arguing that better enforcement of the laws could help.  But that's not happening, so what are we going to actually DO differently as a society to drive that result?  That's the engagement that is not happening.  I'm not OK with "I'm not the DA so I can't make attorneys change."  If that is still the result, then waiting for the impossible to happen is not a very viable solution, which is what makes it not a solution.  It's just an excuse.

Stop making excuses and come to the table with things you will work alongside us to change and then you can stop getting the hostility of people who want to make a change in needless deaths. 

And to your example of alcohol, I'm all for figuring out better ways to drive that down as well.  I will assume your stats is accurate.  10K deaths is a lot, and much more than 489.  But 489 is a lot too, especially if you or someone you care about is one of those 489 next year.  I make the same statement in nearly every post on this thread.  For me the difference between a gun and everything else people bring up (cars is very common), is the root purpose of the item in question.  A car is not made to cause harm.  A gun is.  It may only "harm" the paper target it is fired at for an owner who never does anything else than take it to the range every weekend, but its main purpose is still harm.  You cannot argue a gun will help me get to work, or take my kids to school or transport me anywhere.  Sure I can use it to feed me by hunting (but I need other tools to actually eat.  I can't just shoot something and dive into the carcass and chow down).  You could argue that I can use it to make money by being an entertainer that uses it for trick shooting or something that people pay me to come and watch, but that trick shooting still involves me using the  gun for its primary purpose of causing harm to the things I am shooting it.  I have yet to see a gun that launches a kitten who then licks the beer can it was shot at instead of blowing a hole in it or knocking it off its perch.  Because of this sole reason, I think comparing a gun to anything else will never resonate as a real argument.  Unless you compare it to something else who's main purpose is to cause harm.  But that won't work either because then gun owners would be forced to realize you cannot argue it successfully that way.

Caracarn, I do understand and agree with part of your argument that guns are unique in their purpose. Where we differ is the nuances of the purpose of a gun. I think the breakdown is this. You comment (essentially as I am reading it) is that a gun requires extra justification because it is made to cause harm to what it's shooting at. In a vacuum, I would agree with that. However, we don't live in a vacuum. To get me to agree with the declaration that a gun is totally unnecessary, we would have to live in a world where there is almost no crime whatsoever. No risk to life or limb. No beatings of people. No rapes. No anything like this. Then, yes, the gun would be out there with the potential to harm someone with no reason to ever harm anyone because no harm is necessary - no defense would be necessary. Until that happens, to simplify the gun's purpose as to say it's there to cause harm is to, as I see it, at least in part act as if causing harm was never morally justified in a situation. This is because the emotionally charged language of it being "just to cause harm" has an innate implication that causing harm is always bad. That seems to be a fundamental divide between gun control and gun rights people. Gun control people tend to see guns as rarely if ever being used for good. Gun rights people tend to see it as a tool for good. This good can be, yes, hunting, and also for defending of oneself whether it be by actually shooting or just by the presence thereof. This is a hard divide to cross, from what I've seen.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 03, 2018, 08:29:30 PM

If people want to see what near-anarchy looks like in real life - just look at the Old West.  That is how people behave in the absence of laws and law enforcement.  The murder rate back then was insanely high.  Which is the whole reason towns clamored for lawmen and law enforcement - in the absence of a "nanny state", you get a descent into violence pretty quickly. 

The idea of anarchy working is based on the underlying idea that everyone will follow the basic underlying rule of don't initiate violence.  But in actual fact, there's ALWAYS some asshole(s) that will have no problem at all using their "freedom" to threaten and commit violence with impunity.  This basic fact of human nature is the reason we need laws.  If everyone were moral and rational all the time, their anarchy fantasy might work.  But that's not reality and it will never, ever be reality.  The whole reason we need laws is not because everyone is a law breaker.  It's because we have a smaller set of consistently shitty people that have a disproportionately negative effect on everyone else because of how abusive and violent they are. 

The naivety of that whole "small government" group is just breathtaking.  Don't they read history?  Don't they have any understanding of human nature?  And if they do think anarchy or small government is so awesome, why don't they go to places like central africa or south america where there really is "small government" (because the government is so ineffective in those places)?

More likely, they would rather stay in the USA with it's much bigger nanny state in place and enjoy the benefits of strong law enforcement (ie, a low incidence of violence), and just go all complainypants about "big government".   The irony is that the safety they enjoy is provided by big government in the first place!  If we tear that down, we end up right back in the same place we were in the Old West or current day Africa.

First of all, thanks to Dabnasty for providing an explanation of this even if you did not agree with it. Tyort, I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the difference between this straw man you're setting up of anarchy and what people are actually arguing for. It's not difficult. There's laws that say you can't do something. Let's say it's breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their stuff. I don't hear anyone on here arguing against that. Then there's laws that say you can't have a crowbar because it could break into a house. You must be watched at all hours so you can be stopped if you begin to attempt to go into someone's house. Etc. etc. One is saying there will be punishments for doing something that as a society we agree is unethical. The other is saying, we as a society will do some level of prevention to keep you from having the opportunity to do something bad. It's hard to argue against the first one unless you feel that the act isn't actually unethical. It's hard to argue the second one doesn't take away actual freedoms beyond the agreed upon restrictions of not directly hurting someone else. It may be decided as necessary by society, but if you can't understand why people could have a problem with the second one and think it means they're just all up for some good old fashioned anarchy, I'm not sure where to go from there. Yes, we have read history, and we've seen freedoms taken away not of people to hurt each other but to have the potential of doing it, and I'm not too excited about that track record, myself.

I wanted to weigh in on the discussion on accidental gun deaths especially in light of the above perspective. I found it very interesting that the consensus among gun control advocates in the discussion especially with Chris was that everyone was shocked and were now convinced more than ever that all gun owners are terribly irresponsible or whatever. Let's break this down a little. What I got out of this is not that all gun owners are incredibly irresponsible and so on and so forth. It's that coming to a consensus on this stuff would be almost impossible because of the individualized nature of things. It's obvious some people would at least lean towards if you have kids in your house you should never have a gun or maybe have a gun locked up in one safe and your ammo locked up in a separate safe or whatever. Well, sure, you could, but there are numerous in between situations that this is simply not a requirement. Let's say you have a 10 month old child crawling and sort of maybe toddling around (we won't even go with non mobile because that would be too obvious) and you had a loaded shotgun on the top shelf of a closet without a round in the chamber. The risk to this child would be effectively zero. There's no chance he could climb (he can barely walk) to a shelf three times his height and get the shotgun, and rack a shell into the chamber to fire it, especially if it has a secondary button that has to be pushed in while simultaneously racking the first shell like some shotguns have. It's just not possible. Let's say if any other friends come over, they either lock it up then for that or maybe lock up their bedroom door where it's at (not an unreasonable thing to do as I can count on one hand the number of times any house guests have come into our master bedroom). All this is to say, if the concept of any gun that's not locked up in a safe at all times with any child no matter age or ability terrifies you, it's because the concept terrifies you more than the reality. I have trouble with legislation on concepts that scare people more than reality.

Let's continue this on to more reality. There were comparisons made about drunk driving where the comment was that restricting drinking and driving was similar to restricting how guns had to be stored because neither was inherently hurting anything but were unsafe conditions. I agree. So let's look at each one. We have fairly restrictive drinking and driving laws right now, I would say. With that, we still had 10k deaths (in 2015). I would expect with the amount of intensity on this that there would be a tremendous amount of accidental gun deaths. The numbers I found was 489 deaths in 2015, and that's everything. I'm sure that includes several ones where adults accidentally shot someone else. It's not all an 8 year old shooting his sibling. There have been tremendous amounts of accusations lobbed out that all gun owners are irresponsible. It's an epidemic. Gun owners can't be trusted; they don't know the first thing about responsibility. Well, given the number of guns out there, if that was the case, I can't imagine we'd be seeing this number of accidental gun deaths. Maybe all these caviler gun owners are just getting lucky and nothing's happening. Or, could it perhaps be that gun owners maybe are being more responsible than they are being given credit for and are assessing the actual danger not the conceptional danger. The litmus test for restricting the potential for something bad to happen should be a lot higher than restricting the actual wrong doing, and in this case, the numbers just don't add up to this atrocious condition that is being presented. Perhaps in this case, focusing on actually punishing the people who are involved when something bad happens as a deterrent would be more effective.

I know you weren’t addressing me here, but a crowbar? It takes... guts? Something? ... to accuse someone of arguing a straw man, and then immediately set one up yourself. Stopped reading at that point.

First of all, I wasn't accusing tyort of a straw man. He just was using a straw man plain and simple. Not just any sort of straw man but pretty much the definition of a straw man. People who are concerned about regulations on how guns are stored in houses (because that was the real conversation we were having at that point as I can tell) are either desiring the old "wild wild west" times where murder rates were insane or are wanting a situation where it would end up that way. Um.....no..... I'm not an expert on that time period, but I'm pretty sure it was more of the lack of law enforcement and a million other little things that have very little if any application in this discussion on securing guns properly.

On the other hand, I was simply making an analogy. I was not saying that people that want to add laws for gun storage want to ban crowbars or that it is a true like for like comparison. Feel free to disagree with the analogy, I guess, but it is an analogy of a very important distinction that people on here that support gun control seem to disregard often. There's a difference between making an act that directly takes away someone else's rights illegal and making the potential for that act illegal. Use whatever analogy you'd like. A computer is bad because it can be used to look up child pornography. Constant surveillance as mentioned could prevent enormous amounts of crime. And yes, restrictions on driving while intoxicated is also restricting things for potential harm not direct infringement on rights of others. One has to be looked at with more serious consideration as the other because it has a degree of separation, like it or not. We've decided as a society that it makes sense to restrict the freedom of people to drink and drive where they are not hurting someone because the potential is so high and there is no positive benefit or potential benefit to drinking and driving, and also because it's still killing thousands of people a year even after these "pre-restrictions" have been implemented. There's a difference in taking away people's freedom to do something and making it illegal for them to actually do it....which you would have known if you would have read past your great umbrage at your incorrect assertion of what you thought was a straw man. C'mon @Kris you're better than that.

Lol sure.

Well, let me say thanks. I've explained in multiple ways the fact (that I see as irrefutable) that there's a difference between a law that says don't do something that hurts someone else and a law that says don't exist in this condition because you could eventually hurt someone else. I've not said that the latter means there shouldn't be laws regulating it but just that we should look at those laws with more scrutiny and hesitation.

You've replied with two snarky responses with no substance. Maybe you have a way to refute my thoughts and say there is no difference. Maybe you think that the differences are insignificant because of some reason you have. I guess I'll never know because you'd rather smart off.

Let me rephrase my last statement. I thought you were better than this, Kris.

No. I think, frankly, that you are full of it for pretending that the crowbar thing was an analogy, instead of a silly straw man designed to create a ridiculous example so you could knock it down.

So, faced with that kind of “argument,” it just seems fairly ridiculous to actually argue with you.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 03, 2018, 08:37:16 PM
My wild west example was specifically directed at the underlying assumption by most conservatives (and ALL libertarians) that the government should never make any laws that don't derive from "don't initiate violence", and the implicit (sometimes explicit) embrace of anarchy as a desirable state.  Slightly off topic, but still relevant, I think.

The "electrical safety" standards example was more directly on point for this discussion.  But I see you either didn't read it or ignored it since you haven't addressed it.

I re-read the thread section you were discussing. I can see how you were probably linking it more towards cell phones and that conversation than securing guns. My apologies as I took it down that path. With that in mind, for what it's worth :-), I rescind my straw man comment.

I still disagree with you in regards to the nanny state for the same reasons as I've listed above. I don't think the implication that reducing laws against a condition of potential harm are really tied to the Old West. Yes people do crappy things and there should be laws against them. Yes people can be aided in doing crappy things and there should be some restrictions to help prevent things from getting crazy out of hand if/when they do happen. This should be viewed with caution, though, as this is the path all government abuses of power take. No slippery slope argument here saying some will inevitably lead to more. Just that many things in this category can be fairly argued against without a slippery slope on the other side saying we'll lead to anarchy or that we want no laws against the actual things where harm is done.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 03, 2018, 08:41:45 PM


No. I think, frankly, that you are full of it for pretending that the crowbar thing was an analogy, instead of a silly straw man designed to create a ridiculous example so you could knock it down.

So, faced with that kind of “argument,” it just seems fairly ridiculous to actually argue with you.

Fine, think what you will. Obviously you can read my mind. You also commented that you didn't read any further after a certain point, so I'm not expecting a whole lot. At the very least, I've made it clear what I meant later on even if you didn't like this one single thing I said about it earlier. You can see what I mean now but still choose to act like I'm a jerk or a moron or whatever. I'm trying to have a conversation but feel free to comment or not as you see fit, of course.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DHMO on May 03, 2018, 09:28:04 PM
I've noticed a bit of that in this thread.  Certain items are ignored, such as my repeated attempts when I tried to explain why we feels guns should be treated differently than, say pools, being that a guns main purpose to exist is to cause harm.

I'm assuming these things are being ignored because they can't come up with a reply that isn't just another form of "put you're wrong and I don't have to do anything to fix the problem so I won't".

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
I believe that not all harm is bad, and a tool designed around accomplishing that harm is also not always bad.
The simplest example of this is the genre of "race guns". They are used in competitions, are are designed around causing as much harm to critical areas of the paper as possible, as fast as possible while staying within the rules of the competition. Hitting the center consistently and quickly is the only way to win. As a competition, winning is the end objective. I do not think that winning a competition like this is a negative, and the harm caused in order to effect it is sad for the paper and the tree that contributed it but the harm is ultimately not negative.  By relation, I have no real reason to see a "race gun" as negative. It allows me to accomplish my goal of winning, and neither the means (punching paper) nor the end (I win) are negative.
More complex and divisive examples can be found with harm to a person, and guns that are explicitly designed to be effective as weapons against humans.
I believe that situations do exist where conflict cannot be resolved unilaterally without violence. If someone is intent on hurting me, I cannot change their mind. They are going to commit violence against me. I can either let the violence happen and be grievously injured, or I can resist it. If I choose to resist, it is prudent for me to seek the most effective means available. I cannot rely on hope that the person attacking me will have a change of heart or be easily dissuaded. I need to disable him and make it impossible for him to continue the attack. We don't currently have advanced freeze-rayguns, so my next best option is to create a physical disablement.
My apologies, because this is about to get quite morbid.
He can't keep attacking me if his muscles are useless. How do I, from the outside, make his muscles useless? I deprive them of the oxygen and fuel that they need in order to work. How do I do that? I deprive them of blood flow. How do I do that? I send him into (medical) shock, by shooting him in the chest. My goal is not to kill him, even though it looks that way. I just want to get out of the situation, and if there *must* be grievous violence then I prefer that I not be on the receiving end of it. (Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that shooting him is the only way out of every or even many situations. I'm addressing the rare situations where running away, apologizing, pleading, pepper spraying, tasering, avoiding in the first place, etc. don't work or aren't enough.)
I don’t wish harm on anybody, but in this scenario there must be harm. It is terrible that it came down to that, and that we will both be carrying scars for the rest of our lives. The fact that there is harm is a negative, but the fact that it fell on him instead of me is not. The harm to him is not inherently bad, within the context of the “him or me” scenario. A weapon, gun or otherwise, designed to produce that harm and disable him does not inherit any badness. It has allowed me to accomplish my goal of surviving the situation without suffering death or grievous bodily injury, and neither the means (sending him into shock) nor the end (disabling him) are unnecessarily negative.
If you are able to see my perspective on this so far, perhaps you can already see why I do not see a gun that is designed to produce harm as an inherent negative.

To address part of your previous comments in particular: you referenced “people who want to make a change in needless deaths”. I don’t know whether you were referencing purely accidental deaths, or death by firearms as a whole. If you were referencing death by firearms as a whole, I hope that you would not count the possible death of the aggressor in the “him or me” scenario as needless. There was very much a purpose to his injuries, and the other option would be grievous injury or death to me.

I don’t have a happy ending to this post, unfortunately. I would prefer to end it in a more upbeat manner. Perhaps there may be some consolation in knowing that only a third of shootings are actually fatal if you are promptly seen at a trauma center. https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun

I don’t claim to have an answer, and I doubt that I have persuaded you. I do hope, however, that I have given you something to think about and a way to understand a bit of why it is so hard to get together to sit down and figure out a solution. Your perspective and my perspective are very different, and we are approaching this from different bases of understanding. It will take time and lots of work in order to build a common understanding and reference.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 04, 2018, 08:32:09 AM
@Wolfpack Mustachian , I think you are missing the point.  I'm not implying, suggesting, nor do I believe gun owners are irresponsible.  I believe they just do not actually care to make a change, and therefore it is incredibly frustrating when we talk about a topic that ends in death to just have someone who owns the tool used to initiate death just shrug their shoulders and constantly say "eh, I don't see a problem". 

If we could get gun owners to sit down and figure out a solution rather than just start from the position of either their is a problem, or that we already have everything we need to make the problem go away we are just not using it.  The lack of understanding that it is the result that matters and not the intent.  I'm not arguing that better enforcement of the laws could help.  But that's not happening, so what are we going to actually DO differently as a society to drive that result?  That's the engagement that is not happening.  I'm not OK with "I'm not the DA so I can't make attorneys change."  If that is still the result, then waiting for the impossible to happen is not a very viable solution, which is what makes it not a solution.  It's just an excuse.

Stop making excuses and come to the table with things you will work alongside us to change and then you can stop getting the hostility of people who want to make a change in needless deaths. 

And to your example of alcohol, I'm all for figuring out better ways to drive that down as well.  I will assume your stats is accurate.  10K deaths is a lot, and much more than 489.  But 489 is a lot too, especially if you or someone you care about is one of those 489 next year.  I make the same statement in nearly every post on this thread.  For me the difference between a gun and everything else people bring up (cars is very common), is the root purpose of the item in question.  A car is not made to cause harm.  A gun is.  It may only "harm" the paper target it is fired at for an owner who never does anything else than take it to the range every weekend, but its main purpose is still harm.  You cannot argue a gun will help me get to work, or take my kids to school or transport me anywhere.  Sure I can use it to feed me by hunting (but I need other tools to actually eat.  I can't just shoot something and dive into the carcass and chow down).  You could argue that I can use it to make money by being an entertainer that uses it for trick shooting or something that people pay me to come and watch, but that trick shooting still involves me using the  gun for its primary purpose of causing harm to the things I am shooting it.  I have yet to see a gun that launches a kitten who then licks the beer can it was shot at instead of blowing a hole in it or knocking it off its perch.  Because of this sole reason, I think comparing a gun to anything else will never resonate as a real argument.  Unless you compare it to something else who's main purpose is to cause harm.  But that won't work either because then gun owners would be forced to realize you cannot argue it successfully that way.

Caracarn, I do understand and agree with part of your argument that guns are unique in their purpose. Where we differ is the nuances of the purpose of a gun. I think the breakdown is this. You comment (essentially as I am reading it) is that a gun requires extra justification because it is made to cause harm to what it's shooting at. In a vacuum, I would agree with that. However, we don't live in a vacuum. To get me to agree with the declaration that a gun is totally unnecessary, we would have to live in a world where there is almost no crime whatsoever. No risk to life or limb. No beatings of people. No rapes. No anything like this. Then, yes, the gun would be out there with the potential to harm someone with no reason to ever harm anyone because no harm is necessary - no defense would be necessary. Until that happens, to simplify the gun's purpose as to say it's there to cause harm is to, as I see it, at least in part act as if causing harm was never morally justified in a situation. This is because the emotionally charged language of it being "just to cause harm" has an innate implication that causing harm is always bad. That seems to be a fundamental divide between gun control and gun rights people. Gun control people tend to see guns as rarely if ever being used for good. Gun rights people tend to see it as a tool for good. This good can be, yes, hunting, and also for defending of oneself whether it be by actually shooting or just by the presence thereof. This is a hard divide to cross, from what I've seen.
@Wolfpack Mustachian thanks for the great reply.

I am still not being understood as clarified by your response.  I do not feel that my statements create any scenario where guns are unnecessary.  I am not advocating that all.  That's a terrible argument and you are right to refute.  If I tried to make an argument for anything to not exist, it would be a very, very specific place that that was compelling.  So to be clear, my point has nothing to do with guns being unnecessary.

What I am trying to articulate is that because of the purpose of a gun, which you did agree with, they need to be considered differently for safety, regulation and/or control.  Again, let's not get caught up in the specific words and argue about the need to control etc.  Can we just settle on the fact that they are unique in purpose, which you agreed with.  Therefore, I am suggesting that mean they should be unique in solution as well.  Which means, that comparing them to pools or drunk driving is not effective.  It just then draws us into the circular argument of gun control versus gun rights.  The good you cite, I also admit is a good for someone choosing to own a firearm (which I'm not against people doing to be clear), but it also is totally in line with the purpose of the gun of causing harm to the prey or to the predator/alleged criminal (I still struggle with due process being removed in questionable situations where a shooter kills someone because they felt threatened but nothing was really going on that was that bad, however, I'm comfortable with the processes we have in place to hold them accountable for overstepping and to be appropriately held responsible if that happens).  So I am not in the position as a gun control person who views guns as rarely being used for good.  I do think however that running to both those extremes is why no real conversation over happens and why gun rights people, IMO, feel that "give an inch" will cause total removal, because there is this false assumption that those of us who want better results than we are getting want that.  I don't.  I just want guns treated uniquely, as we've both agreed they are, and not just like any other tangible product we own.  They are very powerful and need to be respected and I just get frustrated that no meaningful conversation of how we change the results seems to ever occur.  It just quickly goes to retreating into our corners, I think because of frustration, and then it becomes ingrained that is the belief.  I also understand that gun rights people are not all of the camp that we just need to enforce the laws we have so go away, but we get there too fast.  I have seen several people even here say they could see some changes being valuable, like age limits, etc.  That's at least an attempt to solve the problem.  So hopefully me clarifying what I meant, and that is was again, not as extreme as what you thought I meant, helps a more meaningful conversation. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on May 04, 2018, 08:50:16 AM

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 04, 2018, 08:56:00 AM
I've noticed a bit of that in this thread.  Certain items are ignored, such as my repeated attempts when I tried to explain why we feels guns should be treated differently than, say pools, being that a guns main purpose to exist is to cause harm.

I'm assuming these things are being ignored because they can't come up with a reply that isn't just another form of "put you're wrong and I don't have to do anything to fix the problem so I won't".

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
I believe that not all harm is bad, and a tool designed around accomplishing that harm is also not always bad.
The simplest example of this is the genre of "race guns". They are used in competitions, are are designed around causing as much harm to critical areas of the paper as possible, as fast as possible while staying within the rules of the competition. Hitting the center consistently and quickly is the only way to win. As a competition, winning is the end objective. I do not think that winning a competition like this is a negative, and the harm caused in order to effect it is sad for the paper and the tree that contributed it but the harm is ultimately not negative.  By relation, I have no real reason to see a "race gun" as negative. It allows me to accomplish my goal of winning, and neither the means (punching paper) nor the end (I win) are negative.
More complex and divisive examples can be found with harm to a person, and guns that are explicitly designed to be effective as weapons against humans.
I believe that situations do exist where conflict cannot be resolved unilaterally without violence. If someone is intent on hurting me, I cannot change their mind. They are going to commit violence against me. I can either let the violence happen and be grievously injured, or I can resist it. If I choose to resist, it is prudent for me to seek the most effective means available. I cannot rely on hope that the person attacking me will have a change of heart or be easily dissuaded. I need to disable him and make it impossible for him to continue the attack. We don't currently have advanced freeze-rayguns, so my next best option is to create a physical disablement.
My apologies, because this is about to get quite morbid.
He can't keep attacking me if his muscles are useless. How do I, from the outside, make his muscles useless? I deprive them of the oxygen and fuel that they need in order to work. How do I do that? I deprive them of blood flow. How do I do that? I send him into (medical) shock, by shooting him in the chest. My goal is not to kill him, even though it looks that way. I just want to get out of the situation, and if there *must* be grievous violence then I prefer that I not be on the receiving end of it. (Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that shooting him is the only way out of every or even many situations. I'm addressing the rare situations where running away, apologizing, pleading, pepper spraying, tasering, avoiding in the first place, etc. don't work or aren't enough.)
I don’t wish harm on anybody, but in this scenario there must be harm. It is terrible that it came down to that, and that we will both be carrying scars for the rest of our lives. The fact that there is harm is a negative, but the fact that it fell on him instead of me is not. The harm to him is not inherently bad, within the context of the “him or me” scenario. A weapon, gun or otherwise, designed to produce that harm and disable him does not inherit any badness. It has allowed me to accomplish my goal of surviving the situation without suffering death or grievous bodily injury, and neither the means (sending him into shock) nor the end (disabling him) are unnecessarily negative.
If you are able to see my perspective on this so far, perhaps you can already see why I do not see a gun that is designed to produce harm as an inherent negative.

To address part of your previous comments in particular: you referenced “people who want to make a change in needless deaths”. I don’t know whether you were referencing purely accidental deaths, or death by firearms as a whole. If you were referencing death by firearms as a whole, I hope that you would not count the possible death of the aggressor in the “him or me” scenario as needless. There was very much a purpose to his injuries, and the other option would be grievous injury or death to me.

I don’t have a happy ending to this post, unfortunately. I would prefer to end it in a more upbeat manner. Perhaps there may be some consolation in knowing that only a third of shootings are actually fatal if you are promptly seen at a trauma center. https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2014/january/survival-rates-similar-for-gun

I don’t claim to have an answer, and I doubt that I have persuaded you. I do hope, however, that I have given you something to think about and a way to understand a bit of why it is so hard to get together to sit down and figure out a solution. Your perspective and my perspective are very different, and we are approaching this from different bases of understanding. It will take time and lots of work in order to build a common understanding and reference.
@DHMO excellent response, and thanks for the time.

I'll refer you to the response I just gave to @Wolfpack Mustachian as to where my viewpoint is not as extreme as you felt it was.  I agree with everything you said, and in that response I clarify the fallacy you attached to here to come back at me.  I do not believe a gun is inherently negative, I just believe that they are unique and should be treated that way in working to solutions.  We waste a ton of time comparing guns to pools, crowbars and drunk driving. 

And yes, I agree with you that death of someone you have no choice but to shoot is not needless.  But related to that, the death I do see as needless is the one where a criminal needs a weapon and finds yours and uses it to kill someone because we could have done something to percent that.  So that's why I would like to explore ways to minimize that possibility, and things like bio-metric triggers seem promising.  I get that they are not reliable enough.  I also believe that if the military will not adopt some technology then gun rights people have a pretty strong argument about why it is not ready for prime time.  This technology is one of them.  So I do see the complexity.  But giving up and just saying it is as good as it will get seems like a poor choice.  If gun owners demanded something to work all the time and keep an unauthorized person from using a weapon or they would not buy any, I am quite sure that technology would be perfected in a very short time.  Unless gun rights people support that it will not happen, because no gun manufacturer will spend money on R&D for something their customers will not buy.  I'm not likely to buy a gun even if it has this, so I myself cannot incentivize anyone to do this.  I need cooperation.  If there is a better way to achieve this result (only and authorized user can discharge a certain weapon) then I'm all ears. That's an example of all I'm asking for.  Again the previous reply gets into some nuance that I think is the same for your response. 

You've not had to persuade me.  Everything you said was something I agree with.  I get a BB can cause harm if I hit my brother in the eye, but if I hit him in the buttocks it just makes both of us laugh (after he recovers from the initial sting).  I'm not suggesting anything be done in those cases, accidents can happen with anything, and while it would be terrible that my brother lost his eye, there are many other ways he could have also had his eye poked out, so overreacting makes no sense.  No one will take that "gun" (read toy) and kill 50 people in Las Vegas.  I assume a "race gun" would be similarly ineffective in heavy loss of life, but I do not know enough about them.  If they were just as capable at inflicting damage as the current weapons to hate du jour (AR-15 etc.) then they should be handled similarly, but if like a BB gun they are built for a lower level of "harm" (you said they are designed to harm paper and not much else) then leave them alone until we hear race guns causing similar harm that anyone agrees is not something we want.  I do very much appreciate your example still being variations of guns because it helps to have a real conversation.  Thank you.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 04, 2018, 09:03:41 AM

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights.
@ministashy I respectfully ask if you read the entire response before replying? Because you will see, by my response to him, that I think he did not say what you think he said.  The response was very well put together and not all all indicating that he was not willing to work to a solution.  He explains why harm to paper is not viewed by harm, in a way that was totally reasonable, IMO.  He also even explains the typical harm we talk about with guns in a very reasonable way as well. 

Both sides are guilty of just running to their corner rather than doing the hard work to converse on this difficult topic.  It does not help if we just shoot off that same corner argument (that your opinion is solidified).  I asked why no one was interested in having the hard conversation.  DHMO engaged.  Please let's not chase him back to his corner (there the gun control folks go again, jumping to I don't care).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on May 04, 2018, 09:32:05 AM

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights.
@ministashy I respectfully ask if you read the entire response before replying? Because you will see, by my response to him, that I think he did not say what you think he said.  The response was very well put together and not all all indicating that he was not willing to work to a solution.  He explains why harm to paper is not viewed by harm, in a way that was totally reasonable, IMO.  He also even explains the typical harm we talk about with guns in a very reasonable way as well. 

Both sides are guilty of just running to their corner rather than doing the hard work to converse on this difficult topic.  It does not help if we just shoot off that same corner argument (that your opinion is solidified).  I asked why no one was interested in having the hard conversation.  DHMO engaged.  Please let's not chase him back to his corner (there the gun control folks go again, jumping to I don't care).

Respectfully, the reason gun control folks jump to 'I don't care', is because every time we engage in the hard conversations, they go like this:

Gun control advocate (GCA):  I don't want to ban all guns, but I think people need to have mandatory safety training and background checks before they can buy one.
Gun right advocate (GRA):  No.  Can't happen because XYZ reasons.
GCA:  Ok, I can see you might be concerned about XYZ, but we can put rules in place to prevent that.
GRA:  No.  Government is evil.  Plus it's my right to have all the guns I want, when I want.  Also, XYZ+ reasons.
GCA:  *getting annoyed*  Look, people are dying EVERY DAY.  Innocent people, not 'bad guys'.  This a problem.  We need to find a solution.  If we can't do Common Sense Solution A, and Common Sense Solution B, both of which work EVERYWHERE ELSE, what do you propose we do?
GRA:  Go buy your own gun so that you can shoot the bad guy before he shoots you.
GCA:  Riiiiight.  And if he gets the drop on me?  Or (insert any number of other scenarios where Bad Things happen that don't result in bad guy being dead)?  Plus, yanno, people are still dying. 
GRA:  *shrug*  Not my problem.  (Alternatively:  insert libertarian/Ayn Randian/neo-conservative rant about how you should be responsible for your own life at all times, and nanny state, and blah blah blah.)
GCA:  You know what?  Fuck it, I'm tired of this.  Ban all the guns.   

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes.  Is it a pretty accurate description of how this 'conversation' goes in the U.S., over and over and over again?  Also yes.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 04, 2018, 09:50:41 AM

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights.
@ministashy I respectfully ask if you read the entire response before replying? Because you will see, by my response to him, that I think he did not say what you think he said.  The response was very well put together and not all all indicating that he was not willing to work to a solution.  He explains why harm to paper is not viewed by harm, in a way that was totally reasonable, IMO.  He also even explains the typical harm we talk about with guns in a very reasonable way as well. 

Both sides are guilty of just running to their corner rather than doing the hard work to converse on this difficult topic.  It does not help if we just shoot off that same corner argument (that your opinion is solidified).  I asked why no one was interested in having the hard conversation.  DHMO engaged.  Please let's not chase him back to his corner (there the gun control folks go again, jumping to I don't care).

Respectfully, the reason gun control folks jump to 'I don't care', is because every time we engage in the hard conversations, they go like this:

Gun control advocate (GCA):  I don't want to ban all guns, but I think people need to have mandatory safety training and background checks before they can buy one.
Gun right advocate (GRA):  No.  Can't happen because XYZ reasons.
GCA:  Ok, I can see you might be concerned about XYZ, but we can put rules in place to prevent that.
GRA:  No.  Government is evil.  Plus it's my right to have all the guns I want, when I want.  Also, XYZ+ reasons.
GCA:  *getting annoyed*  Look, people are dying EVERY DAY.  Innocent people, not 'bad guys'.  This a problem.  We need to find a solution.  If we can't do Common Sense Solution A, and Common Sense Solution B, both of which work EVERYWHERE ELSE, what do you propose we do?
GRA:  Go buy your own gun so that you can shoot the bad guy before he shoots you.
GCA:  Riiiiight.  And if he gets the drop on me?  Or (insert any number of other scenarios where Bad Things happen that don't result in bad guy being dead)?  Plus, yanno, people are still dying. 
GRA:  *shrug*  Not my problem.  (Alternatively:  insert libertarian/Ayn Randian/neo-conservative rant about how you should be responsible for your own life at all times, and nanny state, and blah blah blah.)
GCA:  You know what?  Fuck it, I'm tired of this.  Ban all the guns.   

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes.  Is it a pretty accurate description of how this 'conversation' goes in the U.S., over and over and over again?  Also yes.

Haha, I have to laugh because this is exactly how I feel. 

I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on May 04, 2018, 10:03:16 AM
I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!

Do you not understand that gun rights people keep their guns locked IN THEIR HOUSE, and that if a criminal breaks into their house to steal a gun it's highly unlikely a safe is going to do anything to prevent theft?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 04, 2018, 10:34:05 AM
I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!

Do you not understand that gun rights people keep their guns locked IN THEIR HOUSE, and that if a criminal breaks into their house to steal a gun it's highly unlikely a safe is going to do anything to prevent theft?

Upon what facts do you base this argument?


I mean, there's an awful lot of research that indicates safe storage laws increase safety of children (https://safetennesseeproject.org/academic-studies-on-the-efficacy-of-child-access-prevention-and-safe-storage-laws/ (https://safetennesseeproject.org/academic-studies-on-the-efficacy-of-child-access-prevention-and-safe-storage-laws/)), but I'm guessing you're well over caring about/discussing that issue.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 04, 2018, 10:40:24 AM
I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!

Do you not understand that gun rights people keep their guns locked IN THEIR HOUSE, and that if a criminal breaks into their house to steal a gun it's highly unlikely a safe is going to do anything to prevent theft?

Upon what facts do you base this argument?


I mean, there's an awful lot of research that indicates safe storage laws increase safety of children (https://safetennesseeproject.org/academic-studies-on-the-efficacy-of-child-access-prevention-and-safe-storage-laws/ (https://safetennesseeproject.org/academic-studies-on-the-efficacy-of-child-access-prevention-and-safe-storage-laws/)), but I'm guessing you're well over caring about/discussing that issue.

He is saying that people with guns keep their houses locked at all times. (lol) And that means the guns are locked up, even if they are in your nightstand or in a cupboard. And thankfully, since anyone who is actually in their houses would never do/never get into the guns and have any sorts of accidents or anything with them, there’s no chance of any sort of gun injury or death occurring in their home.

So, it's safe. Totally safe.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 04, 2018, 11:02:59 AM
I mean, we can't even agree that guns should be locked up when they are not directly in use or on your person?  Really?  You'd think that the Guns Rights people would be ALL OVER laws to lock up guns when not in use, because they always bitch so much about criminals getting their hands on guns!

Do you not understand that gun rights people keep their guns locked IN THEIR HOUSE, and that if a criminal breaks into their house to steal a gun it's highly unlikely a safe is going to do anything to prevent theft?

The moment someone breaks into your house, they are under time pressure to get your valuables and get out ASAP.  Anything laying around (not locked up) is going to get taken for sure.  Anything locked up in the house is much less likely to get taken.  You do want to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, don't you?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Rightflyer on May 04, 2018, 01:03:38 PM


Respectfully, the reason gun control folks jump to 'I don't care', is because every time we engage in the hard conversations, they go like this:

Gun control advocate (GCA):  I don't want to ban all guns, but I think people need to have mandatory safety training and background checks before they can buy one.
Gun right advocate (GRA):  No.  Can't happen because XYZ reasons.
GCA:  Ok, I can see you might be concerned about XYZ, but we can put rules in place to prevent that.
GRA:  No.  Government is evil.  Plus it's my right to have all the guns I want, when I want.  Also, XYZ+ reasons.
GCA:  *getting annoyed*  Look, people are dying EVERY DAY.  Innocent people, not 'bad guys'.  This a problem.  We need to find a solution.  If we can't do Common Sense Solution A, and Common Sense Solution B, both of which work EVERYWHERE ELSE, what do you propose we do?
GRA:  Go buy your own gun so that you can shoot the bad guy before he shoots you.
GCA:  Riiiiight.  And if he gets the drop on me?  Or (insert any number of other scenarios where Bad Things happen that don't result in bad guy being dead)?  Plus, yanno, people are still dying. 
GRA:  *shrug*  Not my problem.  (Alternatively:  insert libertarian/Ayn Randian/neo-conservative rant about how you should be responsible for your own life at all times, and nanny state, and blah blah blah.)
GCA:  You know what?  Fuck it, I'm tired of this.  Ban all the guns.   

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes.  Is it a pretty accurate description of how this 'conversation' goes in the U.S., over and over and over again?  Also yes.

Bang on. Well done.
LOLing.
A lot.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 04, 2018, 02:41:57 PM

Ok, I'll bite. Disclaimer up front: I don't have anything to "fix the problem" because I don't inherently see it as a problem. At least, not in the same way that you might.

Guns are built to fire a projectile, at supersonic speed. The collision with the target usually results in some form of destruction. You've chosen to classify this as "harm", even if to a piece of paper. I disagree with that classification (it would mean that carnival games like punching out shapes with BB guns is also harmful), but I will adopt your terminology here.
 ....

And it's responses like this from gun advocates (along with ones from 'responsible gun owners' who are okay with keeping loaded shotguns out in the home where kids can get at them) that solidify my opinion that they have absolutely no interest in solving this issue, because they 'don't see it as a problem'.  And by refusing to compromise on on even the tiniest sliver of regulation or responsibility for gun ownership, they are only pushing the other side--the side who is tired of watching their kids die, tired of being scared of being shot at work, or at the mall, or at a movie theater, by some random person with a grudge--into the 'ban all guns' camp.   For these kinds of gun owners, those are acceptable losses, and we should all just be willing to die (literally) on the altar of 2nd Amendment gun rights.
@ministashy I respectfully ask if you read the entire response before replying? Because you will see, by my response to him, that I think he did not say what you think he said.  The response was very well put together and not all all indicating that he was not willing to work to a solution.  He explains why harm to paper is not viewed by harm, in a way that was totally reasonable, IMO.  He also even explains the typical harm we talk about with guns in a very reasonable way as well. 

Both sides are guilty of just running to their corner rather than doing the hard work to converse on this difficult topic.  It does not help if we just shoot off that same corner argument (that your opinion is solidified).  I asked why no one was interested in having the hard conversation.  DHMO engaged.  Please let's not chase him back to his corner (there the gun control folks go again, jumping to I don't care).

Respectfully, the reason gun control folks jump to 'I don't care', is because every time we engage in the hard conversations, they go like this:

Gun control advocate (GCA):  I don't want to ban all guns, but I think people need to have mandatory safety training and background checks before they can buy one.
Gun right advocate (GRA):  No.  Can't happen because XYZ reasons.
GCA:  Ok, I can see you might be concerned about XYZ, but we can put rules in place to prevent that.
GRA:  No.  Government is evil.  Plus it's my right to have all the guns I want, when I want.  Also, XYZ+ reasons.
GCA:  *getting annoyed*  Look, people are dying EVERY DAY.  Innocent people, not 'bad guys'.  This a problem.  We need to find a solution.  If we can't do Common Sense Solution A, and Common Sense Solution B, both of which work EVERYWHERE ELSE, what do you propose we do?
GRA:  Go buy your own gun so that you can shoot the bad guy before he shoots you.
GCA:  Riiiiight.  And if he gets the drop on me?  Or (insert any number of other scenarios where Bad Things happen that don't result in bad guy being dead)?  Plus, yanno, people are still dying. 
GRA:  *shrug*  Not my problem.  (Alternatively:  insert libertarian/Ayn Randian/neo-conservative rant about how you should be responsible for your own life at all times, and nanny state, and blah blah blah.)
GCA:  You know what?  Fuck it, I'm tired of this.  Ban all the guns.   

Is this an oversimplification?  Yes.  Is it a pretty accurate description of how this 'conversation' goes in the U.S., over and over and over again?  Also yes.
Yes, this is common.  This is running to the corners, which I suggested does not help.  So you are basically agreeing with me that the conversations are not happening.  I'm telling that the response you ran to your corner on was actually a good one if you dug into it and not what you show above, it is not the 'conversation' over and over again.  So once again, I suggest you read his whole response instead of stopping at the sentences you responded to and assuming you knew what the rest said.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DHMO on May 04, 2018, 04:10:28 PM

@DHMO excellent response, and thanks for the time.

I'll refer you to the response I just gave to @Wolfpack Mustachian as to where my viewpoint is not as extreme as you felt it was.  I agree with everything you said, and in that response I clarify the fallacy you attached to here to come back at me.  I do not believe a gun is inherently negative, I just believe that they are unique and should be treated that way in working to solutions.  We waste a ton of time comparing guns to pools, crowbars and drunk driving. 

And yes, I agree with you that death of someone you have no choice but to shoot is not needless.  But related to that, the death I do see as needless is the one where a criminal needs a weapon and finds yours and uses it to kill someone because we could have done something to percent that.  So that's why I would like to explore ways to minimize that possibility, and things like bio-metric triggers seem promising.  I get that they are not reliable enough.  I also believe that if the military will not adopt some technology then gun rights people have a pretty strong argument about why it is not ready for prime time.  This technology is one of them.  So I do see the complexity.  But giving up and just saying it is as good as it will get seems like a poor choice.  If gun owners demanded something to work all the time and keep an unauthorized person from using a weapon or they would not buy any, I am quite sure that technology would be perfected in a very short time.  Unless gun rights people support that it will not happen, because no gun manufacturer will spend money on R&D for something their customers will not buy.  I'm not likely to buy a gun even if it has this, so I myself cannot incentivize anyone to do this.  I need cooperation.  If there is a better way to achieve this result (only and authorized user can discharge a certain weapon) then I'm all ears. That's an example of all I'm asking for.  Again the previous reply gets into some nuance that I think is the same for your response. 

You've not had to persuade me.  Everything you said was something I agree with.  I get a BB can cause harm if I hit my brother in the eye, but if I hit him in the buttocks it just makes both of us laugh (after he recovers from the initial sting).  I'm not suggesting anything be done in those cases, accidents can happen with anything, and while it would be terrible that my brother lost his eye, there are many other ways he could have also had his eye poked out, so overreacting makes no sense.  No one will take that "gun" (read toy) and kill 50 people in Las Vegas.  I assume a "race gun" would be similarly ineffective in heavy loss of life, but I do not know enough about them.  If they were just as capable at inflicting damage as the current weapons to hate du jour (AR-15 etc.) then they should be handled similarly, but if like a BB gun they are built for a lower level of "harm" (you said they are designed to harm paper and not much else) then leave them alone until we hear race guns causing similar harm that anyone agrees is not something we want.  I do very much appreciate your example still being variations of guns because it helps to have a real conversation.  Thank you.

If you are willing to be patient with me, I think that this will be very interesting to discuss with you. I am of many different minds on this subject, possibly due to the polarization that you mentioned. It is quite likely that I will contradict myself across this discussion or even within individual messages, as my thoughts on “the appropriate conclusion” and “what needs to happen in order to reach that conclusion” do not always align and are not well formed yet. This additionally complicated by my sense that I need to “stand firm” with a more extreme position in order to even approach the table, as stating my actual position and being unwilling to give anything up is frequently seen as “not participating in the discussion”. This has happened enough that I now habitually take a more extreme position, and have to actively fight that impulse.
You may still see me make comparisons to pools, crowbars, and drunk driving. I tend to invoke those as a comparison in order to illustrate a point. If you feel that I’ve taken the comparison beyond just illustrating a point, please politely call me out on it. I will try to clarify.

I both agree and disagree that guns are unique. They are unique in that they fill a very particular niche and role, but they are not unique in a way that makes them “special”. The training required to start using a gun is not much different from the training required to start using a chainsaw, and can be accomplished quickly. There seems (in general, not necessarily from you) to be a push for mandatory training because “guns are special” somehow, and that someone who hasn’t gone through a multi-hour training course cannot be trusted. I disagree. I support training for anyone who wants it, but I do not think that it is a prerequisite for possession or use. Guns do have unique properties, fill uniques niches, and have an (unfortunately) unique cultural status, but I disagree with a train of thought that goes “Oh, wait, we’re talking about guns? Well, that’s different. They’re a special case.” The solutions that we find may be particular to guns, but they don’t inherently have to be. A gun safe and a document safe are fundamentally the same, the gun safe is just a bit bigger and has different dividers on the inside. The refinements for one are easily applicable to the other, and there may be similar applicability when it comes to finding solutions to problems with guns.
I agree that generally a death due to criminal use of a firearm is a needless death. Can I assume that you are not a hardliner or ideologue on this? I frequently encounter rhetoric like “even one death is too many!”, and taking that line would mean that anything short of an absolute guarantee is insufficient. I’m prepared to keep my weapons in security containers, if the majority of other people will accept the fact that my doing so will not keep my guns away from somebody who has the intent and the tools to break my security. We can reduce the quantity of gun thefts, but the thefts will never stop entirely.
It sounds like you are already familiar with most of the arguments for and against our current generation of biometrically-locked weapons, so I don’t need to rehash them here. I think that the general public won’t trust them until there is a track record of incredibly high reliability, and I think that military and police adoption would further that trust and help to create that record. It is useful for the military as a way to deny use to adversary if the weapons are captured, and it is useful to the police as a way to prevent situations where an officer loses control of the weapon and is subsequently shot with it. Many departments have mandated “retention holsters” as a stopgap measure, which require the officer to release a latch of some kind before the weapon can be withdrawn. The quick extra step involved makes it harder for a suspect to just grab wildly and end up with the officer’s gun. This is mostly trivia, but I’m hoping that it illustrates that there is a market for guns that can be “keyed” to a specific user or group of users.
Addressing the idea that some guns are less capable of inflicting damage and heavy loss of life than others, I would argue that the distinction doesn’t really matter from a legislative perspective. While the distinction is useful in many other contexts, attempting to separate them in any definitive way on paper is quite difficult. The features that make a race gun effective at putting shots on target quickly are the same features that make a defensive or offensive gun effective at putting shots on target quickly. Attempting to separate them by stated purpose or design is complicated by the fact that most guns are capable of filling multiple uses, and the idea that gun use against humans (as covered in my prior message) can be legitimate. If an AR-15 is the most effective means available, then the AR-15 is what I will opt to use. The fact that it is so effective is the exact reason that it is desired. If something even more effective comes along, then that will be desired instead.
To pull out one particular thing that you said which alarmed me somewhat: “then leave them alone until we hear race guns causing similar harm that anyone agrees is not something we want.” I may just be overly sensitive to this, but it sounds like “if people are killed by race guns and we don’t want that killing to continue in the future, then the neck is back on the chopping block. If we want to do something about it, we’ll take action.” Typed out, there is nothing wrong with trying to address a problem, but I’m afraid of an unwritten subtext that the problem is that an innocent person or people have died in a shooting and that the only acceptable resolution is to ensure that it cannot happen again. That particular road only leads to extremism again, and I would like to take care to avoid it. You didn’t say that, but part of having an open dialogue is communicating with each other about points of friction.
I think that progress can be made on reducing needless death by shooting and I believe that it can be done without reducing rights much further (if at all), but it will not be made quickly and will unfortunately not prevent heinous acts like the Las Vegas shooting.
I think that most of the changes are cultural, and that takes time. Guns hold an almost religious status right now, and they’re really just niche tools. It should be unremarkable that “My Dad has a gun!”. Securing your firearms should be the default best practice, and the definition of “securing” should not be onerous. (I personally think that if it successfully resists my nosy in-laws, it is secure enough.) The juvenile assertion that “I have a gun, so I win the argument” should be recognized as juvenile. Guns are not “cool”, and the sight of a holstered gun in a grocery store should not imply that something is about to go down. Hollywood should stop relying on guns as a signal of a high-tension situation, and branch out into other ways of showing that. I’m saying all of these as if they are prescriptive and are “things we need to do”, but I’m not actually arguing for them. I think that these are examples of things that can change and would have an impact, but would not change quickly.
What are your thoughts, @caracarn?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 04, 2018, 08:10:57 PM
Really good point about Hollywood and guns. I’m increasingly bothered by this. I know my kids are absorbing the message that guns can solve anything and make you “tough”just by watching (and playing, as video games also rely on this trope too much) no matter how much we try to teach them differently.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Pigeon on May 05, 2018, 11:22:14 AM
My very young cousin had his head blown off on one fine Christmas day.  Their neighbor had a 12 year old son,  who got hold of his father's unsecured shotgun or rifle and he took it out of his father's room to impress some other kids. It was an accident.

When the father learned that his son killed a child, he kept repating that this was impossible because his son was very responsible and had taken NRA training. That didn't keep Tommy from being very dead.

My Aunt, Uncle and cousins' lives  were forever marred by this tragedy, as was the life of the kid who killed my cousin. Such a disgusting and preventable waste.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Malloy on May 05, 2018, 10:34:33 PM
My very young cousin had his head blown off on one fine Christmas day.  Their neighbor had a 12 year old son,  who got hold of his father's unsecured shotgun or rifle and he took it out of his father's room to impress some other kids. It was an accident.

When the father learned that his son killed a child, he kept repating that this was impossible because his son was very responsible and had taken NRA training. That didn't keep Tommy from being very dead.

My Aunt, Uncle and cousins' lives  were forever marred by this tragedy, as was the life of the kid who killed my cousin. Such a disgusting and preventable waste.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I truly don't understand how anyone can read this and not secure their weapons.  How are we arguing about this?  What gain do people get from an unsecured loaded weapon relative to one that is secured that is worth such a potential tragedy? Why can't people just unload their damn guns and store the ammunition separately if they don't want to lock them up?  Is it so hard?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 06, 2018, 06:38:45 AM
My very young cousin had his head blown off on one fine Christmas day.  Their neighbor had a 12 year old son,  who got hold of his father's unsecured shotgun or rifle and he took it out of his father's room to impress some other kids. It was an accident.

When the father learned that his son killed a child, he kept repating that this was impossible because his son was very responsible and had taken NRA training. That didn't keep Tommy from being very dead.

My Aunt, Uncle and cousins' lives  were forever marred by this tragedy, as was the life of the kid who killed my cousin. Such a disgusting and preventable waste.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I truly don't understand how anyone can read this and not secure their weapons.  How are we arguing about this?  What gain do people get from an unsecured loaded weapon relative to one that is secured that is worth such a potential tragedy? Why can't people just unload their damn guns and store the ammunition separately if they don't want to lock them up?  Is it so hard?

It’s hard when your whole reason for having them is based on a fantasy in the first place.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 07, 2018, 09:03:24 AM

....Text not shown for brevity....

OK, so part of the problem in discussing this is that I tried (maybe poorly) to phrase my response to your talking points.  Race guns was one of those where you were, I believe, trying to explain how race guns are different and the "harm" they cause you felt was justifiable for the sport they were used in.  I agreed.  But here you then tell me a race gun can fire other ammo and use those same high speed, grouping capabilities with more lethal effect, so that changes the discussion.  If we keep doing that we'll end up in the inevitable whirlpool getting nowhere.  I will finish this line of thought though to present you my thoughts.  I am not necessarily saying ban any type of weapon (I'd only go to a ban if no other solution could be found) or that we need to do anything other than punish someone who uses a tool (race gun) for a purpose it was not intended (instead loads it with armor piercing rounds and takes out a concert venue).  I agree, that those rare cases where a perpetrator is intent on finding a way to use a tool (gun, stapler, toothpick, etc.)  inappropriately for harm are too many and varied to address with laws and regulations.  I agree with people about not prohibiting the possession of a tool just because it can be used maliciously.  So hopefully that helps.

I also feel you muddied the water of unique regarding guns.  Again, using your current examples, the difference in the gun safe versus the document safe is not the safe, it is the contents.  Someone stealing my paper can likely not do a whole lot of damage to anyone but me and my family with that, and likely not instantly kill me with whatever embarrassment, loss of money or lawsuit that results.  Someone stealing my gun has immediate access to life threatening harm.  This is all I mean with unique and why I will continue to fine tune my explanation of this definition because I think it is the lynch pin on which any meaningful conversation hinges.  Because of the nature and seriousness (uniqueness) of a gun, there should be processes that only apply to them and not to other things.  I get that you may still refer to pools, crowbars, drunk driving (and now it seems sheets of paper) for examples, but it is crucial to understand that they are distinctly different in many crucial ways from guns and therefore trying to create equivalence (the only difference in the safe is the dividers and the size) just creates confusion.  On one hand you are right.  The only difference in those two SAFES (which are still both safes by the way, and therefore inherently not different in their purpose, to secure something) is size and dividers.  On the other hand, extending that lack to difference to the contents when the contents are very different is what then makes the description blurred and confusing.  I would like to see anyone show how my last will and testament or my social security card is in any significant way like a gun.  I'd like you to note that where you "disagree" on guns not being unique had nothing to do with a gun, but required you to bring other items into the mix (training, safes, etc.).  I'd humbly suggest that if we can just focus on the very specific point that a gun, all by itself and without things attached to it, does have a unique purpose (as do a lot of other things in this world) then we might range further down the rabbit hole.

I am open to the fact that perhaps solutions do not need to be unique.  Certainly if a safety feature was created on a safe that when it was breached without the proper opening combination that when a hand cut a laser sensor inside a guillotine blade came down and cut off the hand reaching into the safe, it would have equal impact on keeping a gun safe as it would my documents.  A person without a hand will have a difficult time taking and firing my gun and they will have a difficult time taking my papers (though I guess they could try to stick them to their bloody stump).  So as you can see, I clearly see that solutions do not have to be unique, but that again, does nothing to show that a gun is not unique.

On your last point (which is a good observation), why does Hollywood use guns to make thing seem tense, a person seem tough, or in control?  I'd suggest they do so because we all understand what I have been trying to focus my definition on.  Because a gun is unique in its set of qualities.  It can all at once, project authority (if the other side has no gun), level of intent (guns are rarely drawn unless stakes are high), and competency (since the gun requires little to no training to use as you pointed out, the person with it knows how to move their finger in a motion to fire the weapon and understands by the direction of the barrel generally which way the projectile will go unless the tool is malfunctioning).  Making a gun be the only way to get someone's attention, I agree, is as lazy as the mode of speech that suggests if you are yelling out curse words every other word it must also be serious or important.  Someone can be very intimidating without profanity and without a gun.  I have lots of friends who think that adding f$* in front of anything makes it clearly more important.  I regularly suggest to them they may simply want to expand their vocabulary. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 07, 2018, 09:11:17 AM
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 07, 2018, 10:03:48 AM
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread.

False, jerk. I am a gun rights advocate and my gun is locked up at all times its not on my person.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 07, 2018, 10:04:53 AM
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable.

Typically the argument made is a self-defense one.  Guns are needed at hand at all times in case of ninja/zombie/English invasion.  If they're locked up, the ninjas will gut you / zombies will eat you / English will serve you tea before you can unlock your safe and load the weapon.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 07, 2018, 10:51:04 AM
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable.

Typically the argument made is a self-defense one.  Guns are needed at hand at all times in case of ninja/zombie/English invasion.  If they're locked up, the ninjas will gut you / zombies will eat you / English will serve you tea before you can unlock your safe and load the weapon.

Then just have a holstered weapon that's on you at all times.  Then keep other guns locked up when not in use.  Simple.

False, jerk. I am a gun rights advocate and my gun is locked up at all times its not on my person.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

Well, we just make it a law.  Gun Owners are law abiding citizens aren't they?  That's what I always hear, anyway.  So make it a law and the law abiding citizens will follow the law.  Unless you're saying that gun owners don't abide by the law?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 07, 2018, 11:24:45 AM
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable.

Typically the argument made is a self-defense one.  Guns are needed at hand at all times in case of ninja/zombie/English invasion.  If they're locked up, the ninjas will gut you / zombies will eat you / English will serve you tea before you can unlock your safe and load the weapon.

Then just have a holstered weapon that's on you at all times.  Then keep other guns locked up when not in use.  Simple.

False, jerk. I am a gun rights advocate and my gun is locked up at all times its not on my person.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

Well, we just make it a law.  Gun Owners are law abiding citizens aren't they?  That's what I always hear, anyway.  So make it a law and the law abiding citizens will follow the law.  Unless you're saying that gun owners don't abide by the law?
I'll just chime in here that we're just feeding the frenzy and creating no discussions.  Just as with my comments someone made on DHMO's input that were needlessly attacking, would it not make it more likely to have a response if we did not start the question by calling guns death machines? 

Going back to this last response, @ncornilsen did not say anything you are pushing back with.  They asked what seems to be a reasonable question.  Even if you make it a law, how are you going to enforce it?  Authorities would need to in essence conduct surprise visits to verify you are complying.  If they scheduled a visit you'd have time to place your gun in the safe.  Now we step into unlawful searches if we just make what turn into unannounced raids to see if people are using gun safes and then I assume take the guns if they are not in a safe, right?  I can certainly see how that would be something any law abiding citizen should have a problem with.  So you perhaps being less snide with the commentary might get the response you claim to be seeking.  If you find a way to get something solves by yelling at each other, let me know, but I've not seen a lot of fruitful results from that.  You've got a guy who is doing what you asked (locking up their gun when not in their possession) and then you ridicule their response while ignoring the reasonable question they asked?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 07, 2018, 11:36:10 AM
It's illegal to beat your spouse and yet we don't need surprise visits at home for this law to be enforced.  I don't see why safe storage requires surprise visits either.  Maybe require some proof of ownership of a means to safely store a gun.  If a gun owner is doggedly determined to break the law, they probably will . . . but most are just like everyone else and will comply with the regulations enacted by the government (or risk the penalties).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 07, 2018, 11:58:46 AM
It's illegal to beat your spouse and yet we don't need surprise visits at home for this law to be enforced.  I don't see why safe storage requires surprise visits either.  Maybe require some proof of ownership of a means to safely store a gun.  If a gun owner is doggedly determined to break the law, they probably will . . . but most are just like everyone else and will comply with the regulations enacted by the government (or risk the penalties).
OK, but in the flippant responses I think we're missing a legitimate effort by that poster and are being asked what exactly is being asked.  He already said you could prove you own a safe (same idea you suggested, which one could infer means you had not read his option/question) but that does not mean you will use it.  I believe he asked that because he thinks your response will be that's not enough.

I do not think your comparison makes any sense.  It's hard enough to get beat up spouses to file a complaint which is how we enforce that law.  Are you implying the safe will self report if it is being used or not?  If not, then please explain how this reply adds anything meaningful to the conversation.  I'm trying to improve the tone of discourse as I'd really like too see if some real ideas might come up, so I'm trying to moderate the two sides a bit to get everyone out of their corner.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 07, 2018, 12:09:35 PM
A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on May 07, 2018, 12:29:47 PM
A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.

Except, ya know, firearms accidents are a tiny TINY slice of deaths.  "Fixing the death rate" is a left dog-whistle for ignoring real statistics.  Firearms accidents (and adolescent murders outside of gang-related warfare) are basically non-existent in our 320 million population. 

In actual numbers, its 82 kids lost per year to firearm accidental fatalities.  82 out of 320 million.  82 out of 100 million gun owners.  That is 0.082 per 100,000 gun owners.  Or 1 death per 1,218,000 gun owners.  Why do you want to restrict the rights of 1,217,999 gun owners because of One idiot, when there are already laws on the books to punish that idiot?

All per this study:  http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486)


To be honest, can we improve on these numbers, even with those suggested regulations?  You already mentioned that 'people would break the law' and I would be willing to bet that those who are responsible for these 82 deaths per year are (probably) the same ones that would disobey the regulations.

Lets keep the actual data in mind when discussing these things.  It really isn't an epidemic... 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 07, 2018, 12:38:39 PM
A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.

I'd argue that a gun is designed to cause harm, not necessarily death, but that's really besides the point. Colorful suggestive language doesn't add anything to the debate, all it does is activate emotions to pull those who agree closer to you while pushing those who disagree further away. Using the term "death machine" to refer to what they would consider a tool, reinforces the opinion of gun rights activists that gun restriction advocates are emotional and illogical. Not saying that is the case here, but it will be the perception for many.

I agree that a law requiring guns to be locked up may be beneficial but having inspectors seems impractical, very expensive, and very likely to get gun rights activists more fired up than ever. My opinion is that making it a law would actually encourage a lot of gun owners to do so without any real way of enforcing it. Plus it can be enforced in scenarios where law enforcement has another reason to enter someone's home or if there is an incident which leads to the finding that a gun wasn't properly locked up.

Mandatory training I could get on board with.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 07, 2018, 12:52:33 PM
It's illegal to beat your spouse and yet we don't need surprise visits at home for this law to be enforced.  I don't see why safe storage requires surprise visits either.  Maybe require some proof of ownership of a means to safely store a gun.  If a gun owner is doggedly determined to break the law, they probably will . . . but most are just like everyone else and will comply with the regulations enacted by the government (or risk the penalties).
OK, but in the flippant responses I think we're missing a legitimate effort by that poster and are being asked what exactly is being asked.  He already said you could prove you own a safe (same idea you suggested, which one could infer means you had not read his option/question) but that does not mean you will use it.  I believe he asked that because he thinks your response will be that's not enough.

I do not think your comparison makes any sense.  It's hard enough to get beat up spouses to file a complaint which is how we enforce that law.  Are you implying the safe will self report if it is being used or not?  If not, then please explain how this reply adds anything meaningful to the conversation.  I'm trying to improve the tone of discourse as I'd really like too see if some real ideas might come up, so I'm trying to moderate the two sides a bit to get everyone out of their corner.

I'm not trying to be flippant.  My point is that no law is ever perfect.

Passing a law regarding safe storage certainly doesn't mean that all gun owners will obey it.  It won't prevent the death of all children from firearms because random inspections of private homes is far too intrusive to ever reasonably request.  I was trying to point out that most of the laws and regulations in existence work this way.  There's no regular inspection of your home for spousal abuse, or under age drinking, or improper electrical wiring, etc.

What it will do however, is make things better.  There's a sizable chunk of the population who are law abiding citizens.  Currently they're putting kids in danger because there's no real repercussion for doing so.  After the laws, many of them will comply to avoid the chance of penalty.  Family friends who come over, kids who are playing . . . there are many ways that improper storage can be discovered, so many will decide it's not worth the risk.


A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.

I'd argue that a gun is designed to cause harm, not necessarily death, but that's really besides the point.

Use of a firearm is considered lethal force by police officers and military.  Related: https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/ (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/)

While I agree that calling a gun a 'death machine' is over the top, the vast majority of firearms sold are intended for lethal use - not harm.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 07, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
A gun is a machine and it's designed to cause death.  Hence death machine seems pretty accurate.

If you're going to own a gun, I think that having someone come out and verify you have a working safe and that the weapons are locked up is reasonable. 

We could even make owning a weapon a license type of condition - you have to show that they are locked up upon initial purchase, and then every year or 2 after that you have to show again that the safes are in working order and weapons are locked up. 

I'd also suggest mandatory safety training for the purchase of any weapon (including training classes).  As part of the safety training I'd make videos showing deaths and stories of people with dead kids that were the result of weapons not being secured.

You may not get 100% compliance, but you'd get much, much better results than we have right now.  And I'll take "MUCH BETTER" over "lets not do anything because there's no perfect solution" stance we currently have.
I'm not one trying to own a gun, but even I see this as a massive overreach with little benefit and a ton of work for people with no likely decrease in any issues per the limited numbers this could even impact per TexasRunner's feedback.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 07, 2018, 01:42:47 PM

I'd argue that a gun is designed to cause harm, not necessarily death, but that's really besides the point.

Use of a firearm is considered lethal force by police officers and military.  Related: https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/ (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/)

While I agree that calling a gun a 'death machine' is over the top, the vast majority of firearms sold are intended for lethal use - not harm.

Well if we're talking about intentions guns are intended for target shooting, killing animals or incapacitating humans. When used on humans, death is often an undesirable side effect of incapacitation. I suppose since the word "designed" was used originally I could see an argument for either harm or death.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 07, 2018, 01:46:39 PM

I'd argue that a gun is designed to cause harm, not necessarily death, but that's really besides the point.

Use of a firearm is considered lethal force by police officers and military.  Related: https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/ (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/)

While I agree that calling a gun a 'death machine' is over the top, the vast majority of firearms sold are intended for lethal use - not harm.

Well if we're talking about intentions guns are intended for target shooting, killing animals or incapacitating humans. When used on humans, death is often an undesirable side effect of incapacitation. I suppose since the word "designed" was used originally I could see an argument for either harm or death.
Death is an extreme form of harm.  See my longer posts with DHMO above as my entire point was that guns are designed for harm, so you and I are trying to make the same point.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on May 07, 2018, 01:56:37 PM
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

The way I see it working is that it's a lot like the cell phone/distracted driving laws, only with more teeth.  Is law enforcement going to come into people's homes and inspect?  No.  But if you pass legislation not only requiring guns to be locked up using X, Y, Z methods, and if owners don't, they are now held criminally and civilly responsible for any harm that gun may do in the hands of another.  And we ENFORCE said laws.  (I put emphasis here, because there are laws on the books in a few states that do something similar--but rarely are they enforced.)

Basically, I see it playing out something like this- 

Scenario A:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in an ornamental glass-fronted wood case, because he didn't need or want a safe/wanted to admire his collection/insert reason here.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables and his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  IN ADDITION to the actual perpetrator, the original gun owner is now charged with manslaughter/murder/as an accessory/something else, and faces serious fines and/or jail time.  Why?  Because that gun was their responsibility, they failed in their responsibility, and now they have to suffer with the consequences.

Scenario B:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in a heavy steel safe, one of (many) models certified by the gov't/U.L/OSHA/somebody as adhering to a reasonable standard of being  theftproof.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables, and actually manages to crack through said safe to steal his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  The original owner of the gun, however, doesn't need to worry--he can clearly show that he performed due diligence in securing his firearms, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the fact that those safeguards were circumvented by an exceptionally well-prepared and determined burglar.

There would be gray areas in this, of course, just like everything.  But at least it would eliminate a good chunk of the accidental deaths that happen here every day in the U.S.--and might cut down on suicides and shootings where the perpetrators are relying on easy access to someone else's guns, as well.  I would imagine insurance companies would be all over this legislation as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 07, 2018, 02:01:47 PM
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

The way I see it working is that it's a lot like the cell phone/distracted driving laws, only with more teeth.  Is law enforcement going to come into people's homes and inspect?  No.  But if you pass legislation not only requiring guns to be locked up using X, Y, Z methods, and if owners don't, they are now held criminally and civilly responsible for any harm that gun may do in the hands of another.  And we ENFORCE said laws.  (I put emphasis here, because there are laws on the books in a few states that do something similar--but rarely are they enforced.)

Basically, I see it playing out something like this- 

Scenario A:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in an ornamental glass-fronted wood case, because he didn't need or want a safe/wanted to admire his collection/insert reason here.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables and his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  IN ADDITION to the actual perpetrator, the original gun owner is now charged with manslaughter/murder/as an accessory/something else, and faces serious fines and/or jail time.  Why?  Because that gun was their responsibility, they failed in their responsibility, and now they have to suffer with the consequences.

Scenario B:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in a heavy steel safe, one of (many) models certified by the gov't/U.L/OSHA/somebody as adhering to a reasonable standard of being  theftproof.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables, and actually manages to crack through said safe to steal his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  The original owner of the gun, however, doesn't need to worry--he can clearly show that he performed due diligence in securing his firearms, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the fact that those safeguards were circumvented by an exceptionally well-prepared and determined burglar.

There would be gray areas in this, of course, just like everything.  But at least it would eliminate a good chunk of the accidental deaths that happen here every day in the U.S.--and might cut down on suicides and shootings where the perpetrators are relying on easy access to someone else's guns, as well.  I would imagine insurance companies would be all over this legislation as well.

How do you prove that the owners in your examples actually owned any of the guns you're saying they did at the time of the crime?

There's no gun registry.  They could just say that the gun had been sold.  Since there's no background check required on most private sales, you couldn't prove them wrong in court.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on May 07, 2018, 02:14:29 PM
I still have not seen a good reason from the GRA side that having guns locked up when not in direct use is unreasonable. 

In fact I'd say that keeping the death machines locked up when not in use is a core part of being a "responsible gun owner" that they chatter on about. 

And in fact, the GRA people won't do it unless there's a law in place to make them do it.  As demonstrated by more than one GRA in this very thread.

My only problem with making it a law is the enforcement side of it. How do we do that? 
One way is to require the furnishment of the serial# of your gun safe when doing the required background check, but that doesn't mean they're going to use it.

The way I see it working is that it's a lot like the cell phone/distracted driving laws, only with more teeth.  Is law enforcement going to come into people's homes and inspect?  No.  But if you pass legislation not only requiring guns to be locked up using X, Y, Z methods, and if owners don't, they are now held criminally and civilly responsible for any harm that gun may do in the hands of another.  And we ENFORCE said laws.  (I put emphasis here, because there are laws on the books in a few states that do something similar--but rarely are they enforced.)

Basically, I see it playing out something like this- 

Scenario A:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in an ornamental glass-fronted wood case, because he didn't need or want a safe/wanted to admire his collection/insert reason here.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables and his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  IN ADDITION to the actual perpetrator, the original gun owner is now charged with manslaughter/murder/as an accessory/something else, and faces serious fines and/or jail time.  Why?  Because that gun was their responsibility, they failed in their responsibility, and now they have to suffer with the consequences.

Scenario B:  Gun owner has a prized collection of guns.  They are locked up in a heavy steel safe, one of (many) models certified by the gov't/U.L/OSHA/somebody as adhering to a reasonable standard of being  theftproof.  A burglar breaks into his home, steals his valuables, and actually manages to crack through said safe to steal his gun collection.  Burglar pawns off loot to unknown third party.  Somewhere down the line, the gun is used in a robbery where someone is shot and dies.  The original owner of the gun, however, doesn't need to worry--he can clearly show that he performed due diligence in securing his firearms, and therefore cannot be held responsible for the fact that those safeguards were circumvented by an exceptionally well-prepared and determined burglar.

There would be gray areas in this, of course, just like everything.  But at least it would eliminate a good chunk of the accidental deaths that happen here every day in the U.S.--and might cut down on suicides and shootings where the perpetrators are relying on easy access to someone else's guns, as well.  I would imagine insurance companies would be all over this legislation as well.

How do you prove that the owners in your examples actually owned any of the guns you're saying they did at the time of the crime?

There's no gun registry.  They could just say that the gun had been sold.  Since there's no background check required on most private sales, you couldn't prove them wrong in court.

Well, that would be the other planks of the platform.  A federal gun registry, background checks/registration of all sales, and mandatory safety training for anyone who wants to own a gun.  You know, just like we do with cars.

On the flip side, we stop mucking around with partial gun bans/complete gun bans.  You want to own a gun?  You can buy any gun you want--BUT you have to adhere to the rules above, and take legal responsibility for said weapon.

Those people who feel like they NEED a gun to protect themselves or their family will go through that process.  Likewise gun aficionados who want to collect, hunt, or sport shoot.  Those who just want a gun around because 'it seemed like a good idea', but don't want to be bothered with safe storage, training, etc., probably will not, especially if there are real consequences to the mishandling of said gun.  Which will cut down on a heckuva lot of shootings right there. 

Would this have stopped the Las Vegas shooter?  From all accounts, no.  But it would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter, and the Oregon mall shooter, and any number of others. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 07, 2018, 02:36:04 PM
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 07, 2018, 02:53:54 PM
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.

Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on May 07, 2018, 03:53:12 PM
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.

Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.

That is correct.  My stats were gathered in reference to a much earlier comment about "thousands of kids dying from guns" and the implication was that those were accidental deaths.  I was disproving that point at the time and re-used those same stats to point out that accidental deaths are not (In my opinion) "low hanging fruit" because, statistically, they are such a small amount. 

I also believe you are correct that the annual death rate by accident for all ages is around 480ish.  Which, quite honestly is very small.  From my research that I would have to dig up again, the total injury incidences is about 4000-8000 annually depending on how you define it.  Even with the high number, 8000/100mil firearms owners is quite small.  0.008/100,000 persons.

My point is accidents are not the problem.  The rhetoric around "thousands are dying and blood is flowing in the streets" when stated about accidents from firearms is not justified. 

If we want to go after the “low hanging fruit” in relation to firearms, I would point the conversation towards suicides and gang related murders.  I’m not trying to paint a racist picture (as seems to always be thrown around when gang-murders are pointed out) or steer the conversation away from “My Toys!” as some would call them; I am saying that these two primary factors make up 75%+ of gun related deaths, and the larger numbers are where we can see the most potential for improvement.

Notably, both suicides and gang related murders are absolutely predominantly committed with handguns, not rifles.  That is why it comes off to gun owners as disingenuous when rifles become the target of bans and confiscations.  If we are really set out on reducing the deaths, don’t focus on the 500ish murders which used rifles each year, focus on the thousands that are from handguns.

It is also extremely insulting when those on the gun-rights advocacy side are accused of ‘not caring’.  I personally care greatly about this problem.  But I recognize the ‘solutions’ being presented infringe my rights while doing nothing to address the vast majority of gun deaths, namely suicide and gang related murders.

From a gun owner, if we want compromise or to work towards solutions (instead of the merry-go-round of the same points made over and over), I would focus on the following:
-   Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide.
-   Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.
-   Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.
-   Prosecuting those who allow children to harm themselves with firearms ( <- I have not met a gun owner who doesn’t support this, and who also isn’t also upset that the DA does not choose to prosecute).
-   Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.

If you focus on holistic solutions to those problems, you can impact the firearms related death rates meaningfully.  Everything else is cherry picking-  including the focus on mass shootings and school shootings.

Also, I would not be opposed to a form of a “firearms restraining order” regarding mass shooters or potential domestic violence as long as it follows the exact same judicial process and requirements for a ‘normal’ restraining order.  Indictment (or injunction), court date, means to appeal, method to make your case heard in court, etc- BEFORE the restraining order takes affect would satisfy the fourth IMO.  But having an anonymous tip and judge-signed warrant with no means to appeal or plead your case is a very very dangerous precedent to allow the government.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on May 07, 2018, 04:39:08 PM
I thought this was actually a really well done article discussing the real numbers of gun related deaths...  Despite what people on both sides of the issue are trying to push.


BJ Campbell - Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide (https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 08, 2018, 07:56:26 AM
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.

Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.

That is correct.  My stats were gathered in reference to a much earlier comment about "thousands of kids dying from guns" and the implication was that those were accidental deaths.  I was disproving that point at the time and re-used those same stats to point out that accidental deaths are not (In my opinion) "low hanging fruit" because, statistically, they are such a small amount. 

I also believe you are correct that the annual death rate by accident for all ages is around 480ish.  Which, quite honestly is very small.  From my research that I would have to dig up again, the total injury incidences is about 4000-8000 annually depending on how you define it.  Even with the high number, 8000/100mil firearms owners is quite small.  0.0088/100,000 persons.

My point is accidents are not the problem. The rhetoric around "thousands are dying and blood is flowing in the streets" when stated about accidents from firearms is not justified.

If we want to go after the “low hanging fruit” in relation to firearms, I would point the conversation towards suicides and gang related murders.  I’m not trying to paint a racist picture (as seems to always be thrown around when gang-murders are pointed out) or steer the conversation away from “My Toys!” as some would call them; I am saying that these two primary factors make up 75%+ of gun related deaths, and the larger numbers are where we can see the most potential for improvement.

Notably, both suicides and gang related murders are absolutely predominantly committed with handguns, not rifles.  That is why it comes off to gun owners as disingenuous when rifles become the target of bans and confiscations.  If we are really set out on reducing the deaths, don’t focus on the 500ish murders which used rifles each year, focus on the thousands that are from handguns.

It is also extremely insulting when those on the gun-rights advocacy side are accused of ‘not caring’.  I personally care greatly about this problem.  But I recognize the ‘solutions’ being presented infringe my rights while doing nothing to address the vast majority of gun deaths, namely suicide and gang related murders.

From a gun owner, if we want compromise or to work towards solutions (instead of the merry-go-round of the same points made over and over), I would focus on the following:
-   Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide.
-   Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.
-   Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.
-   Prosecuting those who allow children to harm themselves with firearms ( <- I have not met a gun owner who doesn’t support this, and who also isn’t also upset that the DA does not choose to prosecute).
-   Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.

If you focus on holistic solutions to those problems, you can impact the firearms related death rates meaningfully.  Everything else is cherry picking-  including the focus on mass shootings and school shootings.

Also, I would not be opposed to a form of a “firearms restraining order” regarding mass shooters or potential domestic violence as long as it follows the exact same judicial process and requirements for a ‘normal’ restraining order.  Indictment (or injunction), court date, means to appeal, method to make your case heard in court, etc- BEFORE the restraining order takes affect would satisfy the fourth IMO.  But having an anonymous tip and judge-signed warrant with no means to appeal or plead your case is a very very dangerous precedent to allow the government.


I agree that there are issues of greater concern than mass shootings and accidents and I think they should be tackled first. Low hanging fruit, absolutely.

But I don't think that means we should ignore other issues. From a political standpoint, yes, I think we should focus on the more important issues which have the potential for the greatest benefit first and not try to fix everything at once. However when I engage in these discussions I speak in regards to the topic at hand. This is a thread ostensibly about school shootings. Obviously it's branched out to cover a lot more than that, but my point is that I (and I suspect many others do as well) make my arguments based on what I think the best reality would be in regards to the current topic. For example, discussing a ban on certain types of weapons and ammunition, I think there is evidence that there may be some benefit to doing so. I don't believe that it's the most important change we need to make to current gun laws, but I would still support it if I agree with the details of such a ban. (I also acknowledge the details are important)

Not really debating anything you said, just hoping this gives you a different perspective. It's easy to look at the worst arguments made on the side you disagree with and say "those people don't know what they're talking about" but the inaccurate rhetoric shouldn't take away from the more reasonable arguments.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on May 08, 2018, 08:09:08 AM
The challenge in all our focus on securing weapons and all the work involved to pass legislation brushes up against TexasRunner's stats that he shared.

If there are really 82 accidental deaths a year, this may be a poor target.  All kinds of real questions come up.  One would need to be open to the fact that some of those accidental deaths are people who are the owners of the firearm and would have removed it from the safe and accidentally killed themselves anyway (the person cleaning their gun who did not realizes it was loaded deaths) so the safe would not lower that.  There are certainly other scenarios that are legit and would still happen.  After all none of us assume that no accidents will happen once removed from the safe. 

We are then stuck in the unenviable position of how many deaths does it take before we go through the hard work to enact a law?  Or stated another way, there is some level of acceptable death where it does not justify the effort to perform any work.

I believe the 82 number was specific to children, total has been numbered at 489 in this thread. This does not include accidents resulting in injuries.

Also, locking up weapons is not only for the purpose of protecting children but also keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals. As has been stated, safe laws wouldn't mean much without also having some form of registry or at the very least universal background checks.

That is correct.  My stats were gathered in reference to a much earlier comment about "thousands of kids dying from guns" and the implication was that those were accidental deaths.  I was disproving that point at the time and re-used those same stats to point out that accidental deaths are not (In my opinion) "low hanging fruit" because, statistically, they are such a small amount. 

I also believe you are correct that the annual death rate by accident for all ages is around 480ish.  Which, quite honestly is very small.  From my research that I would have to dig up again, the total injury incidences is about 4000-8000 annually depending on how you define it.  Even with the high number, 8000/100mil firearms owners is quite small.  0.008/100,000 persons.

My point is accidents are not the problem.  The rhetoric around "thousands are dying and blood is flowing in the streets" when stated about accidents from firearms is not justified. 

If we want to go after the “low hanging fruit” in relation to firearms, I would point the conversation towards suicides and gang related murders.  I’m not trying to paint a racist picture (as seems to always be thrown around when gang-murders are pointed out) or steer the conversation away from “My Toys!” as some would call them; I am saying that these two primary factors make up 75%+ of gun related deaths, and the larger numbers are where we can see the most potential for improvement.

Notably, both suicides and gang related murders are absolutely predominantly committed with handguns, not rifles.  That is why it comes off to gun owners as disingenuous when rifles become the target of bans and confiscations.  If we are really set out on reducing the deaths, don’t focus on the 500ish murders which used rifles each year, focus on the thousands that are from handguns.

It is also extremely insulting when those on the gun-rights advocacy side are accused of ‘not caring’.  I personally care greatly about this problem.  But I recognize the ‘solutions’ being presented infringe my rights while doing nothing to address the vast majority of gun deaths, namely suicide and gang related murders.

From a gun owner, if we want compromise or to work towards solutions (instead of the merry-go-round of the same points made over and over), I would focus on the following:
-   Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide.
-   Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.
-   Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.
-   Prosecuting those who allow children to harm themselves with firearms ( <- I have not met a gun owner who doesn’t support this, and who also isn’t also upset that the DA does not choose to prosecute).
-   Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.

If you focus on holistic solutions to those problems, you can impact the firearms related death rates meaningfully.  Everything else is cherry picking-  including the focus on mass shootings and school shootings.

Also, I would not be opposed to a form of a “firearms restraining order” regarding mass shooters or potential domestic violence as long as it follows the exact same judicial process and requirements for a ‘normal’ restraining order.  Indictment (or injunction), court date, means to appeal, method to make your case heard in court, etc- BEFORE the restraining order takes affect would satisfy the fourth IMO.  But having an anonymous tip and judge-signed warrant with no means to appeal or plead your case is a very very dangerous precedent to allow the government.

Thank you for proving my point about how this conversation usually goes.  Though of course now we've moved the goalposts from 'not my problem' to 'it's not a problem' by cherrypicking statistics.  Because of course the only deaths that gun registries and other legislation would prevent are accidental ones!  I'll just put this out there:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States 

I'm sure, however, that the GRA folks will now contort themselves into knots explaining to the rest of us how thousands of deaths per year 'isn't a real problem'.  Or the fact that every school and every major workplace now has active shooter drills and training, just in case a coworker or classmate has a bad day and decides to bring a gun in to inflict lethal retribution on the people around them, is also 'not a real problem', and that everyone is totally overreacting. 

As for your proposed solutions--pretty much the only one I agree with is enforcement of existing laws on the books (which don't even cover most states) about harm caused by an unsecured firearm.  As for all the others:

-   Clinical access for counseling for teens contemplating suicide--not exactly useful when guns are readily available for teens to make the attempt before anyone knows anything is wrong.  And attempted suicide by firearm is overwhelmingly more successful on the first try than any other method.

-   Education for parents regarding teen suicide and access to all means of suicide, including firearms.--yes, because this will totally prevent suicides.  Hell, we can't even get a significant percentage of parents to feed their kids breakfast!  But you think a powerpoint presentation is going to reduce attempted suicides?

-   Changing the current gang culture and elimination of the current gang cycles.--considering we've had gangs for almost as long as we've had a country, I find this solution to be starry-eyed optimism at best.  Even the U.K. has gangs.  You know what they don't have?  Drive-by shootings.

-   Prosecution of felons with firearms in their possession.--I'm pretty sure we already do this.  Of course, that requires law enforcement to catch them first.  And when they can buy a gun via undocumented 'private sale' from any schmoe on the street, any felon with a couple hundred bucks who wants a gun can have one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DHMO on May 08, 2018, 11:42:13 AM

OK, so part of the problem in discussing this is that I tried (maybe poorly) to phrase my response to your talking points.  Race guns was one of those where you were, I believe, trying to explain how race guns are different and the "harm" they cause you felt was justifiable for the sport they were used in.  I agreed.  But here you then tell me a race gun can fire other ammo and use those same high speed, grouping capabilities with more lethal effect, so that changes the discussion.  If we keep doing that we'll end up in the inevitable whirlpool getting nowhere.  I will finish this line of thought though to present you my thoughts.  I am not necessarily saying ban any type of weapon (I'd only go to a ban if no other solution could be found) or that we need to do anything other than punish someone who uses a tool (race gun) for a purpose it was not intended (instead loads it with armor piercing rounds and takes out a concert venue).  I agree, that those rare cases where a perpetrator is intent on finding a way to use a tool (gun, stapler, toothpick, etc.)  inappropriately for harm are too many and varied to address with laws and regulations.  I agree with people about not prohibiting the possession of a tool just because it can be used maliciously.  So hopefully that helps.

I also feel you muddied the water of unique regarding guns.  Again, using your current examples, the difference in the gun safe versus the document safe is not the safe, it is the contents.  Someone stealing my paper can likely not do a whole lot of damage to anyone but me and my family with that, and likely not instantly kill me with whatever embarrassment, loss of money or lawsuit that results.  Someone stealing my gun has immediate access to life threatening harm.  This is all I mean with unique and why I will continue to fine tune my explanation of this definition because I think it is the lynch pin on which any meaningful conversation hinges.  Because of the nature and seriousness (uniqueness) of a gun, there should be processes that only apply to them and not to other things.  I get that you may still refer to pools, crowbars, drunk driving (and now it seems sheets of paper) for examples, but it is crucial to understand that they are distinctly different in many crucial ways from guns and therefore trying to create equivalence (the only difference in the safe is the dividers and the size) just creates confusion.  On one hand you are right.  The only difference in those two SAFES (which are still both safes by the way, and therefore inherently not different in their purpose, to secure something) is size and dividers.  On the other hand, extending that lack to difference to the contents when the contents are very different is what then makes the description blurred and confusing.  I would like to see anyone show how my last will and testament or my social security card is in any significant way like a gun.  I'd like you to note that where you "disagree" on guns not being unique had nothing to do with a gun, but required you to bring other items into the mix (training, safes, etc.).  I'd humbly suggest that if we can just focus on the very specific point that a gun, all by itself and without things attached to it, does have a unique purpose (as do a lot of other things in this world) then we might range further down the rabbit hole.

I am open to the fact that perhaps solutions do not need to be unique.  Certainly if a safety feature was created on a safe that when it was breached without the proper opening combination that when a hand cut a laser sensor inside a guillotine blade came down and cut off the hand reaching into the safe, it would have equal impact on keeping a gun safe as it would my documents.  A person without a hand will have a difficult time taking and firing my gun and they will have a difficult time taking my papers (though I guess they could try to stick them to their bloody stump).  So as you can see, I clearly see that solutions do not have to be unique, but that again, does nothing to show that a gun is not unique.

On your last point (which is a good observation), why does Hollywood use guns to make thing seem tense, a person seem tough, or in control?  I'd suggest they do so because we all understand what I have been trying to focus my definition on.  Because a gun is unique in its set of qualities.  It can all at once, project authority (if the other side has no gun), level of intent (guns are rarely drawn unless stakes are high), and competency (since the gun requires little to no training to use as you pointed out, the person with it knows how to move their finger in a motion to fire the weapon and understands by the direction of the barrel generally which way the projectile will go unless the tool is malfunctioning).  Making a gun be the only way to get someone's attention, I agree, is as lazy as the mode of speech that suggests if you are yelling out curse words every other word it must also be serious or important.  Someone can be very intimidating without profanity and without a gun.  I have lots of friends who think that adding f$* in front of anything makes it clearly more important.  I regularly suggest to them they may simply want to expand their vocabulary.

My apologies, I’m not trying to twist the conversation. I guess I’m more articulate in my head than I am in my forum posts. I’ll try to clarify a bit more.
I used race guns as an example of “acceptable harm”, as a way to start with a base of agreement. Most people don’t have an issue with competition shooting, so I was then able to demonstrate how the race gun does not inherit any evilness because the activity it is used for is not inherently evil. In the process, it seems that I gave you the impression that race guns are in a different, less damaging class of guns. That is sometimes that case, but not always (depending on the competition rules), and trying to create definitions is going to be very difficult. Competitors and murderers both benefit from having accurate, easy to aim guns. As a side note, the ammunition is an even more complicated topic, so I’ll just leave it at this: any ammunition that wasn’t specially designed to be “less-lethal” (that’s the technical term) is going to be sufficient to create life-threatening injury. Even the lowest-power competition ammunition needs to be treated as if it can be lethal, because it can be.
As to differences between document safes and gun safes, I was hoping to use that as an example of how the solution to a problem is not unique. Something needs to be secured? Stick it in the safe. Whether there are guns or documents inside, the safe is built and operates the same way. The solution for “I don’t want other people to get their hands on my documents” is the same as “I don’t want other people to get their hands on my guns”. My point is that while guns are certainly distinct from documents, the solution to a gun-related problem may not be unique and doesn’t have to be modified or special just “because guns”. This ties into how I disagree on guns being unique.
My disagreement on guns being “unique” in the way that we’ve been using the word here is based on a perception I have that many people go “Oh, wait, this is for guns? Well, that’s different. Guns are a special case.” I don’t think that guns are on some second tier of seriousness. It is my responsibility to assess and address the risks involved for everything I bring into my environment. Guns are a part of that, and can be addressed within the same framework that I use for everything else.
I appreciate your humble suggestion; please continue to be patient with me. I don’t think I fully grasp what you’re trying to say quite yet. Thinking of a gun “all by itself and without things attached to it” is not intuitive to me.
My comments about Hollywood are meant to raise some awareness, but please do not take them in isolation. A broader message that I’d like to convey is that there has been a culture shift towards seeing guns in the ways you mentioned. A gun can be seen as somehow conferring authority or competency or can be seen as an indicator (sometimes the only indicator?) of a high-stakes situation. I think we in general would be well served to move away from or minimize that culture. I think that many problems are exacerbated by it. It won’t change quickly, but it can change.
May I guess that you would see this culture as growing from the capabilities of the gun? That in a vacuum, the culture would regrow in the same way? I think I personally would disagree with that (no reasons yet, just a feeling), but that might be another interesting rabbit hole to run down.
Edit: I can't seem to shake the feeling that I've missed one of your points, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 08, 2018, 03:20:02 PM
@TexasRunner I appreciate your well articulated post. 

I very much agree that the only way the problem will truly be addressed is to get to the underlying reasons that the US has created for having a high level of gun violence and I think an easy scapegoat is easy access to guns.  The mental issue is one I discuss often with people when it comes up.  Why is the mindset in the US for kids or others so gun focused?  I do think it may have a lot to do with the Hollywood/gaming aspect that DHMO and others have spoken of.  I certainly loved my shooter games and Die Hard movies growing up but for some reason they did not become a focus of my life like they can for others.  Other cultures have access to this media as well yet do not have the same gun violence issue. 

The counterpoints, while valid, lead us again to a stalemate because hey we need to address the guns first because a teen can die on the first attempt.  Again, valid, but why is removing the gun the only right first step?  Why could better coverage in school or work at home not be the issue?  Why is the teen depression rate going up in one of the most affluent countries in the world?  I've got one of my own on meds for some of these issues.  I believe no one would indicate she has much to be anxious about.  We talk a lot and cannot understand why she got to this point and the professionals she is working with are not having a whole lot more answers that lead to the why either.  The problems she raises are very similar to what I dealt with at her age, yet I never got to the point that anyone felt I needed pharmaceutical help.  As a parent I'll be the first one to tell you I have no idea why our kids are struggling so much more than we did with the same issues, but ignoring that this is happening and not thinking it might have a correlation to gun violence is very limiting I believe. 

I'd love to see the things Texas brings up be seriously addressed as I think as a country we need them.  We're a very unhappy place for the level of comfort we have compared to third world nations, but to listen to a lot of our young people we might as well be one of Trump's s*hole nations.  That should alarm us.  That should cause action.  And if we did something there we might just make real progress on this problem as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 09, 2018, 04:38:15 PM
I'm on my tablet, so apologies ahead of time for mistakes.

First of all, thanks for the dialogue, carcarn. As dhmo commented, I'm going to be just expressing thoughts that your posts and others have triggered. I guess my overall thoughts about gun control is that it it has to be balanced, and by balance, I'm not thinking about it quite the way it's been brought up in many places here. I'm not talking about balance between the NRA or whoever on the pro gun side and whatever liberal person think tank wants to ban many/most/all guns on the other side. I'm not even talking about compromise of allowing some new gun laws to be passed only if other ones that are ineffective are removed (although I understand that point and appreciate it). I'm talking about balancing two very real sides of the issue. On the one side is the right to defend yourself. That can be aided by guns. Period. It just can. There are risks with it, but it can make a bad situation for a person in the right who is being victimized better because they had access to a gun. The other side is, of course, the inherent danger of guns in the wrong hands. The 33k+ gun deaths per year testify to that. Guns make joe blow angry guy much more lethal, no doubt.

The argument is between the balance of these things. Coming from the gun supporting side of things, it does get a little annoying to have that side of things belittled as if it doesn't even have validity. On that line, I would cite guitarstv comment about needing them to not be locked up because of ninjas, zombies, or English serving tea. Yes, the regulations many are proposing about the way guns need to be locked up would actually impact people's ability to defend themselves in certain situations. It's hard to have a legitimate conversation when one side feels that the right to defend yourself isn't as legitimate of a viewpoint as wanting to limit the risk.

Because that is the crux as I see it. No offense about guns for competition or whatnot but with the inherent risk of guns I would not have near as much trouble supporting restrictions if it was just for fun. Hunting is more defensible in my opinion, but if that were it, there could certainly be more leeway for regulating without pushback to me. The crucial point is the right to defend yourself.

So in answer to your question, I can understand guns being unique, but not just to me in the way I believe you are thinking of it. They're unique on two fronts. They are a high risk. We can argue about swimming pool deaths and car deaths and whatnot...these are fair topics and very valid especially to gauge raw risk comparisons imo. However, the unique part about guns is the danger of them in their primary function. This has two sides to it, however. They are almost always used for something that's dangerous, so they're unique compared to cars, per se. However, because they're dangerous, they are also uniquely suited for defense. So in one way, they're different because you don't need a gun to survive but a car is pretty vital in the modern world where many live. On the other hand, a gun is much MORE important BECAUSE it is uniquely qualified to help people defend themselves, a much more important right than wanting to cool off on a hot summer day in a pool or to not move close enough to bike to work.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 09, 2018, 08:23:17 PM
The argument is between the balance of these things. Coming from the gun supporting side of things, it does get a little annoying to have that side of things belittled as if it doesn't even have validity. On that line, I would cite guitarstv comment about needing them to not be locked up because of ninjas, zombies, or English serving tea. Yes, the regulations many are proposing about the way guns need to be locked up would actually impact people's ability to defend themselves in certain situations. It's hard to have a legitimate conversation when one side feels that the right to defend yourself isn't as legitimate of a viewpoint as wanting to limit the risk.

Fix my statement then please.  Explain the burning need for a gun owner to keep a weapon loaded and unsecured in his home at all times (whether the home owner is there or not).  To those of us who live in countries without such a need, it's difficult to see a legitimate problem that is being solved by doing this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on May 10, 2018, 03:26:02 AM
Exactly. When you are not home, an unsecured gun is protecting no one.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 10, 2018, 10:59:54 AM
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 10, 2018, 11:20:36 AM
The argument is between the balance of these things. Coming from the gun supporting side of things, it does get a little annoying to have that side of things belittled as if it doesn't even have validity. On that line, I would cite guitarstv comment about needing them to not be locked up because of ninjas, zombies, or English serving tea. Yes, the regulations many are proposing about the way guns need to be locked up would actually impact people's ability to defend themselves in certain situations. It's hard to have a legitimate conversation when one side feels that the right to defend yourself isn't as legitimate of a viewpoint as wanting to limit the risk.

Fix my statement then please.  Explain the burning need for a gun owner to keep a weapon loaded and unsecured in his home at all times (whether the home owner is there or not).  To those of us who live in countries without such a need, it's difficult to see a legitimate problem that is being solved by doing this.

If you are just talking about having a gun in a safe when you are not home and that's all you are meaning, I'm not going to argue against you. That's not all we are discussing and certainly not all gun control supporters have proposed/enacted.

I'll fix your statement since you asked. Requiring a loaded gun locked up in a simple, smallsafe with a single key lock will probably not impede you from ninjas or actual threats of home invaders. Regulations requiring $1500 gun safes that are a certain weight and therefore size that won't really work for a bedroom and thus mean they need to be in a different room or regulations saying have your unloaded gun locked in one of those safes and your ammunition locked in another one and oh by the way, the gun needs to be biometric (not really mentioned in this discussion but another proposed regulation in the same line of "securing the gun").......and yea, this securing of the gun keeps you from defending yourself against these attacking ninjas....
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 10, 2018, 08:01:34 PM
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

I can understand what you're meaning, and this is usually where things break down. Yes, arguing whether guns have a greater importance because they can be used for defense is always going to be a matter of perspective. Yes, as mentioned up thread, fear plays a tremendous role on both sides. Our perspectives guide us toward our conclusions on this as on many things. As a friend of mine who is pretty neutral on the subject said, very few things are quicker to make us all statisticians than gun control. Everyone pulls out statistics that verify their side. In response to your request for stats on prevention, as you mentioned, they're just not there. Even if we opened up the CDC to do research and gave them ridiculous amounts of money, I doubt we would get reliable statistics. How would you? News reports couldn't be counted on as accurate. People that brandish a weapon to deter something  but no criminal action is taken wouldn't have police reports, and even if they did, each situation where they did would be second guessed as to whether they were actually in the right or needed to or even if it helped, how much help (did it really save their life/prevent maiming/whatever). We won't have data anyone can agree upon and not because they are being unreasonable...just because it is gray.

And yet, I am a product of this as much as others are...I just admit it whereas not everyone does. I was raised in the county. Many, many people I live near/know have guns. None of them have hurt anyone with them (that I am aware of). I know of one personal story where my grandfather, in my opinion, was saved from potential seriously bodily harm because he had a gun. When I shared it up thread, it took like three responses before someone mocked the story (again an example...people often just don't give respect to self defense). Where I live, the police are fine people, it will just take them awhile to get to me if something happens. I can't expect a police officer to make it to my house in five minutes or less or whatnot if something happens. Other people are in different situations. When I hear a shot on a Saturday afternoon like I do very regularly, I don't have to worry about someone being hurt. Heck, when I hear them at 10:00 at night irregularly, I don't really have any worries. In a city if you hear it in those situations, someone could very easily be hurt or killed. I recognize that has to have an impact on you. It doesn't change my perspective that is yes, just as rationale as gun control proponents' perspectives. I truly don't know how to bridge that gap, but I enjoy the dialogue and would enjoy any further thoughts.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 10, 2018, 08:07:58 PM
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

I can understand what you're meaning, and this is usually where things break down. Yes, arguing whether guns have a greater importance because they can be used for defense is always going to be a matter of perspective. Yes, as mentioned up thread, fear plays a tremendous role on both sides. Our perspectives guide us toward our conclusions on this as on many things. As a friend of mine who is pretty neutral on the subject said, very few things are quicker to make us all statisticians than gun control. Everyone pulls out statistics that verify their side. In response to your request for stats on prevention, as you mentioned, they're just not there. Even if we opened up the CDC to do research and gave them ridiculous amounts of money, I doubt we would get reliable statistics. How would you? News reports couldn't be counted on as accurate. People that brandish a weapon to deter something  but no criminal action is taken wouldn't have police reports, and even if they did, each situation where they did would be second guessed as to whether they were actually in the right or needed to or even if it helped, how much help (did it really save their life/prevent maiming/whatever). We won't have data anyone can agree upon and not because they are being unreasonable...just because it is gray.

And yet, I am a product of this as much as others are...I just admit it whereas not everyone does. I was raised in the county. Many, many people I live near/know have guns. None of them have hurt anyone with them (that I am aware of). I know of one personal story where my grandfather, in my opinion, was saved from potential seriously bodily harm because he had a gun. When I shared it up thread, it took like three responses before someone mocked the story (again an example...people often just don't give respect to self defense). Where I live, the police are fine people, it will just take them awhile to get to me if something happens. I can't expect a police officer to make it to my house in five minutes or less or whatnot if something happens. Other people are in different situations. When I hear a shot on a Saturday afternoon like I do very regularly, I don't have to worry about someone being hurt. Heck, when I hear them at 10:00 at night irregularly, I don't really have any worries. In a city if you hear it in those situations, someone could very easily be hurt or killed. I recognize that has to have an impact on you. It doesn't change my perspective that is yes, just as rationale as gun control proponents' perspectives. I truly don't know how to bridge that gap, but I enjoy the dialogue and would enjoy any further thoughts.

Reminds me of this great quote from the movie Tombstone:  "We're not saying you can't OWN a gun.  We're not saying you can't CARRY a gun.  We're only saying you can't have a gun IN TOWN."  Seems reasonable to me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 10, 2018, 08:17:47 PM
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

I can understand what you're meaning, and this is usually where things break down. Yes, arguing whether guns have a greater importance because they can be used for defense is always going to be a matter of perspective. Yes, as mentioned up thread, fear plays a tremendous role on both sides. Our perspectives guide us toward our conclusions on this as on many things. As a friend of mine who is pretty neutral on the subject said, very few things are quicker to make us all statisticians than gun control. Everyone pulls out statistics that verify their side. In response to your request for stats on prevention, as you mentioned, they're just not there. Even if we opened up the CDC to do research and gave them ridiculous amounts of money, I doubt we would get reliable statistics. How would you? News reports couldn't be counted on as accurate. People that brandish a weapon to deter something  but no criminal action is taken wouldn't have police reports, and even if they did, each situation where they did would be second guessed as to whether they were actually in the right or needed to or even if it helped, how much help (did it really save their life/prevent maiming/whatever). We won't have data anyone can agree upon and not because they are being unreasonable...just because it is gray.

And yet, I am a product of this as much as others are...I just admit it whereas not everyone does. I was raised in the county. Many, many people I live near/know have guns. None of them have hurt anyone with them (that I am aware of). I know of one personal story where my grandfather, in my opinion, was saved from potential seriously bodily harm because he had a gun. When I shared it up thread, it took like three responses before someone mocked the story (again an example...people often just don't give respect to self defense). Where I live, the police are fine people, it will just take them awhile to get to me if something happens. I can't expect a police officer to make it to my house in five minutes or less or whatnot if something happens. Other people are in different situations. When I hear a shot on a Saturday afternoon like I do very regularly, I don't have to worry about someone being hurt. Heck, when I hear them at 10:00 at night irregularly, I don't really have any worries. In a city if you hear it in those situations, someone could very easily be hurt or killed. I recognize that has to have an impact on you. It doesn't change my perspective that is yes, just as rationale as gun control proponents' perspectives. I truly don't know how to bridge that gap, but I enjoy the dialogue and would enjoy any further thoughts.

Reminds me of this great quote from the movie Tombstone:  "We're not saying you can't OWN a gun.  We're not saying you can't CARRY a gun.  We're only saying you can't have a gun IN TOWN."  Seems reasonable to me.

I mean, honestly, at this point, I'm about ready to just say done with it and go for it. I've actually heard that before, and it is not that crazy imo. At least in America, there's a huge urban/rural divide that's only getting more and more extreme. The situations are different. The political sentiments are different. Heck why not. No guns in a city of whatever size is decided (make it legitimately high enough). Status quo with some onerous imo restrictions removed everywhere else. Have at it....dunno may just be that it's late and I'm tired :).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Heywood57 on May 11, 2018, 10:26:22 AM
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 11, 2018, 02:10:54 PM
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Yes, and imagine how nice it would be to have that in the US.  Takes 7 people being shot together to break a 22 year record.  Not bad and way better than our stats.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 11, 2018, 02:18:29 PM
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Yes, and imagine how nice it would be to have that in the US.  Takes 7 people being shot together to break a 22 year record.  Not bad and way better than our stats.

Murder/suicide too, not someone shooting up random people at a school.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 11, 2018, 02:18:37 PM
@Wolfpack Mustachian I have a short time for a reply so will be brief. 

I struggle with guns being more important because of the defense they provide.  That makes them important, but I think it gets difficult to argue what difference in importance it has and then we get into a lot of unwinnable debates with people. 

With regards to your point from guitarstv and then his response, it boils down to a similar issue.  I think guitarstv used his examples to point out the elevation of risk to a fictional level and asking to review risk accordingly.  I appreciate the argument of people who own guns mainly for defense that the time needed to go get the gun and load it might means the difference between defending themselves or not.  It's valid.  But is it overblown by the pro gun community?  There have been a lot of good statistics from TexasRunner on how few deaths per population we are debating about here.  We'd ask the same thought in the other direction.  How many people die because they did not have a gun?  There is not really a way to know that accurately and so fear drives us to likely overblow that concern.  Thoughts on that?  I do think that drives a lot of the divide.  Both sides see the level of risk differently.  We do not have a gun and are still alive.  No one has attacked us.  A gun has not helped us live.  And we understand than not having a gun could one day be why we die.  But in weighing that risk we feel it is low, just as your stats point out and you like to say that the number of gun deaths that would be prevented are low.  I choose to improve my safety by having a good job and living in a low crime area.  That removes my need to feel I should own a gun.

I can understand what you're meaning, and this is usually where things break down. Yes, arguing whether guns have a greater importance because they can be used for defense is always going to be a matter of perspective. Yes, as mentioned up thread, fear plays a tremendous role on both sides. Our perspectives guide us toward our conclusions on this as on many things. As a friend of mine who is pretty neutral on the subject said, very few things are quicker to make us all statisticians than gun control. Everyone pulls out statistics that verify their side. In response to your request for stats on prevention, as you mentioned, they're just not there. Even if we opened up the CDC to do research and gave them ridiculous amounts of money, I doubt we would get reliable statistics. How would you? News reports couldn't be counted on as accurate. People that brandish a weapon to deter something  but no criminal action is taken wouldn't have police reports, and even if they did, each situation where they did would be second guessed as to whether they were actually in the right or needed to or even if it helped, how much help (did it really save their life/prevent maiming/whatever). We won't have data anyone can agree upon and not because they are being unreasonable...just because it is gray.

And yet, I am a product of this as much as others are...I just admit it whereas not everyone does. I was raised in the county. Many, many people I live near/know have guns. None of them have hurt anyone with them (that I am aware of). I know of one personal story where my grandfather, in my opinion, was saved from potential seriously bodily harm because he had a gun. When I shared it up thread, it took like three responses before someone mocked the story (again an example...people often just don't give respect to self defense). Where I live, the police are fine people, it will just take them awhile to get to me if something happens. I can't expect a police officer to make it to my house in five minutes or less or whatnot if something happens. Other people are in different situations. When I hear a shot on a Saturday afternoon like I do very regularly, I don't have to worry about someone being hurt. Heck, when I hear them at 10:00 at night irregularly, I don't really have any worries. In a city if you hear it in those situations, someone could very easily be hurt or killed. I recognize that has to have an impact on you. It doesn't change my perspective that is yes, just as rationale as gun control proponents' perspectives. I truly don't know how to bridge that gap, but I enjoy the dialogue and would enjoy any further thoughts.

Reminds me of this great quote from the movie Tombstone:  "We're not saying you can't OWN a gun.  We're not saying you can't CARRY a gun.  We're only saying you can't have a gun IN TOWN."  Seems reasonable to me.

I mean, honestly, at this point, I'm about ready to just say done with it and go for it. I've actually heard that before, and it is not that crazy imo. At least in America, there's a huge urban/rural divide that's only getting more and more extreme. The situations are different. The political sentiments are different. Heck why not. No guns in a city of whatever size is decided (make it legitimately high enough). Status quo with some onerous imo restrictions removed everywhere else. Have at it....dunno may just be that it's late and I'm tired :).
Interesting idea, and one that might start to be based on the issues the are different in the US that drive the higher gun violence.  Pack enough people together, turn on the heat in the summer, take away jobs and create poverty and add in guns and maybe that's the recipe for a mess. 

Rather than providing two responses I'll just jump in here with for your earlier one as well.  I do get the area of the country plays a part (which is also what makes your idea intriguing, since most large population centers are out east where I also believe there is also more gun control advocates than down south or west.  I have vacationed out in Montana.  One of the things my wife and I talked about was how you'd need to be a lot more self-sufficient to live here because of the vast distances between anything.  Huge use of time and resources to run out to the store to buy something so I'm sure that drive much bulk purchasing or making/growing your own.  Much longer time for any response.  Just like the need for a gun, I assume if your house catches on fire if you cannot put it out yourself by the time anyone got there it would be far too late.  Like it or not, those situations change perspective on a lot of things, including the importance of a gun.  And I would also think it would enhance the perspective of those with malicious intent into thinking that since response time is naturally so much longer because of lack of population and distance that they might be more emboldened to try something they would not in a city with a house across the street and five feet away on either side, which then raises the importance of being able to defend yourself if you happen to get a nut job who picks your homestead. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 11, 2018, 02:20:35 PM
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Yes, and imagine how nice it would be to have that in the US.  Takes 7 people being shot together to break a 22 year record.  Not bad and way better than our stats.

Murder/suicide too, not someone shooting up random people at a school.
Agreed.  Heywood did not really explain what point they were trying to make (good/bad).  It points back to all my questions that we should be asking.  What makes the US situation so different and then address from that standpoint to try to remove those things that cause gun violence to be the route selected.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on May 11, 2018, 05:14:56 PM
A mass shooting occurred in Australia today
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/family-7-dead-gunshot-wounds-rural-australia-n873301
Yes, and imagine how nice it would be to have that in the US.  Takes 7 people being shot together to break a 22 year record.  Not bad and way better than our stats.

Murder/suicide too, not someone shooting up random people at a school.

There has been mutterings of reducing the strictness of gun laws in some states of Australia lately.  Hopefully this horrible tragedy will being some sense back to the minds of the legislators and  won't be entirely lives lost for nothing. My heart goes out to the community, some of whom I know, but my actions go towards keeping gun laws strict and ensuring my gun is locked in it's safe at all times it is not being used.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on May 15, 2018, 03:02:48 PM
The FBI has designated 50 shootings in 2016 and 2017 as active shooter incidents. Twenty incidents occurred in 2016, while 30 incidents occurred in 2017. As with past FBI active shooter-related publications, this report does not encompass all gun-related situations. Rather, it focuses on a specific type of shooting situation. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms. The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf (https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf)



Quote
In 10 incidents, citizens confronted the shooter. In eight of those incidents, one or more citizens safely
and successfully acted to end the shooting.
■ In four incidents, unarmed citizens confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting. In two incidents, school staff confronted and restrained the shooter. In one incident, the citizen used his car to thwart the shooter. In one incident, the citizen persuaded the shooter to surrender via telephone during a police chase; she ran up to the shooter’s car as he came to a stop and pulled him out of his seat, bringing the chase to an end.
In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In two incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In two incidents, the citizens held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived.


(Edit to remove confusing reference numbers that pulled from the report.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 15, 2018, 05:50:34 PM
The FBI has designated 50 shootings in 2016 and 2017 as active shooter incidents. Twenty incidents occurred in 2016, while 30 incidents occurred in 2017. As with past FBI active shooter-related publications, this report does not encompass all gun-related situations. Rather, it focuses on a specific type of shooting situation. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms. The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf (https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf)



Quote
In 10 incidents, citizens confronted the shooter. In eight of those incidents, one or more citizens safely
and successfully acted to end the shooting.
■ In four incidents, unarmed citizens confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting. In two incidents, school staff confronted and restrained the shooter. In one incident, the citizen used his car to thwart the shooter. In one incident, the citizen persuaded the shooter to surrender via telephone during a police chase; she ran up to the shooter’s car as he came to a stop and pulled him out of his seat, bringing the chase to an end.
In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In two incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In two incidents, the citizens held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived.


(Edit to remove confusing reference numbers that pulled from the report.)

That's a powerful case you make against the need for personal firearms to protect yourself in those situations.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 16, 2018, 09:17:26 AM
That was such a good example of what was just discussed. The example by TexasRunner shows support to both sides of the defense/not needed for defense argument. I’m actually pretty surprised it was brought up, although that in itself may show how much tunnel vision we get about this. At best, it’s tells us that either having a gun or not having a gun does not mean you can or can’t stop a shooter. Basically, it is pretty meaningless for either side.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on May 18, 2018, 10:43:17 AM
Another school shooting today.

Ten dead at Santa Fe school.

We live in a calm, welcoming place. Still, I want my kids to be done with public school due to lax legislation about school safety.

For example: you have to be buzzed in the front door. Press the doorbell, a few seconds later after looking you over from the office they will or won't let you in.

Or - a couple of bullets to the huge glass windows everywhere and you're in...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 18, 2018, 11:04:50 AM
I’d personally prefer my kids not need to be in a max-security school because of lax gun laws. It looks like that shooting had a school resource officer there who responded and was wounded. Still didn’t stop it from being a major event. We’ve got to stop it BEFORE it happens, not after. Florida, Texas, Nevada - all states with lax gun laws. I’m noticing a trend recently.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 18, 2018, 11:29:15 AM
Sante Fe is the 3rd school shooting in the last 7 days and the 16th this year.

Enough.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 18, 2018, 12:17:22 PM
Sante Fe is the 3rd school shooting in the last 7 days and the 16th this year.

Enough.

No.  Unfortunately, it's not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 18, 2018, 02:04:52 PM
I’d personally prefer my kids not need to be in a max-security school because of lax gun laws. It looks like that shooting had a school resource officer there who responded and was wounded. Still didn’t stop it from being a major event. We’ve got to stop it BEFORE it happens, not after. Florida, Texas, Nevada - all states with lax gun laws. I’m noticing a trend recently.
I posted earlier that I think we need to assess why this is the choice people make in our culture.  Having access to guns is a part of it, but I think the smallest part.  Other countries have access to guns.  Maybe not the same ones, maybe not the same way, but in the end there is still a further decision to take the gun and do this that does not seem to happen other places and I do not think we will ever solve it by just assuming it is because they had a gun.  I think this is a mental issue (not saying always mentally imbalanced, but something that needs to be researched to figure out why our culture makes this seem like a thing to do for these people).  Other places have schools and guns but they do not have this, so guns are not the sole problem here.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 18, 2018, 02:22:04 PM
I posted earlier that I think we need to assess why this is the choice people make in our culture.  Having access to guns is a part of it, but I think the smallest part.  Other countries have access to guns.  Maybe not the same ones, maybe not the same way, but in the end there is still a further decision to take the gun and do this that does not seem to happen other places and I do not think we will ever solve it by just assuming it is because they had a gun.  I think this is a mental issue (not saying always mentally imbalanced, but something that needs to be researched to figure out why our culture makes this seem like a thing to do for these people).  Other places have schools and guns but they do not have this, so guns are not the sole problem here.

Not really:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/soLsI9Pj0148Gc02RNRn4__A8g4=/0x0:1599x1270/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1599x1270):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8319829/gun_homicides_developed_countries.0.jpg)

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/24g8TOv4h2B5gUieD3YpN5fImDc=/0x0:1256x614/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1256x614):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4120446/gun%20ownership.png)

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/VCSDpKu-KPwUPb2r5F6i9j8NwUA=/0x0:3840x2794/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:3840x2794):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/10328765/GUN_SCATTERPLOT_2x.png)

If you read up on the gun laws in other countries - Japan, Australia, the UK, etc. - you'll notice they have far stricter gun laws than the U.S.  Then again, since we allow virtually unfettered access to guns having stricter laws isn't hard.

Also, as the charts show above, other places don't have guns in the numbers we do.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 18, 2018, 03:14:34 PM
Yep, another "law abiding gun owner" who's guns were used in a massacre. Sickening!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 18, 2018, 03:20:32 PM
I posted earlier that I think we need to assess why this is the choice people make in our culture.  Having access to guns is a part of it, but I think the smallest part.  Other countries have access to guns.  Maybe not the same ones, maybe not the same way, but in the end there is still a further decision to take the gun and do this that does not seem to happen other places and I do not think we will ever solve it by just assuming it is because they had a gun.  I think this is a mental issue (not saying always mentally imbalanced, but something that needs to be researched to figure out why our culture makes this seem like a thing to do for these people).  Other places have schools and guns but they do not have this, so guns are not the sole problem here.

Not really:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/soLsI9Pj0148Gc02RNRn4__A8g4=/0x0:1599x1270/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1599x1270):format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8319829/gun_homicides_developed_countries.0.jpg)


If you read up on the gun laws in other countries - Japan, Australia, the UK, etc. - you'll notice they have far stricter gun laws than the U.S.  Then again, since we allow virtually unfettered access to guns having stricter laws isn't hard.

Also, as the charts show above, other places don't have guns in the numbers we do.
If this says what I think it does, this is exactly what I mean.  I do not automatically correlate the fact that there are a lot of guns to the fact that there are a lot of deaths.  Let's take Sweden as out base point.  They have 4.1 deaths and about 30 guns per 100 people (actually a bit more, like 31 or 32).  The US has less than 90, but for easy math let's say 90, 3 times as much as Sweden.  If the guns were the only, or even the main, problem, then we should have 3 times the homicides, or a little over 12, yet he have 2.5 times that number, which is exactly my point.  There is something else going on in our culture that drives Americans to attack with a gun, and we need to figure that out if we really want to address this.  We've banned guns in several of our cities for a time and while homicides dropped they did not come anywhere near 0, so limiting or banning is an easy panacea that is likely to be a lot of work for not the result you want. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on May 18, 2018, 03:25:32 PM
I thought this was actually a really well done article discussing the real numbers of gun related deaths...  Despite what people on both sides of the issue are trying to push.


BJ Campbell - Everybody’s Lying About the Link Between Gun Ownership and Homicide (https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5)

Nice charts.....


I think I will just repost this.  I doubt anyone here will bother reading it though...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Just Joe on May 18, 2018, 03:53:54 PM
I’d personally prefer my kids not need to be in a max-security school because of lax gun laws. It looks like that shooting had a school resource officer there who responded and was wounded. Still didn’t stop it from being a major event. We’ve got to stop it BEFORE it happens, not after. Florida, Texas, Nevada - all states with lax gun laws. I’m noticing a trend recently.

I agree. Beginning to think they need to go back to the old windows with the wire inside the glass or ballistic glass around entrances. I'm over the gun rights argument. Time to get something done.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on May 18, 2018, 07:17:17 PM
24 pages of discussion, and the only thing that has become clear to me is that there is no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns.  We have mass shootings almost monthly, but apparently that's still 'not nearly as bad as we think it is'.  There is no magical number of deaths that will change their minds--not until it's their own children lying dead in a puddle of blood on the floor of their school--and maybe not even then.  Instead they want to talk philosophy, and psychiatric counseling, and a million and one other things to deflect and derail while children continue to die at the hands of other children.

So the hell with it.  Screw them, ban all the guns. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 18, 2018, 07:24:23 PM
24 pages of discussion, and the only thing that has become clear to me is that there is no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns.  We have mass shootings almost monthly, but apparently that's still 'not nearly as bad as we think it is'.  There is no magical number of deaths that will change their minds--not until it's their own children lying dead in a puddle of blood on the floor of their school--and maybe not even then.  Instead they want to talk philosophy, and psychiatric counseling, and a million and one other things to deflect and derail while children continue to die at the hands of other children.

So the hell with it.  Screw them, ban all the guns.
You do understand while you run to your corner again that I am not a GRA but someone who would like to solve the problem and could care less if people could own guns, yet I was one who raised what you call "psychiatric counseling".   Ignoring a possible solution because it is hard is not a really smart choice.  I'm asking because beyond guns we seem to have a propensity for choosing to take those things and do something (children killing other children as you say) that is not consistent in magnitude with our gun levels compared to other countries who have the same things we so, guns, schools and children.  Yet our kids make stupider choices.  You don't think that it's worth figuring out why?

Or instead you prefer to run to your corner of gun control and ban guns and accuse GRA of not wanting to talk, while you just decided not to talk?  Sounds pretty fair and intelligent.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on May 18, 2018, 07:33:39 PM

If this says what I think it does, this is exactly what I mean.  I do not automatically correlate the fact that there are a lot of guns to the fact that there are a lot of deaths.  Let's take Sweden as out base point.  They have 4.1 deaths and about 30 guns per 100 people (actually a bit more, like 31 or 32).  The US has less than 90, but for easy math let's say 90, 3 times as much as Sweden.  If the guns were the only, or even the main, problem, then we should have 3 times the homicides, or a little over 12, yet he have 2.5 times that number, which is exactly my point.  There is something else going on in our culture that drives Americans to attack with a gun, and we need to figure that out if we really want to address this.  We've banned guns in several of our cities for a time and while homicides dropped they did not come anywhere near 0, so limiting or banning is an easy panacea that is likely to be a lot of work for not the result you want.

What this chart does is highlight the violence problem that this country suffers. The homicide rate should directly correlate to the gun ownership percentage, but it doesn't. So, is the gun the problem or the people? If you want to actually analyze the data, look at the race disparity in violent crime. It is a social problem and way beyond the one weapon type.

Guns per 100 people-
United States of America 88.8
Switzerland 45.7
Finland 45.3
Sweden 31.6
Norway 31.3
France 31.2
Canada 30.8
Austria 30.4
Iceland 30.3
Germany 15 30.3

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ministashy on May 18, 2018, 07:56:53 PM
24 pages of discussion, and the only thing that has become clear to me is that there is no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns.  We have mass shootings almost monthly, but apparently that's still 'not nearly as bad as we think it is'.  There is no magical number of deaths that will change their minds--not until it's their own children lying dead in a puddle of blood on the floor of their school--and maybe not even then.  Instead they want to talk philosophy, and psychiatric counseling, and a million and one other things to deflect and derail while children continue to die at the hands of other children.

So the hell with it.  Screw them, ban all the guns.

Or instead you prefer to run to your corner of gun control and ban guns and accuse GRA of not wanting to talk, while you just decided not to talk?  Sounds pretty fair and intelligent.

Yep, exactly.  I'm going to 'run to my corner and not talk'.  And then I'm going to vote for every gun regulation that comes my way, and do my damndest to convince my friends and family to do the same.  Why?  Because people like you want to pretend that somehow it's the kids that are the problem--that a significant percentage of our kids are so much worse, so mentally ill, so much more violent, so completely different from every other child on the planet--that there's no possible way that actually taking away the common denominator in mass shootings (which is--SURPRISE--the thing that does the shooting) could ever possibly make a difference.

It's stupid.  It's an argument in bad faith.  And trust me, I work with a lot of gun aficionadoes--this is not the first time I've had this debate.  I've been having this debate with different people for DECADES at this point, and the only thing that has changed over the years is that we now have less regulation and more shootings.

To quote Narcotics Anonymous:  "The price may seem higher for the addict who prostitutes for a fix than it is for the addict who merely lies to a doctor, but ultimately both pay with their lives. Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 19, 2018, 12:25:55 AM
So much this. If anything, it’s the parents who are to blame, not the kids. How about we arrest the father of that Texas kid? The one who didn’t secure his weapons and probably taught his kid to shoot? Enough with this stupid cowboy “good guy”/“criminals” kind of BS talk. No one is a “good guy”. We are all people who do stupid things sometimes. This father/“responsible” gun owner sure fucked up.

I never, ever thought I would say this, but I want very much to see someone have the balls to kill the second amendment. No other country has something like that hobbling policy, law, and any discussion  at all when it comes to guns. There’s your explanation. Banning guns in a couple cities means NOTHING when you can drive a few hours and have your pick.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on May 19, 2018, 01:51:35 AM
people like you want to pretend that somehow it's the kids that are the problem--that a significant percentage of our kids are so much worse, so mentally ill, so much more violent, so completely different from every other child on the planet--that there's no possible way that actually taking away the common denominator in mass shootings (which is--SURPRISE--the thing that does the shooting) could ever possibly make a difference.
Obviously taking away the common denominator will make a difference. But the US as a whole is more medicated than any other country on Earth, and that includes your children. It even varies by US state (https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/medicated.html). In the US, you are more likely to be diagnosed with a mental health issue, and more likely to receive medication for it. So either the US is overdiagnosing, or other countries are underdiagnosing, or the US is just crazier than other countries.  And in most mass shootings, the perpetrator has a history of interactions with mental health authorities.

Firearms or mental health? It's not either/or. Your country can have more than one problem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 19, 2018, 05:54:09 AM
@ministashy I'm not suggesting that the kids may be mentally unstable.  You once again are jumping to a corner.  It does not mean we have actual mental health diagnosable disorders.  If you'd honestly get off the soapbox and listen to things that are being said and be open to thinking about them you might understand what I am seeing.  @TrudgingAlong points to something I strongly believe as well, the parents are as much or more involved.  Where does a child learn how to think about the world?  From those around them, mainly their parents, then their peer group and also media.  We are a culture saturated with fascination with guns (where a discussion can go on for 24 pages just because it is fasctinating not because we got anywhere as you yourself pointed out) and it is everywhere and to ignore that difference from other countires and say it is just the thing doing the shooting is a little short sighted, I believe.

@Kyle Schuant  also brings up a terrific point.  We have more than one problem.  Why has the issue not been solved?  Because we take the lazy way out and focus on one thing and pontificate that "We must do something about guns?"  In my line of work I regularly find that stopping at the most obvious solution is almost always wrong, so I'll take you through the basics of root cause analysis, which begins with "5 whys".  I am not saying my answers or this path it THE right one, but it is one.  I'd ask you do the same.  At this point you are asking one why, and stopping.  A fatal flaw (pardon the pun).

Why do we have a lot of shooting?  Because we have guns
Why do we have a lot of guns? Because people like them
Why do people like them? Because it makes them feel something.  Safe, cool, exercising their freddoms, etc.
Why do they want to feel that way? Because it satisfies some desire in them
Why do they have that desire?  Because of the way they think about something

And now at that fifth why, you get to where I am.  Why do Americans think about these things leading all the way back to wanting a gun and using it in the way they do?  To argue that the answer does not lie in research on the mental patterns that get us there is poor analysis I believe.  Get to the root.  Guns are not the root.  They are a branch,  Again, I am not a gun advocate.  Far from it.  I'm with you at times where I'm just like take them away, makes no difference to me, but when I get off my pile of emotions of anger and frustration and sadness I realize that my being pissed off is not going to solve a damn thing.  We need to methodically and objectively work through the issue.  Nothing in root cause analysis says five is the magic number.  The rule is to ask AT LEAST 5 whys.  Only then have you got any chance that you might understand what the problem is.  Like it or not, it is not guns by themselves, so trying to solve that will not get us very far. 

There are several folks on this thread engaging in a conversation, but you've shut it down again with your angst and rage.  Listen to other people like @px4shooter who see the same thing in the data, it's not just a gun problem.  It's a social problem.  It hurts to admit that maybe our kids and maybe we are messed up.  We can be the proverbial ostrich in the sand with the voices of the little seagulls from Finding Nemo and stick out heads in the sand while we continue to shout, "Guns! Guns! Guns!" when asked what the problem is.  Or we can use those nice long necks on our ostrich bodies and stick our heads up high and look around and try to figure out WTF is really going on.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on May 19, 2018, 06:12:49 AM
Quote from: caracarn
And now at that fifth why, you get to where I am.  Why do Americans think about these things leading all the way back to wanting a gun and using it in the way they do?
I'm reminded of the saying...

"To the man with a hammer, all problems look like a nail."

Maybe because guns are so common and easily accessible, many Americans see all problems as ones that can be resolved by the use of guns?

Just a thought and probably wrong.  It's much more likely to be something, anything, other than the easy access to firearms.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 19, 2018, 07:10:52 AM
As an outsider, I keep coming back to this perceived need for guns, for protection.  Canadians are not the most peaceful society, when we look at those charts, but we are not looking to guns for protection.  We don't have hand guns except for restricted access (police, etc.) and criminals (smuggled guns from the US, mostly).  We do have long guns.  Most people have them because they target shoot, hunt, or are rural with predator problems (coyotes around here).  And we do have people who use them criminally1.  We also have two relatively recent cases of people using vehicles criminally2.  But we aren't doing the more visible acting out at the same rate as our neighbours.

So Caracarn has a point - why do Americans have so many guns, and why do they feel the need for these guns?

1 Parliament Hill shooting, 2014
2 Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu 2014, Toronto 2018
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 19, 2018, 07:12:55 AM
24 pages of discussion, and the only thing that has become clear to me is that there is no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns.  We have mass shootings almost monthly, but apparently that's still 'not nearly as bad as we think it is'.  There is no magical number of deaths that will change their minds--not until it's their own children lying dead in a puddle of blood on the floor of their school--and maybe not even then.  Instead they want to talk philosophy, and psychiatric counseling, and a million and one other things to deflect and derail while children continue to die at the hands of other children.

So the hell with it.  Screw them, ban all the guns.

I'll use a ^^^^ this :). Not that I agree with you, but that this is an example of why there's less compromise than you claim to want.

You make a statement that is completely false. You state that 24 pages of discussion (I doubt you've read it all, or if you have it's with rose colored glasses, ignoring what's in black and white) where there is "no regulation, no restriction, no rule or compromise that the GRAs on this board (and I would assume elsewhere) will accept when it comes to guns." I don't have the time or inclination to go back and look up all the quotes, but I believe there may be 1 or 2 people MAYBE that haven't proposed any additional solutions/compromise. I know I have, and I've argued extensively on the rights side, so your statement is wrong on the face of it because it's an absolutist statement that is simply again, wrong.

What you're saying is that people aren't proposing the regulations or restrictions you are wanting. The fact of the matter is, people have commented that they would be up for different things. I've personally commented that universal background checks and larger gun magazine bans seem like stuff we should go at before other things that appear to be nonsensical like "assault weapons" bans (especially since I got push back when requests were made for what that actually means, which still makes me chuckle a bit at the silliness of it). GRA People have proposed looking at the prosecution of people who do straw purchases, for instance. There's discussion on whether or not this would be effective, but again, the GRA side is proposing things on this board. They're also discussing philosophy as you say and *gasp* nuance and effectiveness. It's what rational people do when they're discussing legislative issues of the day. I mean, I get it. It's human nature to jump in full tilt into something. This is a bad example, but I think there's a comparison here. It's why people like spy novels, zombie novels, end of the universe stuff - Avengers anyone? The end of the world or at least the end of the world is coming for a particular person or family. He realizes the zombie plague is coming and quits his job of 30 years, spends his whole savings on a boat to go to sea to escape it - darn the consequences because who cares, the issue is so important. Or the Avengers in the movie do whatever without worrying too much about the buildings that are destroyed...after all, the bad guys are wanting to do something so much worse, it's worth not worrying about the nuances. However, to continue the Avengers analogy *spoiler alert* guns aren't Thanos trying to kill literally half the universe *end spoiler alert*. It's not an epidemic wiping out 25% of the planet's population. It's a serious issue where people are getting hurt and killed that could be improved upon, but you're not going to get traction among people that disagree with you when you treat it like it's the former thing.

Yes, we can do something. Most people on here who have been discussing have been discussing things to do. Details do matter, and I'm not apologizing for that. Your statement implies that they don't. It leads to where GRA people make comments that gun control people are irrational and only think with their emotions, and quite frankly it's not just a perception. You're proving it out. To the person whose son died of a rare disease, they might think that 75% of all money for medical research should be devoted to that disease until it's cured. That's great, but we don't live in a world where doing one things doesn't have consequences for other things. Cancer and heart disease kills so many more people and requires attention too (not saying the first disease doesn't). Again, not the best analogy, but there are consequences to every action. What if we ban all guns and crime stays similar or violent crime goes up. Gun homicides go down because they're less guns but overall homicides go up. Your statement shows that your rigid and dare I say fanatical ideology overrides any other factor, which, to me, proves that I don't need to worry about what you think and makes me wonder if other people who support gun control think the same. Thanks carcarn for providing a foil to this.

These venting statements/rants simply do as caracarn says. They make people like me think there is no compromise with the "other side." I get it that at this point, you don't seem to care. That's fine too. Your perspective just has consequences.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 19, 2018, 08:30:49 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on May 19, 2018, 09:16:32 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on May 19, 2018, 09:26:30 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.

More kids have been shot and killed at school in 2018 than military service members.

Are school shootings a problem? Yes.
Are mass shootings a problem? Yes.
Are "every day" murders a problem? Yes.
Are suicides a problem? Yes.

Common denominator?  Unfettered access to guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: calimom on May 19, 2018, 09:35:16 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.


….which leads us back to the guns being the problem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 19, 2018, 10:06:44 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.


….which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 19, 2018, 10:34:26 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.


….which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

No, it leads to the War on drugs.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 19, 2018, 10:53:45 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.


….which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

The hypothetical is a good question for everyone to ask themselves.

The other point though, "Greater access to guns leads to more deaths", I don't disagree with the statement but saying the data supports it isn't entirely true. This is very much correlation and as others have pointed out the rate of ownership to death does not correlate as well in other countries. There are many other differences between the US and developed European countries and one in particular is indeed the war on drugs.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 19, 2018, 01:42:31 PM
They also have socialized healthcare, which means better access to mental health services. Something a whole lot of the same people who love their guns don’t want in America. I’ve always been an Independent who voted both sides of the aisle,  but I might register Democrat for the first time ever this year. At least until the Republicans get serious about guns AND increasing healthcare access.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 19, 2018, 10:17:00 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.


….which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

As has been commented, where is all of this data that proves that greater access to guns leads to more deaths (not gun deaths but actual overall deaths). It's simply not there, or feel free to post it and prove me wrong. I'll answer your hypothetical question. If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily. Because I'm more concerned with overall violent crimes, deaths, rapes, etc. than I am of what is committed with a gun. There's no telling whether overall violence would reduce if we magically made all guns disappear, and that's a more important question. I'll throw a hypothetical one back at you - Are GCA people ever brave enough to support taking gun laws off the books that don't help and simply provide red tape for people that responsibly use guns? It doesn't appear that's happening from what I'm seeing, but if you're really wanting change, that might be a better way of getting it by compromising rather than the tact you're taking....
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 19, 2018, 11:47:51 PM
Wolfpack - I agree, we should radically reduce red tape around gun ownership by simply banning them.  Can't get simpler than that.

I'd also point out that my hypothetical results in lower deaths, your hypothetical results in less red tape.  That's telling.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 20, 2018, 12:46:46 AM
Interesting choice of words. How does one prove they are “responsibly using guns”? Look at the Vegas shooter as a great example. No one has a clue why he decided to go off and shoot as many people as he could with his arsenal. He totally fit the “good guy” profile (as a woman, I’d still like to know why it must be a male thing to be “good”, but whatever...), yet turned into a mass murderer. Red tape seems to be our only hope of forcing responsible behavior. Or, of course, banning guns so we can stop trying to figure out who is “really good” and who is “fake good”.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 20, 2018, 06:10:41 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.


….which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

As has been commented, where is all of this data that proves that greater access to guns leads to more deaths (not gun deaths but actual overall deaths). It's simply not there, or feel free to post it and prove me wrong. I'll answer your hypothetical question. If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily. Because I'm more concerned with overall violent crimes, deaths, rapes, etc. than I am of what is committed with a gun. There's no telling whether overall violence would reduce if we magically made all guns disappear, and that's a more important question. I'll throw a hypothetical one back at you - Are GCA people ever brave enough to support taking gun laws off the books that don't help and simply provide red tape for people that responsibly use guns? It doesn't appear that's happening from what I'm seeing, but if you're really wanting change, that might be a better way of getting it by compromising rather than the tact you're taking....

Wow!!! So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it? I bet you would feel differently if it was your child. "Sorry your child was shot and killed while going to school, but hey at least they weren't raped!" 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 20, 2018, 07:12:52 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.


….which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

As has been commented, where is all of this data that proves that greater access to guns leads to more deaths (not gun deaths but actual overall deaths). It's simply not there, or feel free to post it and prove me wrong. I'll answer your hypothetical question. If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily. Because I'm more concerned with overall violent crimes, deaths, rapes, etc. than I am of what is committed with a gun. There's no telling whether overall violence would reduce if we magically made all guns disappear, and that's a more important question. I'll throw a hypothetical one back at you - Are GCA people ever brave enough to support taking gun laws off the books that don't help and simply provide red tape for people that responsibly use guns? It doesn't appear that's happening from what I'm seeing, but if you're really wanting change, that might be a better way of getting it by compromising rather than the tact you're taking....

Wow!!! So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it? I bet you would feel differently if it was your child. "Sorry your child was shot and killed while going to school, but hey at least they weren't raped!"

Again with the emotional rhetoric, especially the "at least my child wouldn't be raped comment" (really?)....again, this is why gun rights people think they cannot have rational conversations with gun control activests. What if my child was shot? I would be pretty unhappy. What if my brother was beaten to death? I wouldn't be very happy. What if my life savings were stolen by someone through some loophole in the law and got away with it? I might think everything should stop in legislation until we fix this loophole because it affected me. It's probably not a good idea to govern a country based on anecdotes. I truly don't see how you don't see this unless you are deliberately being obtuse.

Gun violence is not low on my priority list. I don't know how you got that out of what I said, again, except by being deliberately obtuse. The fact that you can't see or understand that we should be more concerned with overall violence than gun violence is very revealing as to how your focus on the issue has caused you to lose perspective. I don't care if every violent death in the country is caused by guns rather than by bats or by martial artists or whatever. If there were, whatever, we'll say 50,000 violent deaths in America, and we magically took all guns away, and violent deaths overall went up to 55,000, then we as a country lost. If we extended guns where more people had them or people were able to carry them in more places or whatever and overall deaths went from 50,000 to 45,000 but more of them were gun deaths, we as a country would win. I'm not saying these would certainly happen, so don't claim that I did. I'm just saying, your line of thinking that disregards that this is true is flawed. Note that you were not saying you didn't think this would happen but that I was wrong to think this mattered at all. I mentioned rape because maybe banning guns would reduce overall deaths by a small amount but other violent crimes like rapes skyrocketed because guns were actually a deterrent - that would actually matter and be worth considering? Again, I'm not saying that would happen, but in your world where there is absolutely no nuance to the issue at all, you're not considering any consequences to this action you want. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, right?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on May 20, 2018, 09:32:56 AM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 20, 2018, 11:34:21 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/05/its-the-guns/560771/

Quote
Americans of high-school age are 82 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than 15- to 19-year-olds in the rest of the developed world.

It's the guns.

That article insinuates that the 82x is due to school shootings. It’s not. It’s due to urban gang violence.


….which leads us back to the guns being the problem.

Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet. 

But here's a real question for any GRA brave enough to answer it.  Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban?

As has been commented, where is all of this data that proves that greater access to guns leads to more deaths (not gun deaths but actual overall deaths). It's simply not there, or feel free to post it and prove me wrong. I'll answer your hypothetical question. If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily. Because I'm more concerned with overall violent crimes, deaths, rapes, etc. than I am of what is committed with a gun. There's no telling whether overall violence would reduce if we magically made all guns disappear, and that's a more important question. I'll throw a hypothetical one back at you - Are GCA people ever brave enough to support taking gun laws off the books that don't help and simply provide red tape for people that responsibly use guns? It doesn't appear that's happening from what I'm seeing, but if you're really wanting change, that might be a better way of getting it by compromising rather than the tact you're taking....

Wow!!! So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it? I bet you would feel differently if it was your child. "Sorry your child was shot and killed while going to school, but hey at least they weren't raped!"

Again with the emotional rhetoric, especially the "at least my child wouldn't be raped comment" (really?)....again, this is why gun rights people think they cannot have rational conversations with gun control activests. What if my child was shot? I would be pretty unhappy. What if my brother was beaten to death? I wouldn't be very happy. What if my life savings were stolen by someone through some loophole in the law and got away with it? I might think everything should stop in legislation until we fix this loophole because it affected me. It's probably not a good idea to govern a country based on anecdotes. I truly don't see how you don't see this unless you are deliberately being obtuse.

Gun violence is not low on my priority list. I don't know how you got that out of what I said, again, except by being deliberately obtuse. The fact that you can't see or understand that we should be more concerned with overall violence than gun violence is very revealing as to how your focus on the issue has caused you to lose perspective. I don't care if every violent death in the country is caused by guns rather than by bats or by martial artists or whatever. If there were, whatever, we'll say 50,000 violent deaths in America, and we magically took all guns away, and violent deaths overall went up to 55,000, then we as a country lost. If we extended guns where more people had them or people were able to carry them in more places or whatever and overall deaths went from 50,000 to 45,000 but more of them were gun deaths, we as a country would win. I'm not saying these would certainly happen, so don't claim that I did. I'm just saying, your line of thinking that disregards that this is true is flawed. Note that you were not saying you didn't think this would happen but that I was wrong to think this mattered at all. I mentioned rape because maybe banning guns would reduce overall deaths by a small amount but other violent crimes like rapes skyrocketed because guns were actually a deterrent - that would actually matter and be worth considering? Again, I'm not saying that would happen, but in your world where there is absolutely no nuance to the issue at all, you're not considering any consequences to this action you want. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead, right?

Everyone writes with emotion. It's part of what makes us human. We aren't devoid of thoughts and feelings. So I have no ideal what you mean by "emotional rhetoric." I responded to the bolded part where you claimed that you would not support a ban if it meant gun violence would cease. And your reasoning was because things like rape etc. are more important to you. Hence reducing gun violence is pretty low on your priority list. If someone gave me a choice of having or not having gun violence. I would prefer not to have it. Seems pretty simple.

Yes I am a gun control person. I support keeping guns out of peoples hands that shouldn't have one. Hopefully you do as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 20, 2018, 12:02:39 PM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.

That is an ironic thing to say on this piece of conversation with tyort. I wasn't the one that made a ridiculous statement about at least a child wasn't raped... I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so. Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 20, 2018, 12:30:07 PM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 20, 2018, 01:06:20 PM
I think Wolfpack is holding on to the idea that more guns lowers crime such as rape. Most sexual abuse/rape is from people we know who we aren’t likely to pull a gun on until it’s far too late, though, so I doubt removing guns will result in more rape.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 20, 2018, 02:23:56 PM
I think Wolfpack is holding on to the idea that more guns lowers crime such as rape. Most sexual abuse/rape is from people we know who we aren’t likely to pull a gun on until it’s far too late, though, so I doubt removing guns will result in more rape.

This is quite true.  One common thread I find in talking to GRA types is that they see the world as full of predators and that owning a gun is one of the few things that makes the world safe from these predators.  So GRA types react very negatively and very emotionally about any discussion around gun control because they feel literally unsafe without a weapon. 

I'm from Texas, my family all grew up as poor farmers in the hill country there.  I actually own guns because I inherited them from my grandparents.  I grew up around guns and am very comfortable with them.  So I'm not reacting emotionally, quite the opposite.  I just like to ask hard questions that make GRA types uncomfortable. 

For example, if eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence, it wouldn't actually matter to a GRA person.  Because their main concern is not about gun violence.  Their main concern is keeping themselves safe from 'predators'. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: golden1 on May 20, 2018, 02:48:40 PM
What is really sad is that the NRA has poisoned all the rhetoric surrounding the gun debate to the point that the opposite side has hardened to the point of wanting to ban guns entirely.  I really think there was a point in time where the NRA could have taken a leadership position and addressed our gun death problems with empathy and a push for better training and a better culture surrounding gun ownership, instead of what we have now.  Now we have the NRA attacking survivors of mass shootings, which is pretty much as low as one can go. 

However, empathy won’t sell guns, but promoting a culture of persecution and victimization will sell lots of guns. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 20, 2018, 04:19:10 PM
Wolfpack - I agree, we should radically reduce red tape around gun ownership by simply banning them.  Can't get simpler than that.

I'd also point out that my hypothetical results in lower deaths, your hypothetical results in less red tape.  That's telling.

Before I started in on other comments, I want to acknowledge this one. It's a fair question and critique. However, I want to point out that your statement is not correct in light of what you actually said. Your hypothetical resulted in lower gun deaths. I was trying to get to that point but you don't seem to respond to that at all. My hypothetical, I'll admit, does seem more trivial. However, what I was specifically thinking of when I thought of it was gun control laws restricting concealed carry people who statistically commit such a small amount of crime with guns that it's virtually negligible but who do occasionally stop bad things from happening. Restrictions on them is red tape that could prevent lives from being saved, so yes, I am thinking about lives.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 20, 2018, 04:37:09 PM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 20, 2018, 04:46:36 PM
I think Wolfpack is holding on to the idea that more guns lowers crime such as rape. Most sexual abuse/rape is from people we know who we aren’t likely to pull a gun on until it’s far too late, though, so I doubt removing guns will result in more rape.

This is quite true.  One common thread I find in talking to GRA types is that they see the world as full of predators and that owning a gun is one of the few things that makes the world safe from these predators.  So GRA types react very negatively and very emotionally about any discussion around gun control because they feel literally unsafe without a weapon. 

I'm from Texas, my family all grew up as poor farmers in the hill country there.  I actually own guns because I inherited them from my grandparents.  I grew up around guns and am very comfortable with them.  So I'm not reacting emotionally, quite the opposite.  I just like to ask hard questions that make GRA types uncomfortable. 

For example, if eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence, it wouldn't actually matter to a GRA person.  Because their main concern is not about gun violence.  Their main concern is keeping themselves safe from 'predators'.

Again claiming we're acting emotionally.... The only emotion I'm having right now is frustration that I'm apparently not getting my point across. First, you're claiming to act non-emotionally, but I haven't seen you post any data to back up your clear statement that eliminating guns would reduce overall violence like I asked you for....so you know, you could do that....

Second, you claim to know what I'm thinking. Most gun control people do. I'm not afraid of predators or think they're under every door post. I have literally made the statement several times in this thread that:

You're statistically unlikely to get hurt by someone in a violent crime.

You're statistically unlikely to get hurt by guns, especially if you eliminate suicides which only physically injure yourself.

Neither side has a real clear and present danger. I'm admitting that, are you?

I'll reiterate my response to your statement one more time. You say:

If eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence that it wouldn't matter to me. I say it would. I also state that there's at least a possibility (because I don't claim proof unlike you do without putting it up) that guns can reduce violent crime. To TrudgingAlong's comment about rape, I'll freely admit I may be wrong on that specific one, so I'll take it off the table. That doesn't mean guns don't reduce overall violent crime or murders.

So I'll pose this hypothetical to you:

If we banned guns and gun related deaths dropped by 1,000 but overall murders increased by 2,000, would you consider it a success?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 20, 2018, 05:04:36 PM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 20, 2018, 05:12:22 PM
I think Wolfpack is holding on to the idea that more guns lowers crime such as rape. Most sexual abuse/rape is from people we know who we aren’t likely to pull a gun on until it’s far too late, though, so I doubt removing guns will result in more rape.

This is quite true.  One common thread I find in talking to GRA types is that they see the world as full of predators and that owning a gun is one of the few things that makes the world safe from these predators.  So GRA types react very negatively and very emotionally about any discussion around gun control because they feel literally unsafe without a weapon. 

I'm from Texas, my family all grew up as poor farmers in the hill country there.  I actually own guns because I inherited them from my grandparents.  I grew up around guns and am very comfortable with them.  So I'm not reacting emotionally, quite the opposite.  I just like to ask hard questions that make GRA types uncomfortable. 

For example, if eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence, it wouldn't actually matter to a GRA person.  Because their main concern is not about gun violence.  Their main concern is keeping themselves safe from 'predators'.
Again claiming we're acting emotionally.... The only emotion I'm having right now is frustration that I'm apparently not getting my point across. First, you're claiming to act non-emotionally, but I haven't seen you post any data to back up your clear statement that eliminating guns would reduce overall violence like I asked you for....so you know, you could do that....


Data was already posted - countries with less guns have less gun related deaths. 

Second, you claim to know what I'm thinking. Most gun control people do. I'm not afraid of predators or think they're under every door post. I have literally made the statement several times in this thread that:

You're statistically unlikely to get hurt by someone in a violent crime.

You're statistically unlikely to get hurt by guns, especially if you eliminate suicides which only physically injure yourself.

Neither side has a real clear and present danger. I'm admitting that, are you?
If you're claiming that you feel everyone is generally safe and unlikely to ever need a gun, then why do you feel anyone needs a gun?  This is almost non-sensical to me.  "Nobody really needs a gun, but we're all better off if we have one".?  Really?

I'll reiterate my response to your statement one more time. You say:

If eliminating guns completely DID eliminate all gun violence that it wouldn't matter to me. I say it would. I also state that there's at least a possibility (because I don't claim proof unlike you do without putting it up) that guns can reduce violent crime. To TrudgingAlong's comment about rape, I'll freely admit I may be wrong on that specific one, so I'll take it off the table. That doesn't mean guns don't reduce overall violent crime or murders.

So I'll pose this hypothetical to you:

If we banned guns and gun related deaths dropped by 1,000 but overall murders increased by 2,000, would you consider it a success?

What I want is a safer society.  If I thought that crime would go up in the absence of guns, I wouldn't advocate for it.  I do know this - based on how it is now, it can't get much worse.  I mean, we're not "quite" as bad as Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we're close - #14 for top murder rates by country, in the world.  So yeah, maybe taking the highly efficient death machines out of the equation will help!   

GRA people always feel like a gun is good protection, but they forget that guns enable and embolden criminals.  Take away ALL guns and it's much harder for criminals to inflict death, and I'd argue much easier for regular people to defend themselves. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on May 20, 2018, 05:32:52 PM
My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.
Might be interesting to have a look at the data to determine if nations with stricter gun control laws and fewer guns per capita have a correlating increase in violent crimes committed without a firearm.

A quick glance around the net would suggest not.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 20, 2018, 05:37:38 PM
"Data was already posted - countries with less guns have less gun related deaths." Sigh....I guess you really aren't reading what I'm saying....I don't know how to be any clearer in saying data showing guns gone = OVERALL violent deaths down, not gun deaths. You obviously don't care enough to read my statements.

"If you're claiming that you feel everyone is generally safe and unlikely to ever need a gun, then why do you feel anyone needs a gun?  This is almost non-sensical to me.  "Nobody really needs a gun, but we're all better off if we have one".?  Really?"

I'm claiming that you're very unlikely to get hurt by a gun. You're very unlikely to use a gun in self defense. Some people take this to mean that they feel like they'd rather be prepared with a gun. Some people look at this and say guns don't really help a whole lot so why not take them away. Gun control people highly emphasize the unlikelihood that they'll be used but fail to mention the unlikelihood that you'll ever get hurt from them. I'm just honest enough to admit both sides are true whereas most gun control people breeze over one side of it.

"What I want is a safer society.  If I thought that crime would go up in the absence of guns, I wouldn't advocate for it.  I do know this - based on how it is now, it can't get much worse.  I mean, we're not "quite" as bad as Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of Congo, but we're close - #14 for top murder rates by country, in the world.  So yeah, maybe taking the highly efficient death machines out of the equation will help!   

GRA people always feel like a gun is good protection, but they forget that guns enable and embolden criminals.  Take away ALL guns and it's much harder for criminals to inflict death, and I'd argue much easier for regular people to defend themselves."

Well, first, you didn't directly answer my hypothetical question for whatever reason although I directly answered yours even though it was a loaded question (which made mine easier to be taken out of context later but I did it to be up front), so thanks for that.  Second, yes, for our top tier nation status, we're very violent. You argue is it's much easier for regular people to defend themselves if criminals don't have guns. My response is that criminals typically don't need guns to do crazy things because they're crazy (on drugs, nothing to lose, etc.). Regular people typically have scruples/want to appease them to try to avoid harm, when criminals are desperate, maybe stronger, etc. Your hypothetical thought, my hypothetical thought.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 20, 2018, 05:56:32 PM

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

It's only a strawman if I'm making up some viewpoint as if you had said it when you didn't so that I can knock it down and make you look bad. I said that I was concerned with overall violence stats and you said that I must therefore not care much at all about gun deaths (a really inflammatory statement that was not what I said at all). I know it was pretty clear because TrudgingAlong recognized the point I was trying to make, and they don't agree with me on the issue. I simply called you out on a non-productive statement designed to make me look bad that didn't reflect what I said.

But, we can argue about this all day long. I will review your data. I am curious.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 20, 2018, 06:10:03 PM
It's only a strawman if I'm making up some viewpoint as if you had said it when you didn't so that I can knock it down and make you look bad.

Quote
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

I made no such implication or statement that what you stated was my viewpoint. Again, you even used the word "implied." Hence straw-man.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 20, 2018, 06:46:19 PM

Well, first, you didn't directly answer my hypothetical question for whatever reason

If I thought that crime would go up in the absence of guns, I wouldn't advocate for it.


I did, in fact, directly answer your question.  How is that not a direct answer?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gooki on May 21, 2018, 05:15:10 AM
Quote
I don't know how to be any clearer in saying data showing guns gone = OVERALL violent deaths down, not gun deaths. You obviously don't care enough to read my statements.

In 2010 the USA had 4x the murder rate per capital than Australia (the country that went trough significant gun reform in 1996).

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 21, 2018, 06:20:32 AM
Question from above somewhere - if there are few guns to commit murder with, does the murder rate with other weapons go up?  Can't answer directly, but a UN study at https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-rates-by-country.html (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/murder-rates-by-country.html) shows the US at #81 (4.88/100,000) (#1 is highest, 108.64/100,000), Canada at 140 (1.68), Finland at 141 (1.6), France at 144 (1.58), Sweden at 156 (1.15), Australia at 161 (0.98), UK at 165 (0.92), New Zealand at 167 (0.91), and so on.

So generally "first world" countries with strong gun control have low murder rates overall.

What do I get from this?  Canada is keeping bad company; when I look at countries that we are culturally similar to (Australia and NZ especially) our murder rate is high.

What can Americans get from this?  You are at the roughly same murder rate as Somalia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

Overall?  Civil unrest and lots of guns make murder easier. Also, to quote the Wikipedia article pulling from the same data "Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence." Considering the high level of American health care compared to its neighbours on the list, probably the American homicide rate is an underestimate of societal violence, because you are more likely to die if you are shot in Somalia, more likely to be seriously wounded but survive and not show up as a murder statistic if you are shot in the US.

Not that I expect this information to make any difference in the debate here, you understand, but the data does exist.

Historical footnote - the US had the shootout at the OK corral (reality or myth is irrelevant), Canada had the North-West Mounted Police.  We never had a wild wild west.  We did have American TV.  And an easy source for smuggled hand guns. As I said, bad neighbourhood influences.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: partgypsy on May 21, 2018, 06:37:32 AM
The situation is, we are now at the point where white male entitlement is so high, and guns are so plentiful, it now one of my nightmares, that some guy is attracted to one of my daughters, she's not interested, that the guy retaliates with extreme violence. There has always been misogyny. Now the web and creepy men are promoting and providing a refuge for young men, to feel that if they do not get access to the women they want, that they are victims and are the aggrieved party. It is really scary.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2018/05/20/in-deadly-texas-school-shooting-a-confession-but-no-clear-motive/

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/25/17277496/incel-toronto-attack-alek-minassian
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 21, 2018, 06:41:52 AM
Quote
I don't know how to be any clearer in saying data showing guns gone = OVERALL violent deaths down, not gun deaths. You obviously don't care enough to read my statements.

In 2010 the USA had 4x the murder rate per capital than Australia (the country that went trough significant gun reform in 1996).

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

In 1990 the USA had 4.5x the murder rate per capita than Australia (the country that went trough significant gun reform in 1996, which was 6 years after 1990).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade#1990s
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 21, 2018, 07:27:34 AM
The situation is, we are now at the point where white male entitlement is so high, and guns are so plentiful, it now one of my nightmares, that some guy is attracted to one of my daughters, she's not interested, that the guy retaliates with extreme violence. There has always been misogyny. Now the web and creepy men are promoting and providing a refuge for young men, to feel that if they do not get access to the women they want, that they are victims and are the aggrieved party. It is really scary.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/nation-world/2018/05/20/in-deadly-texas-school-shooting-a-confession-but-no-clear-motive/

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/4/25/17277496/incel-toronto-attack-alek-minassian

There is nothing super new about this.  The difference is, the Toronto guy had to rent a van.  Just like the guy in St. Jean sur Richelieu used his car.  The really determined ones will find a way.  But it is easier if guns are handy.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 21, 2018, 07:59:02 AM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 21, 2018, 08:39:23 AM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 21, 2018, 09:09:59 AM
A few posts back, I saw criminals described as “crazy people”. I keep cycling back to the “good guy” rhetoric because I wonder if it’s a huge part of the problems with the NRA side of the debate. People who commit crime are not inherently “crazy”. Look at how hard it is to get a true criminally insane conviction. Most people who commit crimes are totally regular people who, through a series of bad choices, bad events in their lives, and/or friends, do something stupid. Or a series of stupid things.

Okay, okay, tv, but I really urge people to watch Orange is the New Black, as well as read the book it was based on. People in prison are NOT that different from the rest of us.

Is this also a reason why gun rights tend to be stronger in more religious areas of the country? I was raised VERY religious, and the black and white view of people fits this gun narrative very well. Now that I have left that behind, I see everything very differently.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 21, 2018, 10:05:28 AM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951)

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 21, 2018, 12:33:34 PM
Continuing to try to foster useful discussion I thought it might be helpful to share this statement from Abigail Disney a liberal filmmaker who worked on "Armor of Light" a new documentary about gun control.  It sounded a lot like what I think we all need to do in this thread and others like it.

"We have to come out of our trenches, meet in the middle and mingle, and know each other," she said. "From that place you work things through."
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 21, 2018, 12:43:44 PM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951)

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Did you read your own link regarding the CDC study . . . specifically, the part discussing the problem with the data gathered?

Quote
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool.

The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 21, 2018, 12:52:32 PM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951)

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Did you read your own link regarding the CDC study . . . specifically, the part discussing the problem with the data gathered?

Quote
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool.

The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...

Of course I did... and it's why I wouldn't try to hard to tout the 3 million Defensive Gun use figure. The truth is that the reality of defensive gun uses lies between the FBIs simplistic and misleading comparison of justified to total homicides, and the CDCs figure of up to 3 million.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 21, 2018, 04:40:14 PM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951)

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Did you read your own link regarding the CDC study . . . specifically, the part discussing the problem with the data gathered?

Quote
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool.

The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...

Of course I did... and it's why I wouldn't try to hard to tout the 3 million Defensive Gun use figure. The truth is that the reality of defensive gun uses lies between the FBIs simplistic and misleading comparison of justified to total homicides, and the CDCs figure of up to 3 million.

So your "calculations" are simply pure guess work and based on speculative numbers? And don't lead to more guns equals less crime? I'm not sure why you commented, other than to dispute one of the sources I included.

For the record, I don't believe for one second you can quantify the "more guns equals less crime" no matter what sort of crime you want to discuss. Rape was brought up earlier. Guns are not the only means of protecting oneself. If someone broke into my house and assaulted my wife, a gun would more likely be used to keep our dog from tearing the perp apart. Although I would probably just let the dog tear him up. 

You just aren't going to convince any reasonable person that we need more guns. You know because they make us safer. Because they don't. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 22, 2018, 07:59:59 AM
Personally, even though I’m a gun owner and have a permit to carry, I’m done arguing with the super pro-gun crowd. After much experience, I find they’re way too emotionall to reason with.
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

Did I imply something or did I say it? You made two contradicting statements. If I said it can you please provide a direct quote? If it was an implication on your part please keep the straw-man arguments out of the conversation.

Quote
Saying that I'm more concerned with overall deaths, rapes, etc. does not equal not being concerned about guns in any frame of reference that I'm aware of.
Can you direct quote this as well? I'll say again since you seem confused. You were given a hypothetical choice of eliminating gun violence or not. You chose not to. Here:
Quote
If banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence would you support a ban - not necessarily

Feel free to explain how choosing to not get rid of all gun violence equals being concerned about gun violence. Again, in this hypothetical? Because you are choosing for more people, kids to die when you could simply say yes, get rid of gun violence and "boom" they all get to live. I don't see where the care and compassion are in your choice.

There is no strawman here, and I'll respond to both of these questions at once. Apparently I'm not explaining it well or something. Let's take it step by step.

Tyort made a hypothetical question: Hypothetically, if banning guns really did eliminate all gun violence, would you support a ban? This is the framework through which we are talking about.

My comment was that if an overall gun ban made gun violence disappear that would not be the whole story. Maybe this is the part where gun control people don't get the general principle that at least some gun rights people believe. This principle is that guns can have a positive impact on overall violence.

Therefore, I believe there is at least a possibility that banning all guns would cause overall violence to increase in America. This would mean that guns provide a deterrent against crime. I get that you probably don't think this is so. Tyort made an overarching statement that the data was crystal clear that reducing guns reduced overall violence. When challenged to provide data, he ignored the question.

I said that if gun banning eliminated gun violence BUT overall violent crime went up with examples of deaths and rape as examples, then no, banning guns would not make the logical or compassionate sense, because more people are getting hurt. You took that as a strawman saying "So since gun violence is pretty low on your priority list you could care less about reducing/getting rid of it?" It's not pretty low on my priority list. It's just lower than a vendetta for banning guns if they actually are a deterrent on crime and guns reduce overall violent crime.

Actually you did respond with a couple straw-man arguments. You even admitted one was an implication. I appreciate you finally explaining your stance and it makes more sense. Not saying I agree with it. I whole heartedly don't agree with it. Of you are looking for data as to why here you go:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

I believe a government study refutes your "32:1 ratio."  Most defensive uses are not fatal, and comparing fatalities to fatalities is misleading. Additionally, we have data on non-fatal uses of guns in criminal activity, where the gun actually plays a role in the crime, and isn't just a passenger along for the ride. Using numbers quite generous to the gun control augument as a token of good faith, I calculated that firearms are on the net, a benefit to society. Look back in this thread, it's there.

I have not yet read through the other two articles.

Can you share a link to your published calculations? IF you can that would be a first. Because I have yet to find a set of published data showing more guns equals less crime that hasn't been heavily disputed/debunked (see John Lott).

You could search for it. It's in THIS thread. The point of what I did was to refute that 32:1 ratio of "crimes to defensive uses" study that was put out. A child could explain why comparing justifiable homocides to deaths per year is invalid.   I did not make an assertion that more guns = less crime. I believe the relationship is more complicated than that, and there's no good data for it that controls for enough of the variables to be meaningful, at this point.

Linked for your convenience.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951 (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/msg1946951/#msg1946951)

The CDC study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#71a09e01299a

Did you read your own link regarding the CDC study . . . specifically, the part discussing the problem with the data gathered?

Quote
People answering surveys can be mistaken and some lie and the reasons go both ways. Some people might be unwilling to answer because a defensive gun use might have been illegal (Would these people refuse to answer?). On the other hand, mischievous responders might report a defensive gun use just because that makes them sound cool.

The deep problem, however, is not miscodings per se but that miscodings of rare events are likely to be asymmetric. Since defensive gun use is relatively uncommon under any reasonable scenario there are many more opportunities to miscode in a way that inflates defensive gun use than there are ways to miscode in a way that deflates defensive gun use...

Of course I did... and it's why I wouldn't try to hard to tout the 3 million Defensive Gun use figure. The truth is that the reality of defensive gun uses lies between the FBIs simplistic and misleading comparison of justified to total homicides, and the CDCs figure of up to 3 million.

So your "calculations" are simply pure guess work and based on speculative numbers? And don't lead to more guns equals less crime? I'm not sure why you commented, other than to dispute one of the sources I included.

For the record, I don't believe for one second you can quantify the "more guns equals less crime" no matter what sort of crime you want to discuss. Rape was brought up earlier. Guns are not the only means of protecting oneself. If someone broke into my house and assaulted my wife, a gun would more likely be used to keep our dog from tearing the perp apart. Although I would probably just let the dog tear him up. 

You just aren't going to convince any reasonable person that we need more guns. You know because they make us safer. Because they don't.

My calculations are an attempt to use BJS detailed data of crimes involving guns, and come up with a figure for how many crimes would not have happened if guns were banned. I made a couple of small assumptions, and quite generous to your side of the aurgument, but the data I used comes from the BJS. The numbers lead to guns being a net benefit. I reject simplistic crap like the FBI "32:1" thing you brought up, which is so easily debunked as pointless it hurts your credibility to cite it. I think you purposely didn't link to it so it would be harder for someone to read it and call you out on that junk.

And no, I won't try to convince any one we need more guns/less control than we have now.... as those who want them can get them now. I am more than willing to discuss some forms of added control that I've discussed before, as there are some people who can get guns now who ought not.  But to make the statement that guns are a net determent to society or that less guns=less crime is a position not supported by data... it's speculation and bullshit based on other societies with so many other confounding variables the comparison doesn't hold.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 22, 2018, 09:48:33 AM
My calculations are an attempt to use BJS detailed data of crimes involving guns, and come up with a figure for how many crimes would not have happened if guns were banned. I made a couple of small assumptions, and quite generous to your side of the aurgument, but the data I used comes from the BJS.

Not sure what "your side" means because you made no such concessions. For example, how exactly do you quantify grief, anguish over loss of life? I am actually asking you this because you made the "calculations." 

Quote
I think you purposely didn't link to it so it would be harder for someone to read it and call you out on that junk.

Right, because a 5 second Google search on the exact title that I wrote is too hard for folks? Good grief. Your logic is impeccable. I explained why I couldn't link to it. Feel free to read it again if you are confused.

Quote
But to make the statement that guns are a net determent to society or that less guns=less crime is a position not supported by data...[/b] it's speculation and bullshit based on other societies with so many other confounding variables the comparison doesn't hold.

Loss of life is never a "net benefit" even for many would be criminals (besides the obvious serial killer etc.). There are so many variables you cannot account for that to even simply try and quantify it is unreasonable and immoral. For instance you cannot quantify the grief and immeasurable suffering of those affected by any loss of life.

It's certainly not bullshit especially when other far less violent "gun toting" countries place a high value of responsibility on gun ownership and institute restrictions, rules, laws accordingly.  Probably partly a result of understanding loss of life is not a "net benefit." But not here. We pretend it's not a problem and even in some cases (like with you) pretend it's all a "net benefit." Step 1 is admitting there is a problem. Since we can't get past the first step so many many more children will unfortunately meet a very untimely demise. It's ok though, their deaths will be canceled out by some defensive gun use and families and loved ones mental anguish dismissed. Status quo in other words.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 22, 2018, 01:27:15 PM
My calculations are an attempt to use BJS detailed data of crimes involving guns, and come up with a figure for how many crimes would not have happened if guns were banned. I made a couple of small assumptions, and quite generous to your side of the aurgument, but the data I used comes from the BJS.

Not sure what "your side" means because you made no such concessions. For example, how exactly do you quantify grief, anguish over loss of life? I am actually asking you this because you made the "calculations." 

Your side - those who wish to ban or otherwise unreasonably restrict firearm access.
"concessions" made to make numbers look worse for gun usage than what they probably are in my figures:
-7% of the 414,000 crimes committed by someone who happened to have a gun, involved a serious injury, which may or may not be gunshot related. I went ahead and figured they ALL were gunshot related, then multiplied it by 2. 

What I came up with applies narrowly to crimes committed because firearms are available versus crimes stopped because firearms are available.

Quote
Quote
I think you purposely didn't link to it so it would be harder for someone to read it and call you out on that junk.

Right, because a 5 second Google search on the exact title that I wrote is too hard for folks? Good grief. Your logic is impeccable. I explained why I couldn't link to it. Feel free to read it again if you are confused.

Quote
But to make the statement that guns are a net determent to society or that less guns=less crime is a position not supported by data...[/b] it's speculation and bullshit based on other societies with so many other confounding variables the comparison doesn't hold.

Loss of life is never a "net benefit" even for many would be criminals (besides the obvious serial killer etc.). There are so many variables you cannot account for that to even simply try and quantify it is unreasonable and immoral. For instance you cannot quantify the grief and immeasurable suffering of those affected by any loss of life.

It's certainly not bullshit especially when other far less violent "gun toting" countries place a high value of responsibility on gun ownership and institute restrictions, rules, laws accordingly.  Probably partly a result of understanding loss of life is not a "net benefit." But not here. We pretend it's not a problem and even in some cases (like with you) pretend it's all a "net benefit." Step 1 is admitting there is a problem. Since we can't get past the first step so many many more children will unfortunately meet a very untimely demise. It's ok though, their deaths will be canceled out by some defensive gun use and families and loved ones mental anguish dismissed. Status quo in other words.

We have lots and lots of laws and restrictions on firearms already. What makes you think there aren't any?

Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

There's also the self defense aspect. Police simply can't be everywhere. No other tool allows the weakest among us to hand the upper hand, or,  at worst, match any threat that faces them.

So yes, guns are a net benefit to society.. by an order of magnitude. If I didn't think they were, I'd argue for a ban too.

Of course, people can misuse the power a firearm gives them, and we need some laws to regulate that.  We could do a few more things to reduce how many people misuse firearms without unreasonable restrictions... I've stated that I'm OK with  these. Universal background checks, etc.

So, like every other thing in our lives, there's a balance, a trade off. We endure 1.3 million deaths per year to have the freedom to cover vast distances in automobiles.
We accept that 3500 of those deaths are due to cell phone misuse, but we endure those deaths to be able to communicate any time, any where.
I'm willing to endure 8-11k homocides caused by misuse of firearms for the benefits they provide.

As for other incalculable.... how many robberies, rapes, murders, etc aren't even attempted because the potential perp knows their potential victim has or might have a gun? how much misery was avoided because of that?
 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 22, 2018, 01:38:34 PM
...political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.


And here is the real heart of the matter.  This is why GRAs are not concerned with gun violence.  Even if all gun related deaths could be eliminated by banning guns, they would still be against banning guns. 

To argue with them about the harm guns cause is utterly futile, because at the end of the day they don't really care.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 22, 2018, 02:16:09 PM
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 22, 2018, 02:46:36 PM
Your side - those who wish to ban or otherwise unreasonably restrict firearm access.

I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man.

Quote
"concessions" made to make numbers look worse for gun usage than what they probably are in my figures:
-7% of the 414,000 crimes committed by someone who happened to have a gun, involved a serious injury, which may or may not be gunshot related. I went ahead and figured they ALL were gunshot related, then multiplied it by 2.

And again you completely ignore any cumulative/secondary affect and the ability to defend without a gun. That happens when you start with a conclusion and force the data to fit the narrative. Kind of like telling the grieving parents of a child killed at school their grief doesn't matter.

Quote
remain essential to the preservation of freedom.

LMAO I always love this line of reasoning. Because you're little "pee shooter" scares the government. You know my job in the military boiled down to being able to level entire cities with a simple radio call. Sure back in the day of musket loaders and cannons the government might have been a little concerned.

Quote
There's also the self defense aspect.


Yep and the cool thing about self defense is the fact that there are a plethora of ways to defend yourself these days. Of course that didn't factor into your "calculations" because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Quote
As for other incalculable.... how many robberies, rapes, murders, etc aren't even attempted because the potential perp knows their potential victim has or might have a gun? how much misery was avoided because of that?

Good question. Debunking your own calculations I see. ( : To go along with that how many were followed through on because they wanted the victims gun? I mean over 1.4 million guns were stolen in robberies between 2005 and 2010. I didn't see that in your calculations. In 2016 over 237,000 guns were stolen. Irony is "law abiding gun owners" fueling violence across America. 

Let's be honest. Your calculations are simply a way for you to justify your preconceived notion that guns are good for society. You have no desire to acknowledge the true cost of firearms. And with that I have no more desire to debate with someone who lacks empathy.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 22, 2018, 04:19:52 PM
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

Citiczens who broke into the armories that repelled Franco's fascists in their initial attempts to take over Spain.




Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

Quote

And again you completely ignore any cumulative/secondary affect and the ability to defend without a gun. That happens when you start with a conclusion and force the data to fit the narrative. Kind of like telling the grieving parents of a child killed at school their grief doesn't matter.

Yep and the cool thing about self defense is the fact that there are a plethora of ways to defend yourself these days. Of course that didn't factor into your "calculations" because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Nice strawman yourself, guy. I never said anyone's grief didn't matter, of course it does.  I'm just not going to advocate bad policy in a futile attempt to prevent all of it. I also maintain that the cumulative secondary effects of crimes prevented because of firearms more than washes the cumulative secondary effects of the crimes committed because of them.

As for the "you could defend yourself other ways:"
It is not incumbent upon the victim to scale their defense down to what 'could have worked'. Any defensive use is accredited to the positive impact of firearms on society because it ensured the victim had the most effective tool to defend themselves. additionally, a massive disparity in force can result in less injury/struggle. (think about it - would you try to assault someone at knife point if they were aiming a gun at you? Probably not, unless you were on meth.)

Quote

LMAO I always love this line of reasoning. Because you're little "pee shooter" scares the government. You know my job in the military boiled down to being able to level entire cities with a simple radio call. Sure back in the day of musket loaders and cannons the government might have been a little concerned.

You think they're going to airstrike every city in their own back yard to get the resistance? There are myriad ways an armed resistance can foil an oppressive tyrannical government.


Quote

Good question. Debunking your own calculations I see. ( : To go along with that how many were followed through on because they wanted the victims gun? I mean over 1.4 million guns were stolen in robberies between 2005 and 2010. I didn't see that in your calculations. In 2016 over 237,000 guns were stolen. Irony is "law abiding gun owners" fueling violence across America. 

Let's be honest. Your calculations are simply a way for you to justify your preconceived notion that guns are good for society. You have no desire to acknowledge the true cost of firearms. And with that I have no more desire to debate with someone who lacks empathy.

My statement does nothing to debunk anything else I said... the opposite, infact. It's impossible to calculate all of the good intangible impacts firearms have on society just as much as you can't calc the intangible bad ones.

I am not lacking in empathy, but as I said, I won't let empathy drive me to support bad policy, and I support some ways of improving the situation without compromising the utiity of firearms.

The 237,000 guns stolen, as I recall, are part of that 414,000 gun crimes per year in the BJS data I discussed. Securing one's firearms is an area I think some legislative improvement is needed. That's a view I've evolved during the course of this thread.

My calculations were an attempt to compare how many crimes happened directly because of guns, and how many didn't happen directly because of guns. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, it supported my preconceived notions, but I didn't know that when I started, and I included my reasoning. You can evaluate what, particularly, about my reasonings you don't like, but the data is from the BJS and is as solid and broken down as I can find.  So far your criticisms indicate you haven't read that study, or given what I came up with any thought, and instead want to just accept the FBIs hilariously half-backed analysis because it fits YOUR preconceived notions.



Quote

And here is the real heart of the matter.  This is why GRAs are not concerned with gun violence.  Even if all gun related deaths could be eliminated by banning guns, they would still be against banning guns. 

To argue with them about the harm guns cause is utterly futile, because at the end of the day they don't really care.
That's pretty ungenerous, strawman-esque even. It could be that we recognize that gun violence is actually pretty rare, and that there are many other reasons to keep them that might weigh more heavily in favor of keeping them.

But, I'll play along:
If:
-all gun deaths could be eliminated by banning guns, (Not likely)
-Gun deaths wouldn't convert to death-by-other-means (Even less likely.)
-All criminals would announce upon the commencement of their burgling, raping, and murder what they brought for offensive capabilities, so I might select  what to use to repel them (not likely)
-something major about human nature changed and the desire in some people's hearts to oppress others was eliminated (Still less likely!)

Then: Yes, we could ban guns. There would be no need for them. That's a world I'd love to live in.  Unfortunately, in the real world, those hypothetical will not come to pass, and I cannot support a ban on guns as the consequences would be worse than what we're enduring now.
I still care that firearm deaths happen, I literally am sick every time I hear about another school shooting. I know people who died in the Roseburg shooting in 2015, I took classes there! So for the 100th goddamned time I'll say that I support some things to reduce them, up until they start to compromise the main utility of firearm ownership, as when emotion is set aside, those things matter to.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 22, 2018, 07:03:08 PM
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

If you want to legalize the small arms that made the American revolution possible, I suspect that few people would raise opposition.  If you want to legalize the types of small arms that have become common in the last 100 years, I don't think it's unfair to ask you to provide an example from the same time period.


But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

The resistance in WWII did not overthrow the tyrannical government.  They were victorious not because of the guns they had, but because other guys in tanks rolled in and killed the Nazis.  Nice try though.


Citiczens who broke into the armories that repelled Franco's fascists in their initial attempts to take over Spain.

So, the only example you can find of weapons being used to repel an evil government in the last 110 years resulted in the evil government winning?  You're not really selling this argument.  :P

(Ironically, Franco joined the revolution against the democratically elected government of Spain after the police assassinated Sotelo . . . Franco probably though of himself as resisting a tyrannical government.  Good thing he had ready access to guns.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 22, 2018, 11:14:58 PM
I’ll admiy, I latiguee out loud when Spain came up. I’m actually reading a book right now about that time. Franco won because he had the military (including the Moroccans, Spain’s best troops at the time). The rabble breaking into armories did a lot of dying. They also did a lot of killing of their own countrymen simply because they could before ever seeing Franco’s troops.

Let’s actually look at America’s own, recent drama at the Maher Refuge. Lots of guys with guns, they all ended up arrested and one of them dead. None of their demands met. Bravo?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on May 23, 2018, 04:27:03 AM
I’ll admiy, I latiguee out loud when Spain came up. I’m actually reading a book right now about that time. Franco won because he had the military (including the Moroccans, Spain’s best troops at the time). The rabble breaking into armories did a lot of dying. They also did a lot of killing of their own countrymen simply because they could before ever seeing Franco’s troops.

Let’s actually look at America’s own, recent drama at the Maher Refuge. Lots of guys with guns, they all ended up arrested and one of them dead. None of their demands met. Bravo?
Don't let reality get in the way of a good fantasy though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 23, 2018, 05:16:05 AM
I’ll admiy, I latiguee out loud when Spain came up. I’m actually reading a book right now about that time. Franco won because he had the military (including the Moroccans, Spain’s best troops at the time). The rabble breaking into armories did a lot of dying. They also did a lot of killing of their own countrymen simply because they could before ever seeing Franco’s troops.

Let’s actually look at America’s own, recent drama at the Maher Refuge. Lots of guys with guns, they all ended up arrested and one of them dead. None of their demands met. Bravo?
Don't let reality get in the way of a good fantasy though.

Yes, but just remember, somewhere out there a would be TV thief was deterred by the presence of a gun. So their sacrifices are not in vein. All for the "net benefit" of society. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on May 23, 2018, 08:18:36 AM
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

If you want to legalize the small arms that made the American revolution possible, I suspect that few people would raise opposition.  If you want to legalize the types of small arms that have become common in the last 100 years, I don't think it's unfair to ask you to provide an example from the same time period.


But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

The resistance in WWII did not overthrow the tyrannical government.  They were victorious not because of the guns they had, but because other guys in tanks rolled in and killed the Nazis.  Nice try though.


Citiczens who broke into the armories that repelled Franco's fascists in their initial attempts to take over Spain.

So, the only example you can find of weapons being used to repel an evil government in the last 110 years resulted in the evil government winning?  You're not really selling this argument.  :P

(Ironically, Franco joined the revolution against the democratically elected government of Spain after the police assassinated Sotelo . . . Franco probably though of himself as resisting a tyrannical government.  Good thing he had ready access to guns.)

Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

And while the malhuer idiots were unsuccessful and one guy committed suicide by cop, the pause and restraint with which they were treated is an indication of the trouble a government would have in dealing with a less inept armed resistance.


Masterstache - Why haven't you addressed your own illogical position? Are they a net benefit in need of some updates to the regulation, or a net negative that should be banned? If not one of those two things, what is it? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 23, 2018, 08:32:45 AM
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

If you want to legalize the small arms that made the American revolution possible, I suspect that few people would raise opposition.  If you want to legalize the types of small arms that have become common in the last 100 years, I don't think it's unfair to ask you to provide an example from the same time period.


But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

The resistance in WWII did not overthrow the tyrannical government.  They were victorious not because of the guns they had, but because other guys in tanks rolled in and killed the Nazis.  Nice try though.


Citiczens who broke into the armories that repelled Franco's fascists in their initial attempts to take over Spain.

So, the only example you can find of weapons being used to repel an evil government in the last 110 years resulted in the evil government winning?  You're not really selling this argument.  :P

(Ironically, Franco joined the revolution against the democratically elected government of Spain after the police assassinated Sotelo . . . Franco probably though of himself as resisting a tyrannical government.  Good thing he had ready access to guns.)

Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

Sure.  Anything is possible.

Aliens could arrive tomorrow and enslave all of humanity, but their one weakness might be getting a round of lead under their skin.  Dragons could start terrorizing the countryside, immune to every form of resistance but small arms.

I don't believe those are likely to happen though.  It seems to me to be equally unlikely that a group of people with small arms will overthrow a tyrannical government with a modern military.  That's why I was asking for real world examples of the weapons you claim to need for defense from a government out of control being used for that purpose.  You've been unable to find any.  While I do admit that anything is possible in the future, you need to admit that your line of reasoning regarding the need for small arms is completely unfounded and based upon your personal biases . . . not reality.

In virtually every case where a revolution/guerrilla action takes place to resist a government, the new government is just as tyrannical (or worse) than the old government.  For examples of this in the last 100 years, see:  Cambodia, China, Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, etc.  The myth of bringing about a better world through armed revolution is a powerful image, but it's wrong.  The people who do best at leading a revolution tend to be the worst possible people to govern.  Slow, small, incremental changes over years is the way that most governments actually end up changing for the betterment of their people.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 23, 2018, 11:39:25 AM
Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

And while the malhuer idiots were unsuccessful and one guy committed suicide by cop, the pause and restraint with which they were treated is an indication of the trouble a government would have in dealing with a less inept armed resistance.


Masterstache - Why haven't you addressed your own illogical position? Are they a net benefit in need of some updates to the regulation, or a net negative that should be banned? If not one of those two things, what is it?
I've not been able to respond because I was too busy laughing at the absurdity this has all come down to.  The bolded part of your "argument" is really the crux of the whole thing. 

If gun advocates from your vein could simply understand that all you do is prolong the inevitable regarding a government.  There is no plausible scenario where small arms will indefinitely hold out let alone win against a state.  Even you magical Nazi resistance example requires a cadet from military school to resolve.  If I know this is happening I send a marginally larger group from point to point and take them out as I did with the 300.  You do understand the Wehrmacht had over 18 million people in it right?  Do you think 8,000 of them even mattered being tied up for a short time?  And how does a bunch of guys on the ground taking out individual citizens with little training but macho man feelings because they have a gun in their hand hurt taking out jets?  Are they shooting at those jets with their rifles? 

Your "idiots" being less inept would simply take a bit more time.  It's the same argument of the doomsday preppers who stock pile food and generators so that when we have a EMT pulse attack their family can survive.  Read "Lights Out" to understand that scenario a bit better and see how all you get to do it live for six months if you are lucky before you still die.  This belief that you can just go back to times long ago and live like that is laughable.  People are not equipped to do that any more.  I'd also like to point out that your American Revolution example stilled used artillery and a lot of French galleons that you will not have because of the 2nd Amendment.  I get it fuels the fantasy that small arms can make you be able to overthrow government, but lets not be foolish.  Had the British not been arrogant and sent over more than a small force we would have been mopped up in a matter of weeks.  It was only because they totally discounted the resistance and let them gain access to more powerful weapons that things turned out as they did.  Need more evidence?  Look at the Civil War which should have followed your "I get me some guns so save the world from tyranny" scenario.  Lincoln hit them hard and even with their better generals and small arms culture they got eventually got crushed by a government with virtually unlimited resources. 

So please stop the scenario that having guns allows this scenario to play out and stop fooling yourself.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 23, 2018, 03:16:41 PM
Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

And while the malhuer idiots were unsuccessful and one guy committed suicide by cop, the pause and restraint with which they were treated is an indication of the trouble a government would have in dealing with a less inept armed resistance.


Masterstache - Why haven't you addressed your own illogical position? Are they a net benefit in need of some updates to the regulation, or a net negative that should be banned? If not one of those two things, what is it?
I've not been able to respond because I was too busy laughing at the absurdity this has all come down to.  The bolded part of your "argument" is really the crux of the whole thing. 

If gun advocates from your vein could simply understand that all you do is prolong the inevitable regarding a government.  There is no plausible scenario where small arms will indefinitely hold out let alone win against a state.  Even you magical Nazi resistance example requires a cadet from military school to resolve.  If I know this is happening I send a marginally larger group from point to point and take them out as I did with the 300.  You do understand the Wehrmacht had over 18 million people in it right?  Do you think 8,000 of them even mattered being tied up for a short time?  And how does a bunch of guys on the ground taking out individual citizens with little training but macho man feelings because they have a gun in their hand hurt taking out jets?  Are they shooting at those jets with their rifles? 

Your "idiots" being less inept would simply take a bit more time.  It's the same argument of the doomsday preppers who stock pile food and generators so that when we have a EMT pulse attack their family can survive.  Read "Lights Out" to understand that scenario a bit better and see how all you get to do it live for six months if you are lucky before you still die.  This belief that you can just go back to times long ago and live like that is laughable.  People are not equipped to do that any more.  I'd also like to point out that your American Revolution example stilled used artillery and a lot of French galleons that you will not have because of the 2nd Amendment.  I get it fuels the fantasy that small arms can make you be able to overthrow government, but lets not be foolish.  Had the British not been arrogant and sent over more than a small force we would have been mopped up in a matter of weeks.  It was only because they totally discounted the resistance and let them gain access to more powerful weapons that things turned out as they did.  Need more evidence?  Look at the Civil War which should have followed your "I get me some guns so save the world from tyranny" scenario.  Lincoln hit them hard and even with their better generals and small arms culture they got eventually got crushed by a government with virtually unlimited resources. 

So please stop the scenario that having guns allows this scenario to play out and stop fooling yourself.

How can we take a GRA person seriously when they utter phrases like "fighting tyranny".  It's sheer fantasy.  You're right to bring up the comparison to preppers - very apt!  And one I hadn't thought of before.  But you're so right - you can't argue with them because if/when you rebut their more reasonable scenarios, they just double down.  And their end game scenario is equally ridiculous.  For preppers, it's always some variation of "What if all human society collapses!"  And for GRA types is "What if the government totally turns against the people". 

Sure those may make compelling story lines for a video game, but for everyone else, it's the equivalent of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  As long as you give in to the irrational idea that there are angels at all, then you're going to lose because they can just keep making shit up. 

A GRA person will never, ever admit that it's extremely unlikely for the government to turn on us.  Or that we'd be completely f'ing overmatched if it did, regardless of our # of small arms.  And as long as they feel justified in saying "well, it's 'possible'" for the government to turn on us, any/all other reasoning gets thrown out the window.  Including ANY discussion about the harm that guns do to society.  Because in their view, ANY harm done to society is justified by guns preventing the catastrophe of government tyranny.

So you see, it doesn't matter what you say or how compelling your facts and evidence.  It will simply be dismissed out of hand or the GRA person will double down on insanity ("What if Russia nukes us!" or "What if China invades us" or "What if the US Government starts executing all political opposition").  I mean these things are just crazy.  But that is exactly what they will cling to and double down on.  And as a reasonable person, you just have to throw your hands up and say that all of that just isn't going to happen for XYZ reasons, knowing that it won't be accepted.  Won't even be heard.  Because if it were true, if tyranny weren't always lurking around the corner, it would undercut a GRA's entire world view. 

And that is something they cannot tolerate.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: OneStep on May 23, 2018, 03:41:52 PM
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 23, 2018, 07:06:49 PM
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

The why is pretty easy really. Mainly people that feel bullied, oppressed, picked on etc seeking revenge. Thow in easy access to firearms and you have a perfect storm for a disaster. Of course we foster a culture where owning a gun makes one feel superior and indestructible so to speak (as evidence by this thread) and it only adds fuel to the fire. I think it's only logical to examine how to prevent this from all angles.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 24, 2018, 06:12:34 AM
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

The why is pretty easy really. Mainly people that feel bullied, oppressed, picked on etc seeking revenge. Thow in easy access to firearms and you have a perfect storm for a disaster. Of course we foster a culture where owning a gun makes one feel superior and indestructible so to speak (as evidence by this thread) and it only adds fuel to the fire. I think it's only logical to examine how to prevent this from all angles.
This is too simplistic and ignores the point made in what you responded to.  People were always bullies and oppressed.  You are aware of the 1960s, right?  I understand that MLK suggested peaceful protest, but why did no one break out and start shooting.  This is why my points upthread are the same as what OneStep asks.  Why are we not examing the culture and the psychology of people instead of just focusing on the item?  The item was always there and with easy access.  I get it was more long guns even going back only to the 70s, but there were always a LOT of guns around and they were not selected for use as often as they are now.  To assume that does not have a cultural or paradigm shift in thinking that is making that happen is preposterous.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 24, 2018, 07:26:01 AM
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

The why is pretty easy really. Mainly people that feel bullied, oppressed, picked on etc seeking revenge. Thow in easy access to firearms and you have a perfect storm for a disaster. Of course we foster a culture where owning a gun makes one feel superior and indestructible so to speak (as evidence by this thread) and it only adds fuel to the fire. I think it's only logical to examine how to prevent this from all angles.
This is too simplistic and ignores the point made in what you responded to.  People were always bullies and oppressed.  You are aware of the 1960s, right?  I understand that MLK suggested peaceful protest, but why did no one break out and start shooting.  This is why my points upthread are the same as what OneStep asks.  Why are we not examing the culture and the psychology of people instead of just focusing on the item?  The item was always there and with easy access.  I get it was more long guns even going back only to the 70s, but there were always a LOT of guns around and they were not selected for use as often as they are now.  To assume that does not have a cultural or paradigm shift in thinking that is making that happen is preposterous.

Yeah, good thing that times were so culturally different that people with access to guns didn't start shooting.  That might have been the end of MLK Jr . . .
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: OneStep on May 24, 2018, 10:45:59 AM
I've spent a fair amount of time reading through this tread and talking with fiends and family about the most recent school shootings. A lot of the points in this tread I have honestly never thought through and that has been an eye opener. I am not a current gun owner, but was in the past and was raised with guns in the home so I've had personal experience with guns. What keeps coming up in conversation is why now? What is it about this time in our history that is making young people resort to this level of violence? Haven't we always had access to guns? It doesn't seem to matter if its a rifle or in the most recent case a shotgun and revolver. Why weren't school shootings more common before Columbine? Those are the questions I've been trying to find answers for. Could some form of gun control work? Yes, I think so, but at what level? Is the guns that are the issue or is it our culture? Is the median "glorifying" the shooters to much which encourages copycats? I obviously don't know the answers to all these questions and its truly heartbreaking that kids are having to deal with this level of physical and emotional trauma. I just wish we spent more time figuring out Why it is happening and less time on the the tool that was used to make it happen.

The why is pretty easy really. Mainly people that feel bullied, oppressed, picked on etc seeking revenge. Thow in easy access to firearms and you have a perfect storm for a disaster. Of course we foster a culture where owning a gun makes one feel superior and indestructible so to speak (as evidence by this thread) and it only adds fuel to the fire. I think it's only logical to examine how to prevent this from all angles.
This is too simplistic and ignores the point made in what you responded to.  People were always bullies and oppressed.  You are aware of the 1960s, right?  I understand that MLK suggested peaceful protest, but why did no one break out and start shooting.  This is why my points upthread are the same as what OneStep asks.  Why are we not examing the culture and the psychology of people instead of just focusing on the item?  The item was always there and with easy access.  I get it was more long guns even going back only to the 70s, but there were always a LOT of guns around and they were not selected for use as often as they are now.  To assume that does not have a cultural or paradigm shift in thinking that is making that happen is preposterous.

Yeah, good thing that times were so culturally different that people with access to guns didn't start shooting.  That might have been the end of MLK Jr . . .

Again, I'm not expert by any means, but I would venture to say that our culture is radically different than the 60's. You can argue that our culture is just as racist now, but during the equal right movement people were a lot more open about it. I don't think its fair to compare the assassination of a movements leader to psychology behind today's schools shooters.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 24, 2018, 11:25:26 AM
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on May 24, 2018, 11:54:49 AM
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

Are the Black Panthers so quickly forgotten?  And JFK was before MLK.

It seems more shooting then was politically motivated, the shootings now seem to be more about the shooters' personal issues.  But that is just what stands out in my mind, I could easily be totally off on this.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 24, 2018, 12:07:46 PM
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We can’t ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you can’t ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on May 24, 2018, 12:13:44 PM
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

Are the Black Panthers so quickly forgotten?  And JFK was before MLK.

It seems more shooting then was politically motivated, the shootings now seem to be more about the shooters' personal issues.  But that is just what stands out in my mind, I could easily be totally off on this.

The Black Panthers are an interesting case.  They actually took up arms to defend themselves against tyrannical policing.  While initially somewhat successful, this quickly devolved into wanton murders, torture and escalated violence.  It's hard to say if they were a net benefit or not . . . but this is probably the best example of 'freedom fighters' using gun against an oppressive (part of a) government.  I'd argue that they were ultimately less effective than the non-violent protests of MLK . . . but that's certainly open to argument.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on May 24, 2018, 12:16:51 PM
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

Are the Black Panthers so quickly forgotten?  And JFK was before MLK.

It seems more shooting then was politically motivated, the shootings now seem to be more about the shooters' personal issues.  But that is just what stands out in my mind, I could easily be totally off on this.

What they have in common:

1. A grudge
2. Access to guns

We might not be able to do much about #1 but we can do a hell of a lot about #2.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 24, 2018, 12:29:12 PM
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We can’t ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you can’t ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 24, 2018, 12:52:04 PM
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.

Are the Black Panthers so quickly forgotten?  And JFK was before MLK.

It seems more shooting then was politically motivated, the shootings now seem to be more about the shooters' personal issues.  But that is just what stands out in my mind, I could easily be totally off on this.

The Black Panthers are an interesting case.  They actually took up arms to defend themselves against tyrannical policing.  While initially somewhat successful, this quickly devolved into wanton murders, torture and escalated violence.  It's hard to say if they were a net benefit or not . . . but this is probably the best example of 'freedom fighters' using gun against an oppressive (part of a) government.  I'd argue that they were ultimately less effective than the non-violent protests of MLK . . . but that's certainly open to argument.

That’s an extremely good point. How many people really know much about the Black Panthers, yet know at least a little about MLK? The guys with guns were ineffective and villafied. The one that tried nonviolent means is who we still revere and use as our example, rightly so if you ask me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: OneStep on May 24, 2018, 01:36:26 PM
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We can’t ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you can’t ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.

I agree that we shouldn't ignore guns. I don't want to put words in Caracarn's, but I don't think Caracarn is ignoring guns either. I just don't think we should ignore the underlying cause behind these actions. I don't agree that automobiles are a good example, unless the sole reason to add safety features is because you have people purposefully going out to kill people with their cars. Safety standards where implemented due to accidental deaths, not intentional deaths caused by an evil person. I think the answer to all of this sits somewhere in the middle.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 24, 2018, 02:03:40 PM
My point was simply that gun violence isn't anything new in American culture.  Using MLK as an example of the lack of gun violence in the 60s seemed rather ironic considering that he himself was gunned down.  Sure, there's plenty of cultural difference between the 60s and now.  At the end of the day though, access to firearms + strong emotions tends to lead to problems.
OK, but I think you also understand what my point was and instead chose to make a snarky remark that is not relevant.  If all we had today was assassinations of leaders as our gun violence problem we'd be is a much better place. 

In case my point of using that example was not clear, there was a lot more public unhappiness and yet there were not a lot of shootings.  In very heated environments where guns certainly come out today, they did not in the 60s.  People who were upset did not turn to a gun as often as they do now.  I did not say there was no gun violence, and again i think you know that.  Try to help the conversation instead of just stop it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on May 24, 2018, 02:10:10 PM
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We can’t ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you can’t ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.
OMG.  Did I our anyone else say ignore guns?  All I am suggesting is there is a lot more to this than the guns.  We have not made any progress on not ignoring guns in decades, so do want to keep yaking about not ignoring guns and get nowhere or maybe expand the points we look at to make improvements and look elsewhere at the same time to keep trying to push the immovable boulder on guns?  It's so frustrating how people polarize to extremes when nothing like that is being implied.  Work on both guns and mental health.  Are you also stating is someone used a car as a weapon that you would not think investigating their mental health should also be included?  It's a poor point that mental health has anything to do with car safety.  A car is made to transport you and not harm.  When you talk about a gun, which causes damage, when someone choose to use it for a outlying purpose, to murder someone say, why would you ignore their mental state that made them think it was OK? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 24, 2018, 03:45:32 PM
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We can’t ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you can’t ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.
OMG.  Did I our anyone else say ignore guns?  All I am suggesting is there is a lot more to this than the guns.  We have not made any progress on not ignoring guns in decades, so do want to keep yaking about not ignoring guns and get nowhere or maybe expand the points we look at to make improvements and look elsewhere at the same time to keep trying to push the immovable boulder on guns?  It's so frustrating how people polarize to extremes when nothing like that is being implied.  Work on both guns and mental health.  Are you also stating is someone used a car as a weapon that you would not think investigating their mental health should also be included?  It's a poor point that mental health has anything to do with car safety.  A car is made to transport you and not harm.  When you talk about a gun, which causes damage, when someone choose to use it for a outlying purpose, to murder someone say, why would you ignore their mental state that made them think it was OK?

I wasn’t responding to you. This was a response to the implication Onestep made that focusing on guns won’t fix the issues. It’s the low hanging fruit, so that’s why it comes up, not because anyone is under some illusion that guns are literally the only thing causing the problem.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 25, 2018, 04:37:02 AM
Ignoring guns in all of this is like saying we should ignore whether or not seatbelts are available in all vehicles when evaluating deaths in car accidents and how to prevent them. We can’t ignore easy access to weapons, no matter what is fueling this. Yes, we have a whole lot more going on than guns. But you can’t ignore one part of the solution and expect to get better.

Ignoring firearms is the easy choice if you want to maintain status quo. Incidents involving guns is really the only situation where ignoring the actual cause of death is highly encouraged by a portion of society. Autos are a good example. We didn't simply say "let's ignore car safety and focus on the mental health of those driving the car." We also institute(d) new laws to try and help curb accidents as well.
OMG.  Did I our anyone else say ignore guns?  All I am suggesting is there is a lot more to this than the guns.  We have not made any progress on not ignoring guns in decades, so do want to keep yaking about not ignoring guns and get nowhere or maybe expand the points we look at to make improvements and look elsewhere at the same time to keep trying to push the immovable boulder on guns?  It's so frustrating how people polarize to extremes when nothing like that is being implied.  Work on both guns and mental health.  Are you also stating is someone used a car as a weapon that you would not think investigating their mental health should also be included?  It's a poor point that mental health has anything to do with car safety.  A car is made to transport you and not harm.  When you talk about a gun, which causes damage, when someone choose to use it for a outlying purpose, to murder someone say, why would you ignore their mental state that made them think it was OK?

Chill dude, I wasn't responding to you either. I didn't even point to anyone specifically. If you read what I wrote more carefully you would see that I already stated the bolded part above.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gaja on May 26, 2018, 04:33:56 PM
Firearms are absolutely a benefit to society. They were how peasants a serfs gained more and more liberty back in the day, and remain essential to the preservation of freedom. You can deny it all you want, but at the end of the day, political power boils down to who can exert physical force on who. We've come up with all kinds of fancy ways to dress that up, and as long as a population doesn't become stressed by lack of basic survival needs, that facade will hold, even without firearms...  but we live in a remarkably good time overall, and there is not guarantee  things will remain like this.

Can you point to a time in the past . . . . oh, let's say 100 - 110 years where small arms did what you claim they do, and preserved freedom?

No cheating, remember:
- We're talking specifically about small arms, not small arms + rocket launchers/nukes/tanks/grenades/air support/artillery (as all of these things are heavily restricted and therefore not related to the freedom you're professing comes only from having a gun in your hands).
- We're talking about where an oppressive government was replaced with a kinder, gentler, less oppressive government of course.  Switching one tyrant for another isn't an improvement.

I suspect you'll have a lot of difficulty finding an example of this.

I reject your timeframe limitation. 110 years is the blink of an eye and the arc of history is longer than that, so there's always the American revolution.

But, One example fiting your criteria is WW2. The Allies put a significant amount of effort into arming The Underground, and they did quite a lot through the process to weaken the 3rd Reich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II

Both of my grandfathers lived in nazi occupied areas during the war, and sympathized with the resistance. One was a pacifist, the other was a hunter who did not turn in his guns. Only one of them had to flee from the nazis because they issued an arrest warrant, he changed his name, and lived the rest of the war in hiding. Want to guess which one?

After the war, he came out of hiding, and took active part in politics. So active, that he ended up on the US watch list as “the most dangerous radical” in the region. Still very outspoken against weapons of all sorts.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 26, 2018, 09:38:37 PM

Well, first, you didn't directly answer my hypothetical question for whatever reason

If I thought that crime would go up in the absence of guns, I wouldn't advocate for it.


I did, in fact, directly answer your question.  How is that not a direct answer?

Oops, I stand corrected. I misread your statement.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 26, 2018, 09:43:51 PM
It's only a strawman if I'm making up some viewpoint as if you had said it when you didn't so that I can knock it down and make you look bad.

Quote
I wasn't the one who through what he said implied that as long as gun control eliminated problems caused by guns overall problems that are left in their wake don't matter. If you'd like to defend his statement per what he said, please feel free to do so.

I made no such implication or statement that what you stated was my viewpoint. Again, you even used the word "implied." Hence straw-man.

Fair enough, I can see how you didn't exactly state that (commenting that a child didn't get raped in addition to killed seemed at the time to do that, but re-reading it, maybe that was too much of a stretch, but whatever, I admit that it wasn't exactly the same thing, so I retract the statement). I can admit when I'm wrong as I just did here and with tyort. I'm sure you'll never admit your strawman implying that I didn't care about gun deaths because I said that overall deaths were more important than one specific subset of kinds of deaths. It seems you'd rather just accuse other people of flaws and never admit your own.

Case in point, you never answered ncornilsen's question here:

Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

A good question that was never answered. You hide behind the fact that you don't explicitly state things, but good grief with what you've said, what do you believe then?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 26, 2018, 09:44:44 PM

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182)
Note the conclusion specifically for women.

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic (http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systematic)

There are also a couple other studies that I can't link to because of their format. One is "Firearm Justifiable Homicide and Non-Fatal Self Defense Gun Use" which found that for every justifiable homicide with a gun, there are another 32 criminal homicides with a gun.

That will give you some reading for now.

It did give me some reading. As has been pointed out, in your very explanation of the third article you compare justifiable homicide with a gun to criminal homicide with a gun - justifiable homicides does not equal justifiable defensive gun uses. It shouldn't be that hard to process the possibility or dare I say probability that criminals might actually use guns fatally in their uses of guns more than someone defending himself. I'm not saying it has to be, but without somehow proving that it's apples to apples, I have a hard time believing that it is.

As best I can tell, your other two studies put suicides on the same level as homicides. Suicides seem to be pretty consistently around 2/3 of gun deaths, and they're not the same thing as a homicide. This is not being pedantic...I don't buy conflating the two.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on May 26, 2018, 09:46:25 PM
Those were not good examples of what you ASKED for, sure.

Firearms playing a role in fighting tyranny take alot of different forms and whether it was fighting or fostering tyranny depends on perspective. I don't think you can dismiss the WW2 example so easily. Suppose a tyrnanical government had to deal with armed resistance all through thier lands? Germany had to dispatch 8000 troops to secure an area near Szalsey against 300 individuals who were fighting them. Repeat that over and over again where people were well armed... that could serious drain the ability of the hypothetical government to fight those tanks and jets from other countries. I don't think it's a requirement that the armed populous single handedly defeats the 'evil' government.  Cleary this isn't something you do because the government eliminated your mortgage exemption, and it's going to be bloody for those who fight. But I'd rather fight that be hearded like sheep.

My inability to articulate numerous instances of government overreach being altered by the fact or possibility of an armed populous, or to name an instance where armed citizens overthrew fascists to install a democracy headed by a triumvirate of mother Teresa, barrack Obama and FDR in no way invalidates that firearms could (god forbid) someday play an important role in stopping, resisting, or slowing the fall of a government to some form of tyranny. 

And while the malhuer idiots were unsuccessful and one guy committed suicide by cop, the pause and restraint with which they were treated is an indication of the trouble a government would have in dealing with a less inept armed resistance.


Masterstache - Why haven't you addressed your own illogical position? Are they a net benefit in need of some updates to the regulation, or a net negative that should be banned? If not one of those two things, what is it?
I've not been able to respond because I was too busy laughing at the absurdity this has all come down to.  The bolded part of your "argument" is really the crux of the whole thing. 

If gun advocates from your vein could simply understand that all you do is prolong the inevitable regarding a government.  There is no plausible scenario where small arms will indefinitely hold out let alone win against a state.  Even you magical Nazi resistance example requires a cadet from military school to resolve.  If I know this is happening I send a marginally larger group from point to point and take them out as I did with the 300.  You do understand the Wehrmacht had over 18 million people in it right?  Do you think 8,000 of them even mattered being tied up for a short time?  And how does a bunch of guys on the ground taking out individual citizens with little training but macho man feelings because they have a gun in their hand hurt taking out jets?  Are they shooting at those jets with their rifles? 

Your "idiots" being less inept would simply take a bit more time.  It's the same argument of the doomsday preppers who stock pile food and generators so that when we have a EMT pulse attack their family can survive.  Read "Lights Out" to understand that scenario a bit better and see how all you get to do it live for six months if you are lucky before you still die.  This belief that you can just go back to times long ago and live like that is laughable.  People are not equipped to do that any more.  I'd also like to point out that your American Revolution example stilled used artillery and a lot of French galleons that you will not have because of the 2nd Amendment.  I get it fuels the fantasy that small arms can make you be able to overthrow government, but lets not be foolish.  Had the British not been arrogant and sent over more than a small force we would have been mopped up in a matter of weeks.  It was only because they totally discounted the resistance and let them gain access to more powerful weapons that things turned out as they did.  Need more evidence?  Look at the Civil War which should have followed your "I get me some guns so save the world from tyranny" scenario.  Lincoln hit them hard and even with their better generals and small arms culture they got eventually got crushed by a government with virtually unlimited resources. 

So please stop the scenario that having guns allows this scenario to play out and stop fooling yourself.

I don't mean to jump on you here, caracarn, but I wanted to make two comments on your statement I bolded above.

First, the crux of the issue in the conversation these past few pages, imo, was tyort's comment:

"Agreed.  It's not a "nuanced" issue at all.  Greater access to guns leads to more deaths.  It's simple.  The data supports it.  We should ban guns and watch the death rate plummet."

Tyort and MasterStache are arguing a complicated issue as if it truly has no nuance. I don't care what issue it is in modern politics or what side I tend to support on it...when I hear someone declare there is no nuance to an issue or de facto do so by their arguments, that's what makes me start to laugh or roll my eyes. It's never that simple. GRA people are continually presented as unreasonable and yet, again, we're the ones told, there's no nuance to the issue at all, you're just wrong......I don't even know what else to say about that. And before I get accused of yet another strawman by MasterStache, if you do think the issue is nuanced, please feel free to comment how you think it is so. I'm just not seeing it in your arguments (and of course tyort specifically stated it).

For my second comment, let me give you one example of nuance. Defending against tyranny is not a hill I'm willing to die on in the argument personally. However, no one has mentioned in the discussion one of the possibilities that in my mind has a fairly decent chance (more so to me than some of the examples brought up) because of our crazily interconnected and interdependent world, and that is anarchy in some form - maybe localized and/or temporary before order is restored. We see this on a small scale in riots and the like, so please don't tell me this could never happen. This is why I like to go back to self defense, because in this case, it does go back to self defense....defending yourself if the government for whatever period of time in whatever locale for whatever reason is unable to. It won't matter if order is restored in a week if something happened to you on day 3. Just throwing out an example of nuance here.....
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on May 27, 2018, 04:46:27 AM
I’m interested in how those of you that want to ban guns think that can happen.  Say you got rid of the second amendment.  And then passed laws banning guns.  Is the government then going to confiscate the 300 million plus guns out there?  Take people’s personal property?  Or some big buy back.

Then you have the problem with the criminals, and former felons, that have guns now that they shouldn’t.  Do you think they are just going to turn them in?

And I can also see local communities, much like immigration, just not enforcing gun confiscation.  Of coarse you will make some of those law abiding citizens criminal for not turning in their weapons.

Most will say they don’t want to take away your guns.  But the other side doesn’t believe it.  Just read some post here where many do want that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: PKFFW on May 27, 2018, 04:57:29 AM
I’m interested in how those of you that want to ban guns think that can happen.  Say you got rid of the second amendment.  And then passed laws banning guns.  Is the government then going to confiscate the 300 million plus guns out there?  Take people’s personal property?  Or some big buy back.
Personally I don't want to ban guns.  I think the problem is much deeper than guns.  I'd favour increased regulation and restrictions though.

Having said that, if the second was repealed, laws passed and guns banned I can only assume all those GRAs who profess to being responsible, law abiding citizens will hand their guns in.  That's assuming they are actually law abiding and not just abiding by the laws they personally like.

It wont get rid of every gun but it will get rid of the overwhelming majority.
Quote from: dmc
Then you have the problem with the criminals, and former felons, that have guns now that they shouldn’t.  Do you think they are just going to turn them in?
I don't think they would.  I also don't think murderers, rapists, fraudsters and robbers are all going to stop committing their crime of choice either.

I also don't think the willingness of criminals to commit crimes should be a reason to not have a law against any particular crime though.
Quote from: dmc
And I can also see local communities, much like immigration, just not enforcing gun confiscation.  Of coarse you will make some of those law abiding citizens criminal for not turning in their weapons.

Most will say they don’t want to take away your guns.  But the other side doesn’t believe it.  Just read some post here where many do want that.
As mentioned above, there shouldn't be any reason for local communities to enforce any gun confiscation.  All those responsible, law abiding citizens will doubtless continue to be fine, responsible, law abiding citizens and willingly hand in their guns wont they?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 27, 2018, 10:02:58 AM
I never thought I’d support repealing the second until this entire conversation, ironically. I never knew just how dug in gun attitudes are before now. Gun owners who will not compromise and think anything less than more guns is the proper solution to school shootings has changed my mind. You might want to think on that when you blame the gun control side for pushing itself farther to the ban side. I’d say the opposite is happening.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on May 27, 2018, 10:08:11 AM
I’m interested in how those of you that want to ban guns think that can happen.  Say you got rid of the second amendment.  And then passed laws banning guns.  Is the government then going to confiscate the 300 million plus guns out there?  Take people’s personal property?  Or some big buy back.
Personally I don't want to ban guns.  I think the problem is much deeper than guns.  I'd favour increased regulation and restrictions though.

Having said that, if the second was repealed, laws passed and guns banned I can only assume all those GRAs who profess to being responsible, law abiding citizens will hand their guns in.  That's assuming they are actually law abiding and not just abiding by the laws they personally like.

It wont get rid of every gun but it will get rid of the overwhelming majority.
Quote from: dmc
Then you have the problem with the criminals, and former felons, that have guns now that they shouldn’t.  Do you think they are just going to turn them in?
I don't think they would.  I also don't think murderers, rapists, fraudsters and robbers are all going to stop committing their crime of choice either.

I also don't think the willingness of criminals to commit crimes should be a reason to not have a law against any particular crime though.
Quote from: dmc
And I can also see local communities, much like immigration, just not enforcing gun confiscation.  Of coarse you will make some of those law abiding citizens criminal for not turning in their weapons.

Most will say they don’t want to take away your guns.  But the other side doesn’t believe it.  Just read some post here where many do want that.
As mentioned above, there shouldn't be any reason for local communities to enforce any gun confiscation.  All those responsible, law abiding citizens will doubtless continue to be fine, responsible, law abiding citizens and willingly hand in their guns wont they?

Yes to all of this! All these self-proclaimed “good guys” would become “bad guys” if they don’t respect the laws. Just like every other “criminal”out there. They are people who chose not to follow the law, period. The law (and pretty much everyone else) does not care if you personally believe the law is wrong. You’re still a criminal if you flout it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on May 27, 2018, 10:12:21 AM
Case in point, you never answered ncornilsen's question here:

Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

A good question that was never answered. You hide behind the fact that you don't explicitly state things, but good grief with what you've said, what do you believe then?

If you look back a bit further ncornilsen stated that because he thinks guns are a net positive that doesn't mean he believes we should have more. So why would someone who believes they are a net negative in fact want to ban all of them, if applying the same logic? The question was contradictory to his own conclusions.

And I believe I covered pretty well why I don't see an item meant for the sole purpose maiming/killing living beings as some sort of net benefit to society. I believe it's immoral to assign variables (numbers) to grief. It's not something you can calculate. It's like finding 11 people that defended themselves with guns to cancel out the 10 kids killed in the latest school shooting. Is that how you want to justify this position? I shall hope not.

Quote
As best I can tell, your other two studies put suicides on the same level as homicides. Suicides seem to be pretty consistently around 2/3 of gun deaths, and they're not the same thing as a homicide. This is not being pedantic...I don't buy conflating the two.

I believe you are conflating the two. They were brought up as means of demonstrating various degrees to which just having guns around increases ones likelihood of being involved in some gun related incident. Not exactly a net benefit. It doesn't have to be a homicide. If you want to pick and choose what's allowed in terms of gun related incidents, you'll always get the answer you want. It's a lot easier to second guess your suicide decision if you have a slit wrist or overdosed on some pills rather than putting a gun to your mouth and pulling the trigger. I have a family member who can personally attest to that. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on May 27, 2018, 11:45:35 AM
Since we don’t seem to follow the laws on guns now, among other things.  I would think we should work on that first.

I don’t see banning guns happening in my lifetime.  Sure they may ban certain scary looking ones to make people feel better.  I would be fine with that if it’s like the last one where I would be able to sell mine for a nice profit.  I just bought it on a whim

Keep trying to make villains of millions of respectable gun owners.  See how that works out for you.

Either way I don’t think it’s going to effect me much.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 27, 2018, 11:57:43 AM
Since we don’t seem to follow the laws on guns now, among other things.  I would think we should work on that first.

I don’t see banning guns happening in my lifetime.  Sure they may ban certain scary looking ones to make people feel better.  I would be fine with that if it’s like the last one where I would be able to sell mine for a nice profit.  I just bought it on a whim

Keep trying to make villains of millions of respectable gun owners.  See how that works out for you.

Either way I don’t think it’s going to effect me much.

You should go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Unfortunately there's a lot of unproductive arguing but we've also thoroughly discussed everything you've brought up in your last two posts.

Regarding the bolded comment there were certainly some shortcomings to the previous assault weapons ban but saying it banned scary looking guns is an unfair criticism.

ETA: you should probably skip the first few pages if I recall.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: dmc on May 27, 2018, 12:42:11 PM
Since we don’t seem to follow the laws on guns now, among other things.  I would think we should work on that first.

I don’t see banning guns happening in my lifetime.  Sure they may ban certain scary looking ones to make people feel better.  I would be fine with that if it’s like the last one where I would be able to sell mine for a nice profit.  I just bought it on a whim

Keep trying to make villains of millions of respectable gun owners.  See how that works out for you.

Either way I don’t think it’s going to effect me much.

You should go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Unfortunately there's a lot of unproductive arguing but we've also thoroughly discussed everything you've brought up in your last two posts.

Regarding the bolded comment there were certainly some shortcomings to the previous assault weapons ban but saying it banned scary looking guns is an unfair criticism.

ETA: you should probably skip the first few pages if I recall.

I’ve read enough.  It’s not like anything said here is going to effect anything.  It is interesting to read other view points.  But like many topics no one really changes anyone’s view.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on May 27, 2018, 02:30:25 PM
Since we don’t seem to follow the laws on guns now, among other things.  I would think we should work on that first.

I don’t see banning guns happening in my lifetime.  Sure they may ban certain scary looking ones to make people feel better.  I would be fine with that if it’s like the last one where I would be able to sell mine for a nice profit.  I just bought it on a whim

Keep trying to make villains of millions of respectable gun owners.  See how that works out for you.

Either way I don’t think it’s going to effect me much.

You should go back and read some of the earlier posts in this thread. Unfortunately there's a lot of unproductive arguing but we've also thoroughly discussed everything you've brought up in your last two posts.

Regarding the bolded comment there were certainly some shortcomings to the previous assault weapons ban but saying it banned scary looking guns is an unfair criticism.

ETA: you should probably skip the first few pages if I recall.

I’ve read enough.  It’s not like anything said here is going to effect anything.  It is interesting to read other view points.  But like many topics no one really changes anyone’s view.

Not true, my opinion has changed based on this thread. Not in the sense that I've gone from one side to the other but I have learned that some of the statistics I once based my opinions on are not quite what they seemed. Therefore my opinions on what restrictions might be effective have changed.

Are you saying that you have made up your mind and it will not be changed? That seems odd to me as I was under the impression that that was a criticism one person makes about another, not something you would recognize, much less admit of yourself.

Regardless, you're making arguments that have not only been made already, but have been thoroughly discussed. I suppose talking it through again doesn't hurt but if you're actually interested in the discussion it would really help if you read through the older comments. The difficulty of taking existing guns out of circulation, "criminals" disregarding bans, the need to enforce current laws, and the dangerous looking vs actually dangerous. All of your questions have been discussed, so I would disagree that you have read enough.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 06, 2018, 04:05:41 PM
I never thought I’d support repealing the second until this entire conversation, ironically. I never knew just how dug in gun attitudes are before now. Gun owners who will not compromise and think anything less than more guns is the proper solution to school shootings has changed my mind. You might want to think on that when you blame the gun control side for pushing itself farther to the ban side. I’d say the opposite is happening.

TrudgingAlong....I'm really sorry to hear you say that and to be honest, confused. We've had vigorous debate on all sides, but I've literally read every post on this thread and haven't seen what you're seeing coming out. I've mentioned this before, but gun supporters on this thread have suggested numerous ideas to improve things. I don't recall many of them if any that have said we should do absolutely nothing, and I don't recall seeing the argument on this board that "anything less than more guns is the proper solution." It's the reverse that's been true, to be frank. I've seen GRA people say, enforce laws better, myself saying they're open to better background checks, restrictions on magazines, etc. People have proposed different ideas, not nothing. On the other side, I've seen multiple people say that they want to ban all guns. I don't know what magical compromise you're expecting of GRA people. There is a fundamental disconnect that's been highlighted significantly that GRA people realize guns are used to hurt people but feel the rights to have something to defend themselves and/or defensive gun uses outweighs the risks while GCA people tend to think the risks outweigh the benefits. Of course GRA people are not going to back down on this because that's the fundamental perspective underlying their beliefs. GCA people aren't going to back down on thinking the risks weigh more than any benefits. Beyond that, though, again, it's the GCA people on here who have gone towards (or already been there) banning all guns. The GRA people haven't proposed any (that I remember, please correct me if you find it) "more guns" solution other than relaxing laws on concealed carry (a group of people that have such a minuscule risk that it's not in the same league as anything).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 06, 2018, 04:16:56 PM
Case in point, you never answered ncornilsen's question here:

Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

A good question that was never answered. You hide behind the fact that you don't explicitly state things, but good grief with what you've said, what do you believe then?

If you look back a bit further ncornilsen stated that because he thinks guns are a net positive that doesn't mean he believes we should have more. So why would someone who believes they are a net negative in fact want to ban all of them, if applying the same logic? The question was contradictory to his own conclusions.

And I believe I covered pretty well why I don't see an item meant for the sole purpose maiming/killing living beings as some sort of net benefit to society. I believe it's immoral to assign variables (numbers) to grief. It's not something you can calculate. It's like finding 11 people that defended themselves with guns to cancel out the 10 kids killed in the latest school shooting. Is that how you want to justify this position? I shall hope not.

Quote
As best I can tell, your other two studies put suicides on the same level as homicides. Suicides seem to be pretty consistently around 2/3 of gun deaths, and they're not the same thing as a homicide. This is not being pedantic...I don't buy conflating the two.

I believe you are conflating the two. They were brought up as means of demonstrating various degrees to which just having guns around increases ones likelihood of being involved in some gun related incident. Not exactly a net benefit. It doesn't have to be a homicide. If you want to pick and choose what's allowed in terms of gun related incidents, you'll always get the answer you want. It's a lot easier to second guess your suicide decision if you have a slit wrist or overdosed on some pills rather than putting a gun to your mouth and pulling the trigger. I have a family member who can personally attest to that.

Ok, I won't argue the point that ncornilsen made specifically that you're being illogical if you don't support banning them all. I will say I agree with the general thrust he and I made that we'd like you to put out specifics so I can have something to directly comment on and you don't have to keep accusing me of straw man arguments. So, I'll be direct: Ban all guns? Ban all semi-automatic guns? More middle of the road perspectives of magazine restrictions? Full registry of gun owners? What do you think?

On the second part, no, I'm pretty sure I'm correct about it conflating the two unless it does not mean what I think it means (cue Princess Bride reference :) ). I'm not conflating the two. I'm saying they are different and should be treated as such, and it's not cherry picking imo. They're brought up with the statistics saying it's riskier to have a gun in your house than the benefit of using it defensively. That's only true with the studies if you count people literally hurting themselves. If you don't hurt yourself, the results aren't valid. Suicides and homicides are different and not in some small nuanced way. One someone robbing someone else of their life and choices. One is someone making a choice in regards to their own life. I'll admit that I don't have any specific close family situations in regards to suicide. However, I have a general belief that someone doing something to themselves doesn't carry the same weight as someone doing something to others, especially when it comes to infringing on the rights of others.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on June 06, 2018, 09:46:59 PM
I never thought I’d support repealing the second until this entire conversation, ironically. I never knew just how dug in gun attitudes are before now. Gun owners who will not compromise and think anything less than more guns is the proper solution to school shootings has changed my mind. You might want to think on that when you blame the gun control side for pushing itself farther to the ban side. I’d say the opposite is happening.

TrudgingAlong....I'm really sorry to hear you say that and to be honest, confused. We've had vigorous debate on all sides, but I've literally read every post on this thread and haven't seen what you're seeing coming out. I've mentioned this before, but gun supporters on this thread have suggested numerous ideas to improve things. I don't recall many of them if any that have said we should do absolutely nothing, and I don't recall seeing the argument on this board that "anything less than more guns is the proper solution." It's the reverse that's been true, to be frank. I've seen GRA people say, enforce laws better, myself saying they're open to better background checks, restrictions on magazines, etc. People have proposed different ideas, not nothing. On the other side, I've seen multiple people say that they want to ban all guns. I don't know what magical compromise you're expecting of GRA people. There is a fundamental disconnect that's been highlighted significantly that GRA people realize guns are used to hurt people but feel the rights to have something to defend themselves and/or defensive gun uses outweighs the risks while GCA people tend to think the risks outweigh the benefits. Of course GRA people are not going to back down on this because that's the fundamental perspective underlying their beliefs. GCA people aren't going to back down on thinking the risks weigh more than any benefits. Beyond that, though, again, it's the GCA people on here who have gone towards (or already been there) banning all guns. The GRA people haven't proposed any (that I remember, please correct me if you find it) "more guns" solution other than relaxing laws on concealed carry (a group of people that have such a minuscule risk that it's not in the same league as anything).

I’m actually not going to tell you you’re wrong, because I think you’ve mostly characterized what’s been said well. The thing I learned, though, is that gun owners absolutely believe guns are a benefit and won’t come out to change things. Speaking specifically about school shootings, what I see is a weird dance of people saying they want to change something, but love that second amendment. Which shuts down any real hope of legislation.

I have a child who will be entering high school next year. This feels immediate and urgent. I absolutely reject more people with guns in schools (be they teachers or police - as we saw recently in Texas, even when there are school officers and they respond, people die). This is NOT a solution, but more like a bandaid. I’d love to see gun owners get active in policing themselves, advocating for laws that make sense, but I don’t see that. I don’t want my kids to experience this, okay? They already do lockdown drills and have had teachers go over what to do while they were walking down the street to another school to do an activity. My 7th grader came home telling how they’d all run into the bushes. Like, wtf kind of world do we live in that this is considered totally important to cover during the field trip rundown?!

I mean, I’d totally settle for gun owners being held responsible for what other people do with their weapons, and arresting the parents who let their kids have easy access (because almost all these gun incidents in schoools are kids bringing in their parent’s gun). But I understand how anathema that solution probably is because of how much many gun owners believe their guns are a net benefit. My concerns are not theirs. I feel helpless and hopeless this will change, so ban it is, as extreme and frustrating it feels that that might actually be the only thing that changes things.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 06, 2018, 11:03:39 PM
Guns are not a net benefit to society and should be banned.  2nd Amendment repealed and everyone should hand in their guns.  Might take a little longer to get the balance of the guns from the criminals that break the law, but even those will be scooped up, eventually. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 06, 2018, 11:44:36 PM

I’m actually not going to tell you you’re wrong, because I think you’ve mostly characterized what’s been said well. The thing I learned, though, is that gun owners absolutely believe guns are a benefit and won’t come out to change things. Speaking specifically about school shootings, what I see is a weird dance of people saying they want to change something, but love that second amendment. Which shuts down any real hope of legislation.


If I didn't believe firearms were a benefit to society, I'd have to support a complete ban. I think they are a major benefit to society, but need to be subject to some regulation. I've discussed the steps I'm willing to take, and they cover alot of what the gun control people want. There are some gun people who are unbending, just as there are some gun grabbers who won't accept anything less than a ban or some kind of crazy "no guns in your home, only in a state run locker where you can check it out for use on approved ranges" scheme I've heard thrown around in other conversations.

 I however, won't support things that are ineffective, purely symbolic, or will negate the positive aspects of firearm ownership. You seem to be of the mindset that "doing anything less than what I think is right is the same as doing nothing!" mindset.

Quote

I have a child who will be entering high school next year. This feels immediate and urgent. I absolutely reject more people with guns in schools (be they teachers or police - as we saw recently in Texas, even when there are school officers and they respond, people die). This is NOT a solution, but more like a bandaid. I’d love to see gun owners get active in policing themselves, advocating for laws that make sense, but I don’t see that. I don’t want my kids to experience this, okay? They already do lockdown drills and have had teachers go over what to do while they were walking down the street to another school to do an activity. My 7th grader came home telling how they’d all run into the bushes. Like, wtf kind of world do we live in that this is considered totally important to cover during the field trip rundown?!

Well, you'll be glad to know that the odds of your child being killed in school by firearms are pretty low.... on average, there are 10 student fatalities per year, and about 55mm students. So, less than a .000018% chance of that happening per year... or a 1 in 5.5mm chance. I would say it's almost irresponsible to be getting everyone worked up about those kinds of odds, if they're not using drills or discussing what to do to avoid being killed on the walk to school, choking, or drowning in pools... all of which are orders of magnitude more likely to end you child's life than a school shooting.

Quote
I mean, I’d totally settle for gun owners being held responsible for what other people do with their weapons, and arresting the parents who let their kids have easy access (because almost all these gun incidents in schoools are kids bringing in their parent’s gun). But I understand how anathema that solution probably is because of how much many gun owners believe their guns are a net benefit. My concerns are not theirs. I feel helpless and hopeless this will change, so ban it is, as extreme and frustrating it feels that that might actually be the only thing that changes things.

Great, I think it would be great to hold gun owners accountable for stopping thier guns from being used in a crime. Require all gun owners to provide proof that they have the means to secure their weapons. If they are negligent in doing so and their gun is used in a crime, then they face some penalties. The devil is in the details, but I generally agree with this. I'm not sure I'd arrest a parent for giving thier kid access to a gun, afterall the staggering majority of kids with access to guns use them responsibly... but I digress.

 I still think guns are a net benefit to society. I don't know why you're so stuck on this aspect of it... it doesn't preclude some sort of regulation.


Quote
Guns are not a net benefit to society and should be banned.

LOL... Citation, please.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 07, 2018, 05:16:20 AM
Case in point, you never answered ncornilsen's question here:

Quote
I made no such comments on banning or "unreasonably" restricting firearms. Good job on the straw-man

Then you are illogical. If you think firearms are a net negative, versus a net positive that needs some regulation, the only logical position you can have is to ban them.

If not a ban, what are you proposing?  Looking back a few weeks, your contribution to this conversation seems to be baiting people with pointless hypothetical which strongly imply what your viewpoint might be, then quibbling about their "straw men" while not saying much useful about how you want to solve this.

A good question that was never answered. You hide behind the fact that you don't explicitly state things, but good grief with what you've said, what do you believe then?

If you look back a bit further ncornilsen stated that because he thinks guns are a net positive that doesn't mean he believes we should have more. So why would someone who believes they are a net negative in fact want to ban all of them, if applying the same logic? The question was contradictory to his own conclusions.

And I believe I covered pretty well why I don't see an item meant for the sole purpose maiming/killing living beings as some sort of net benefit to society. I believe it's immoral to assign variables (numbers) to grief. It's not something you can calculate. It's like finding 11 people that defended themselves with guns to cancel out the 10 kids killed in the latest school shooting. Is that how you want to justify this position? I shall hope not.

Quote
As best I can tell, your other two studies put suicides on the same level as homicides. Suicides seem to be pretty consistently around 2/3 of gun deaths, and they're not the same thing as a homicide. This is not being pedantic...I don't buy conflating the two.

I believe you are conflating the two. They were brought up as means of demonstrating various degrees to which just having guns around increases ones likelihood of being involved in some gun related incident. Not exactly a net benefit. It doesn't have to be a homicide. If you want to pick and choose what's allowed in terms of gun related incidents, you'll always get the answer you want. It's a lot easier to second guess your suicide decision if you have a slit wrist or overdosed on some pills rather than putting a gun to your mouth and pulling the trigger. I have a family member who can personally attest to that.

Ok, I won't argue the point that ncornilsen made specifically that you're being illogical if you don't support banning them all. I will say I agree with the general thrust he and I made that we'd like you to put out specifics so I can have something to directly comment on and you don't have to keep accusing me of straw man arguments. So, I'll be direct: Ban all guns? Ban all semi-automatic guns? More middle of the road perspectives of magazine restrictions? Full registry of gun owners? What do you think?

I don't have an answer. How about that? I don't think more regulations are going to stop school kids form getting slaughtered in mass quantities. Sure we could pass more comprehensive background checks. Sure we can ban some types of guns/magazine capacities. Sure a complete registry of gun owners might help. But as has been pointed out, law abiding gun owners themselves are fueling the violence. But law abiding does not equal responsible.

And this whole "net benefit" crap is ridiculous. It's like taking human lives and human emotions and assigning value to them. It's immoral. Sorry your kid was shot and killed at school and that you and your family will have to bear the pain and overwhelming grief for the rest of your lives, but hey your neighbor got to keep their TV by shooting an intruder. Come on, that's stupid. One does not cancel out the other.

Quite honestly when someone says they support repealing the 2nd and banning guns, I get it. Can't argue the logic really that simply keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is a more logical way to reduce/prevent these types of things. Not saying I support it, but I get it. And when I see someone go on a rant about protecting themselves from the government it only tells me how different (not in a good way) our country is from other gun owning developed countries. In some ways, our country is not so developed. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on June 07, 2018, 06:39:34 AM
I have had the same experience as Trudging with regards to my kids.  I should not have to listen to my daughter in tears and frustration that she's sick of all the active shooter drills and that she never remembers a day in her school life (she just graduated high school) when this was not the norm.  She's asking me why it has to be this way and I can't give her an answer.  That's the stuff that those of us with less desire to own weapons see, and that we would appreciate GRA people to take some ownership of and help us resolve.  We practiced duck and cover drills under our desks because the Ruskies might nuke us, but even as a kid, I knew that was a remote possibility and one I'd not survive because of being under a tiny desk.  This threat is entirely different, and so it is hard for me to wrap my head around what my daughter and other kids says about how this makes them feel, but I do clearly know that having to practice how to not get shot be it by hiding in a classroom or hiding in a bush, is a pretty darn awful thing to have to do as part of your school day routine.

The fact that this is not viewed with enough alarm to take real, active steps in the GRA community is what makes it seem pointless to discuss.  If that reality is not enough to get people to see how F'ed up we are, no amount of discussion will help.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 07, 2018, 07:17:45 AM

I don't have an answer. How about that? I don't think more regulations are going to stop school kids form getting slaughtered in mass quantities. Sure we could pass more comprehensive background checks. Sure we can ban some types of guns/magazine capacities. Sure a complete registry of gun owners might help. But as has been pointed out, law abiding gun owners themselves are fueling the violence. But law abiding does not equal responsible.

And this whole "net benefit" crap is ridiculous. It's like taking human lives and human emotions and assigning value to them. It's immoral. Sorry your kid was shot and killed at school and that you and your family will have to bear the pain and overwhelming grief for the rest of your lives, but hey your neighbor got to keep their TV by shooting an intruder. Come on, that's stupid. One does not cancel out the other.

Quite honestly when someone says they support repealing the 2nd and banning guns, I get it. Can't argue the logic really that simply keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is a more logical way to reduce/prevent these types of things. Not saying I support it, but I get it. And when I see someone go on a rant about protecting themselves from the government it only tells me how different (not in a good way) our country is from other gun owning developed countries. In some ways, our country is not so developed.

I don't understand your first point. Can you elaborate?

Very few (I never say none) of the people arguing for the need for home defense weapons would maintain that view if all they were theoretically protecting was their TV or other replaceable things. People who feel strongly about using guns for home defense feel that way because they think they are protecting themselves or their families.

Repealing the second is not synonymous with banning all guns. Personally I am in favor of repeal in theory but in reality I'm undecided. I think if we didn't have the 2nd amendment it would reframe the debate and GRA's wouldn't be able to argue that any proposed regulation is "unconstitutional". I don't think the constitution should enter into it. I'm undecided on whether we should push for repeal because I'm not sure the actions needed to successfully repeal are worth the long term results. I worry that even bringing it up will only serve to get certain groups more riled up and fearful that "they're taking our guns" and further push them into their corner.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 07, 2018, 07:37:45 AM
I have had the same experience as Trudging with regards to my kids.  I should not have to listen to my daughter in tears and frustration that she's sick of all the active shooter drills and that she never remembers a day in her school life (she just graduated high school) when this was not the norm.  She's asking me why it has to be this way and I can't give her an answer.  That's the stuff that those of us with less desire to own weapons see, and that we would appreciate GRA people to take some ownership of and help us resolve.  We practiced duck and cover drills under our desks because the Ruskies might nuke us, but even as a kid, I knew that was a remote possibility and one I'd not survive because of being under a tiny desk.  This threat is entirely different, and so it is hard for me to wrap my head around what my daughter and other kids says about how this makes them feel, but I do clearly know that having to practice how to not get shot be it by hiding in a classroom or hiding in a bush, is a pretty darn awful thing to have to do as part of your school day routine.

The fact that this is not viewed with enough alarm to take real, active steps in the GRA community is what makes it seem pointless to discuss.  If that reality is not enough to get people to see how F'ed up we are, no amount of discussion will help.

And gun shootings are as well. Sort of. As has been discussed in detail, the statistics show you are much more likely to be killed by something mundane and boring and the chances of being shot are miniscule. On the other hand, it's not just the students who are shot that get hurt by these events, there is a significant emotional aspect. The chances of being at school when something like this happens are much higher, but still not huge. Whether the rate of incidence continues to increase is yet to be seen.

The question for me is, should we be doing this? First I would argue that we absolutely don't "have" to do this, but that's a word with a whole spectrum of meaning. So should we? I don't think we should, if that's what is causing stress for children and their parents, not to mention taking time away from studies. I could also see the argument that going through the motions makes some parents and kids feel better that they know what to do if it happens. Either way the question is more about psychology than practical application.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on June 07, 2018, 08:39:49 AM
I have had the same experience as Trudging with regards to my kids.  I should not have to listen to my daughter in tears and frustration that she's sick of all the active shooter drills and that she never remembers a day in her school life (she just graduated high school) when this was not the norm.  She's asking me why it has to be this way and I can't give her an answer.  That's the stuff that those of us with less desire to own weapons see, and that we would appreciate GRA people to take some ownership of and help us resolve.  We practiced duck and cover drills under our desks because the Ruskies might nuke us, but even as a kid, I knew that was a remote possibility and one I'd not survive because of being under a tiny desk.  This threat is entirely different, and so it is hard for me to wrap my head around what my daughter and other kids says about how this makes them feel, but I do clearly know that having to practice how to not get shot be it by hiding in a classroom or hiding in a bush, is a pretty darn awful thing to have to do as part of your school day routine.

The fact that this is not viewed with enough alarm to take real, active steps in the GRA community is what makes it seem pointless to discuss.  If that reality is not enough to get people to see how F'ed up we are, no amount of discussion will help.

And gun shootings are as well. Sort of. As has been discussed in detail, the statistics show you are much more likely to be killed by something mundane and boring and the chances of being shot are miniscule. On the other hand, it's not just the students who are shot that get hurt by these events, there is a significant emotional aspect. The chances of being at school when something like this happens are much higher, but still not huge. Whether the rate of incidence continues to increase is yet to be seen.

The question for me is, should we be doing this? First I would argue that we absolutely don't "have" to do this, but that's a word with a whole spectrum of meaning. So should we? I don't think we should, if that's what is causing stress for children and their parents, not to mention taking time away from studies. I could also see the argument that going through the motions makes some parents and kids feel better that they know what to do if it happens. Either way the question is more about psychology than practical application.
OK, but discounting with the first statement is not equivalent.  There is no way you can argue that getting shot is as low a likelihood as a nuclear warhead being launched at our city.  Everyone can clearly see the risk of a gun is higher no matter how you slice it.  Only countries have warheads whereas individuals have guns.  There are only like 100,000 warheads worldwide, and we have over 300 million guns just in the US.  Indicating that I should consider the worry the same is a poor defense and again smacks of GRA spin to downplay.  I get that getting shot may still be low but it is not that low to just take what I said and brush it off.

ETA:  Sorry, see this.  http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ 
Only 14,900 warheads in the whole world.  Please do not try to tell me the risk is the same.  You also ignored my comment that the threat is entirely different.  What I meant by that, is even my grade school mind could easily understand that no one would walk in the front door with a warhead so the drills were humorous.  They did not cause concern.  It is entirely plausible that someone can walk in the door with a gun.  When I moved into the house I live in now in August of 2011, we also were seriously considering moving to Chardon and almost did.  A few months later in February 2012 the high school their had a mass shooting.  It is not a big leap for my kids to see how easy it is to get shot in school.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 07, 2018, 08:47:09 AM

I don't have an answer. How about that? I don't think more regulations are going to stop school kids form getting slaughtered in mass quantities. Sure we could pass more comprehensive background checks. Sure we can ban some types of guns/magazine capacities. Sure a complete registry of gun owners might help. But as has been pointed out, law abiding gun owners themselves are fueling the violence. But law abiding does not equal responsible.

And this whole "net benefit" crap is ridiculous. It's like taking human lives and human emotions and assigning value to them. It's immoral. Sorry your kid was shot and killed at school and that you and your family will have to bear the pain and overwhelming grief for the rest of your lives, but hey your neighbor got to keep their TV by shooting an intruder. Come on, that's stupid. One does not cancel out the other.

Quite honestly when someone says they support repealing the 2nd and banning guns, I get it. Can't argue the logic really that simply keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is a more logical way to reduce/prevent these types of things. Not saying I support it, but I get it. And when I see someone go on a rant about protecting themselves from the government it only tells me how different (not in a good way) our country is from other gun owning developed countries. In some ways, our country is not so developed.

I don't understand your first point. Can you elaborate?

Very few (I never say none) of the people arguing for the need for home defense weapons would maintain that view if all they were theoretically protecting was their TV or other replaceable things. People who feel strongly about using guns for home defense feel that way because they think they are protecting themselves or their families.

There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm. 

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on June 07, 2018, 09:06:52 AM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17431320/betsy-devos-school-safety-guns

Quote
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has set up a commission to study school safety in the aftermath of mass shootings like the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, Florida, in February. But on Tuesday, DeVos revealed that the commission will not study a key problem: guns.

“That is not part of the commission’s charge, per se,” DeVos told members of Congress.

We are truly living in the Idiocracy Presidency.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 07, 2018, 09:27:18 AM
I have had the same experience as Trudging with regards to my kids.  I should not have to listen to my daughter in tears and frustration that she's sick of all the active shooter drills and that she never remembers a day in her school life (she just graduated high school) when this was not the norm.  She's asking me why it has to be this way and I can't give her an answer.  That's the stuff that those of us with less desire to own weapons see, and that we would appreciate GRA people to take some ownership of and help us resolve.  We practiced duck and cover drills under our desks because the Ruskies might nuke us, but even as a kid, I knew that was a remote possibility and one I'd not survive because of being under a tiny desk.  This threat is entirely different, and so it is hard for me to wrap my head around what my daughter and other kids says about how this makes them feel, but I do clearly know that having to practice how to not get shot be it by hiding in a classroom or hiding in a bush, is a pretty darn awful thing to have to do as part of your school day routine.

The fact that this is not viewed with enough alarm to take real, active steps in the GRA community is what makes it seem pointless to discuss.  If that reality is not enough to get people to see how F'ed up we are, no amount of discussion will help.

And gun shootings are as well. Sort of. As has been discussed in detail, the statistics show you are much more likely to be killed by something mundane and boring and the chances of being shot are miniscule. On the other hand, it's not just the students who are shot that get hurt by these events, there is a significant emotional aspect. The chances of being at school when something like this happens are much higher, but still not huge. Whether the rate of incidence continues to increase is yet to be seen.

The question for me is, should we be doing this? First I would argue that we absolutely don't "have" to do this, but that's a word with a whole spectrum of meaning. So should we? I don't think we should, if that's what is causing stress for children and their parents, not to mention taking time away from studies. I could also see the argument that going through the motions makes some parents and kids feel better that they know what to do if it happens. Either way the question is more about psychology than practical application.
OK, but discounting with the first statement is not equivalent.  There is no way you can argue that getting shot is as low a likelihood as a nuclear warhead being launched at our city.  Everyone can clearly see the risk of a gun is higher no matter how you slice it.  Only countries have warheads whereas individuals have guns.  There are only like 100,000 warheads worldwide, and we have over 300 million guns just in the US.  Indicating that I should consider the worry the same is a poor defense and again smacks of GRA spin to downplay.  I get that getting shot may still be low but it is not that low to just take what I said and brush it off.

ETA:  Sorry, see this.  http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/ 
Only 14,900 warheads in the whole world.  Please do not try to tell me the risk is the same.  You also ignored my comment that the threat is entirely different.  What I meant by that, is even my grade school mind could easily understand that no one would walk in the front door with a warhead so the drills were humorous.  They did not cause concern.  It is entirely plausible that someone can walk in the door with a gun.  When I moved into the house I live in now in August of 2011, we also were seriously considering moving to Chardon and almost did.  A few months later in February 2012 the high school their had a mass shooting.  It is not a big leap for my kids to see how easy it is to get shot in school.

I never said it was equivalent, but I do think you can reasonably make the same argument. As in, the risk is too low to spend our resources, time and emotional, on preparing for such an unlikely thing. While the chances of nuclear attack were less (maybe, it's kind of hard to say what the real % chance of this happening was because it's a situation of it happens or it doesn't, there is no statistical data) the cost would have been far greater. Not that the comparison is even relevant because like you said, the desk will not protect you*.

But since that's not a very useful analogy, I just go back to my main point. I don't agree that active shooter drills are something that children have to do. I mean, they do if the teacher tells them to, but should it be standard practice in our schools?

Personally, I've taken classes on active shooter scenarios. I think it's knowledge worth having but I also think it's highly unlikely that I ever use what I learn. I also think the practice is actually enjoyable, has other potential benefits outside of active shooter scenarios, and doesn't cause me psychological harm. It's my decision to learn and it doesn't impact my thoughts on how likely it is to happen. For kids being required to go through the drills, it's different. I can imagine that if I was told to participate in such drills as a middle schooler I would have thought "well, we're doing these drills to save our lives in a specific scenario so there must be a pretty good chance that it's going to happen".

So what is your opinion on the drills being conducted at your daughter's school? Obviously there has been a negative emotional impact, do you think that impact was worth her increased preparedness for an active shooter situation?

*I think. Maybe it depends on where you are in the blast radius?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 07, 2018, 09:40:39 AM
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17431320/betsy-devos-school-safety-guns

Quote
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has set up a commission to study school safety in the aftermath of mass shootings like the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre in Parkland, Florida, in February. But on Tuesday, DeVos revealed that the commission will not study a key problem: guns.

“That is not part of the commission’s charge, per se,” DeVos told members of Congress.

We are truly living in the Idiocracy Presidency.

I can't disagree with your comment but I don't see how this commission or her comment are reasons to attack DeVos.

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on June 07, 2018, 09:52:23 AM

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)

Quote
DeVos chairs the Federal Commission on School Safety, which was formed after the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead.

The Commission on School Safety was formed in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  To say it's not part of the commission's charge to study gun violence is a joke.  That was the entire reason the commission was formed in the first place - as a response to gun violence.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/

^From the White House, it states that the commission will study and make recommendations on, among other things, "Age restrictions for certain firearm purchases" and "A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools."

So if she now wants to say they're not studying gun violence, 1) that's in direct conflict with the White House press release, and 2) if you want to ignore the root problem of school safety (which, again, the Commission was formed in response to gun violence) then it's an entirely bullshit Commission.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 07, 2018, 10:27:47 AM

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)

Quote
DeVos chairs the Federal Commission on School Safety, which was formed after the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead.

The Commission on School Safety was formed in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  To say it's not part of the commission's charge to study gun violence is a joke.  That was the entire reason the commission was formed in the first place - as a response to gun violence.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/

^From the White House, it states that the commission will study and make recommendations on, among other things, "Age restrictions for certain firearm purchases" and "A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools."

So if she now wants to say they're not studying gun violence, 1) that's in direct conflict with the White House press release, and 2) if you want to ignore the root problem of school safety (which, again, the Commission was formed in response to gun violence) then it's an entirely bullshit Commission.

In that case the inconsistency between the White House statement and the commission does seem worthy of some ridicule. I still take issue with the notion that gun violence is the root problem of school safety.

She also said "per se" which is a kind of bullshit response, but if I were to give the benefit of the doubt this could mean they will look at the issue from the side of protecting kids from guns but not changing gun laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. Right or wrong I don't see this as a source of outrage.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 07, 2018, 11:00:08 AM

I don't have an answer. How about that? I don't think more regulations are going to stop school kids form getting slaughtered in mass quantities. Sure we could pass more comprehensive background checks. Sure we can ban some types of guns/magazine capacities. Sure a complete registry of gun owners might help. But as has been pointed out, law abiding gun owners themselves are fueling the violence. But law abiding does not equal responsible.

And this whole "net benefit" crap is ridiculous. It's like taking human lives and human emotions and assigning value to them. It's immoral. Sorry your kid was shot and killed at school and that you and your family will have to bear the pain and overwhelming grief for the rest of your lives, but hey your neighbor got to keep their TV by shooting an intruder. Come on, that's stupid. One does not cancel out the other.

Quite honestly when someone says they support repealing the 2nd and banning guns, I get it. Can't argue the logic really that simply keeping guns out of the hands of everyone is a more logical way to reduce/prevent these types of things. Not saying I support it, but I get it. And when I see someone go on a rant about protecting themselves from the government it only tells me how different (not in a good way) our country is from other gun owning developed countries. In some ways, our country is not so developed.

I don't understand your first point. Can you elaborate?

Very few (I never say none) of the people arguing for the need for home defense weapons would maintain that view if all they were theoretically protecting was their TV or other replaceable things. People who feel strongly about using guns for home defense feel that way because they think they are protecting themselves or their families.

There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.

So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that.  At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender.  Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse.  When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.

At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man."  Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 07, 2018, 11:02:17 AM

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)

Quote
DeVos chairs the Federal Commission on School Safety, which was formed after the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead.

The Commission on School Safety was formed in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  To say it's not part of the commission's charge to study gun violence is a joke.  That was the entire reason the commission was formed in the first place - as a response to gun violence.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/

^From the White House, it states that the commission will study and make recommendations on, among other things, "Age restrictions for certain firearm purchases" and "A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools."

So if she now wants to say they're not studying gun violence, 1) that's in direct conflict with the White House press release, and 2) if you want to ignore the root problem of school safety (which, again, the Commission was formed in response to gun violence) then it's an entirely bullshit Commission.

In that case the inconsistency between the White House statement and the commission does seem worthy of some ridicule. I still take issue with the notion that gun violence is the root problem of school safety.

She also said "per se" which is a kind of bullshit response, but if I were to give the benefit of the doubt this could mean they will look at the issue from the side of protecting kids from guns but not changing gun laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. Right or wrong I don't see this as a source of outrage.

Exactly.  I think the Gun Control Advocates look at this and think it should be a vehicle to promote an assault weapons ban or other gun control wet dreams; in reality, it should focus on how to prevent gun violence in schools, which is not the same as gun control.  It should explore school security measures and procedures, identifying early warning signs amongst potential shooters, that sort of thing. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on June 07, 2018, 11:45:13 AM
There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.

So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that.  At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender.  Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse.  When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.

At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man."  Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.

I think what MasterStache is trying to say is that using a firearm to defend your property does not cancel out an innocent person being murdered with a firearm.  You seem to be making the assumption that any criminal that a firearm owner interacts with is planning to murder you, so any defensive gun use counts as a saved life in your book.  While I don't have the data to back it up, my guess would be that he's right.  In fact, I think some defensive gun uses could lead to more unnecessary loss of life.  For instance, a robber breaking in to steal a TV with no intent to murder anyone being killed in the process is still one more life lost to firearms.  Sure, it's more justifiable because he was committing a crime at the time of his death, but it's still an unnecessary loss of life.  So I don't think you can say one defensive use of a firearm equals one life saved and therefore as long as there are more defensive gun uses than innocents murdered firearms are a net benefit.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 07, 2018, 01:07:23 PM

Quote
Sen. Leahy: Will your school safety commission look at the role of firearms?

Sec. DeVos: "That is not part of the commission's charge, per se."

Leahy: "So you're studying gun violence but not considering the role of guns?"

DeVos: "We're actually studying school safety."

Seems like a pretty reasonable response. I don't know any further details about the commission or what she means by "per se" but there are certainly issues more important to school safety than guns, and frankly some of these other issues are a lot easier to fix. Maybe the commission should be looking at gun violence, but again, do you have any more information than what is presented here? This is what people are talking about when they say Trump's detractors will attack absolutely anything he or his people say. They say so much stupid shit, let's try to focus on that stuff :)

Quote
DeVos chairs the Federal Commission on School Safety, which was formed after the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that left 17 people dead.

The Commission on School Safety was formed in the aftermath of the Parkland school shooting.  To say it's not part of the commission's charge to study gun violence is a joke.  That was the entire reason the commission was formed in the first place - as a response to gun violence.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-taking-immediate-actions-secure-schools/

^From the White House, it states that the commission will study and make recommendations on, among other things, "Age restrictions for certain firearm purchases" and "A plan for integration and coordination of Federal resources focused on prevention and mitigation of active shooter incidents at schools."

So if she now wants to say they're not studying gun violence, 1) that's in direct conflict with the White House press release, and 2) if you want to ignore the root problem of school safety (which, again, the Commission was formed in response to gun violence) then it's an entirely bullshit Commission.

In that case the inconsistency between the White House statement and the commission does seem worthy of some ridicule. I still take issue with the notion that gun violence is the root problem of school safety.

She also said "per se" which is a kind of bullshit response, but if I were to give the benefit of the doubt this could mean they will look at the issue from the side of protecting kids from guns but not changing gun laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. Right or wrong I don't see this as a source of outrage.

Exactly.  I think the Gun Control Advocates look at this and think it should be a vehicle to promote an assault weapons ban or other gun control wet dreams; in reality, it should focus on how to prevent gun violence in schools, which is not the same as gun control.  It should explore school security measures and procedures, identifying early warning signs amongst potential shooters, that sort of thing.

Or, you know, just remove the death machines from the equation. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on June 07, 2018, 01:53:36 PM
I never said it was equivalent, but I do think you can reasonably make the same argument. As in, the risk is too low to spend our resources, time and emotional, on preparing for such an unlikely thing. While the chances of nuclear attack were less (maybe, it's kind of hard to say what the real % chance of this happening was because it's a situation of it happens or it doesn't, there is no statistical data) the cost would have been far greater. Not that the comparison is even relevant because like you said, the desk will not protect you*.

But since that's not a very useful analogy, I just go back to my main point. I don't agree that active shooter drills are something that children have to do. I mean, they do if the teacher tells them to, but should it be standard practice in our schools?

Personally, I've taken classes on active shooter scenarios. I think it's knowledge worth having but I also think it's highly unlikely that I ever use what I learn. I also think the practice is actually enjoyable, has other potential benefits outside of active shooter scenarios, and doesn't cause me psychological harm. It's my decision to learn and it doesn't impact my thoughts on how likely it is to happen. For kids being required to go through the drills, it's different. I can imagine that if I was told to participate in such drills as a middle schooler I would have thought "well, we're doing these drills to save our lives in a specific scenario so there must be a pretty good chance that it's going to happen".

So what is your opinion on the drills being conducted at your daughter's school? Obviously there has been a negative emotional impact, do you think that impact was worth her increased preparedness for an active shooter situation?

*I think. Maybe it depends on where you are in the blast radius?
I've had active shooter training/drills at my place of employment.  They go through how you can either hide, flee or fight but due to liability they will not actually tell you which you should do.  They leave that up to you.  Talking with my daughter it is the same thing, or "listen to your teacher", who likely had the same non-training.  Before I got trained I knew I could hide, flee or fight.  I learned that when I was three playing hide and seek (or we did not include the fight part but certainly could have).  They do the training in school or at work to avoid lawsuits if something were to happen, to be able to say they did not ignore the risk.  The school is not at fault if a shooter shows up anymore than a bank is at fault if it is robbed, so suing them is stupid, but that does not stop people from doing it.  Asides from all that you are twisting this discussion into a line you want it to go, and one I'm not interested in. 

It is irrelevant what I think of the drills or if I think they should happen.  The point I was making is things have escalated to the point that we now even have to consider your questions, and that in the problem I am talking about.  You cannot argue that the risk of a school shooting has increased.  School just were not targets at the rate they are now, which is why we did not have those drills.  Police departments were not talking about this and not training their officers on how to take out active shooters, those were tactics reserved for SWAT teams and other specialists, because those events were "special" not common place enough to mandate the training.  You appear to be denying the shift and saying it is not there and we are just training because we want to, not because any change happened, but because we want to create some false sense of peril that it appears you are trying to convince me is not there.

What other beneficial situation benefits from active shooter training?  Are you talking about using what you learned on the weekend playing paintball with your friends?  Nothing I learned on active shooter training helps be shop for groceries, mow my lawn, fix my car or do anything else I do in life.  Hiding, fleeing or fighting someone who is trying to kill me is not a very transferable skill.  What exactly are you finding this useful for?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on June 07, 2018, 02:23:59 PM

I’m actually not going to tell you you’re wrong, because I think you’ve mostly characterized what’s been said well. The thing I learned, though, is that gun owners absolutely believe guns are a benefit and won’t come out to change things. Speaking specifically about school shootings, what I see is a weird dance of people saying they want to change something, but love that second amendment. Which shuts down any real hope of legislation.


If I didn't believe firearms were a benefit to society, I'd have to support a complete ban. I think they are a major benefit to society, but need to be subject to some regulation. I've discussed the steps I'm willing to take, and they cover alot of what the gun control people want. There are some gun people who are unbending, just as there are some gun grabbers who won't accept anything less than a ban or some kind of crazy "no guns in your home, only in a state run locker where you can check it out for use on approved ranges" scheme I've heard thrown around in other conversations.

 I however, won't support things that are ineffective, purely symbolic, or will negate the positive aspects of firearm ownership. You seem to be of the mindset that "doing anything less than what I think is right is the same as doing nothing!" mindset.

Quote

I have a child who will be entering high school next year. This feels immediate and urgent. I absolutely reject more people with guns in schools (be they teachers or police - as we saw recently in Texas, even when there are school officers and they respond, people die). This is NOT a solution, but more like a bandaid. I’d love to see gun owners get active in policing themselves, advocating for laws that make sense, but I don’t see that. I don’t want my kids to experience this, okay? They already do lockdown drills and have had teachers go over what to do while they were walking down the street to another school to do an activity. My 7th grader came home telling how they’d all run into the bushes. Like, wtf kind of world do we live in that this is considered totally important to cover during the field trip rundown?!

Well, you'll be glad to know that the odds of your child being killed in school by firearms are pretty low.... on average, there are 10 student fatalities per year, and about 55mm students. So, less than a .000018% chance of that happening per year... or a 1 in 5.5mm chance. I would say it's almost irresponsible to be getting everyone worked up about those kinds of odds, if they're not using drills or discussing what to do to avoid being killed on the walk to school, choking, or drowning in pools... all of which are orders of magnitude more likely to end you child's life than a school shooting.

Quote
I mean, I’d totally settle for gun owners being held responsible for what other people do with their weapons, and arresting the parents who let their kids have easy access (because almost all these gun incidents in schoools are kids bringing in their parent’s gun). But I understand how anathema that solution probably is because of how much many gun owners believe their guns are a net benefit. My concerns are not theirs. I feel helpless and hopeless this will change, so ban it is, as extreme and frustrating it feels that that might actually be the only thing that changes things.

Great, I think it would be great to hold gun owners accountable for stopping thier guns from being used in a crime. Require all gun owners to provide proof that they have the means to secure their weapons. If they are negligent in doing so and their gun is used in a crime, then they face some penalties. The devil is in the details, but I generally agree with this. I'm not sure I'd arrest a parent for giving thier kid access to a gun, afterall the staggering majority of kids with access to guns use them responsibly... but I digress.

 I still think guns are a net benefit to society. I don't know why you're so stuck on this aspect of it... it doesn't preclude some sort of regulation.

This is a good example of why I realize both sides aren’t going to come together any time soon. You really don’t understand why we are frustrated and want change. I do realize the odds are good my kid won’t be in a shooting situation. However, the drills and gun incidents elsewhere (there was actually a local elementary school blocks from our home where a kid brought a parent’s gun to school, and it’s very much still a topic of conversation around the school yard) are traumatizing on a different level. It makes our kids feel less safe in school, and feeds the anxiety beast that is already a problem in schools today.

Stopping the gun incidents is a whole lot more than just worrying your kid might end up dead. This is also why I oppose more cops in schools or arming more people there. Once again, it doesn’t do anything to solve the issue, but does make school seem like a scarier place.

I realize there are gun owners who support change. Unfortunately, most of them seem willing to accept *some* things, but only under duress if it has to happen. There will be zero encouraging politicians to support them. Which leaves only the gun control side asking for change. And the politicians continue to dance around the issue because the damn second amendment and fear of the gun owners who won’t accept anything but easier access to guns.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 07, 2018, 02:42:05 PM
I never said it was equivalent, but I do think you can reasonably make the same argument. As in, the risk is too low to spend our resources, time and emotional, on preparing for such an unlikely thing. While the chances of nuclear attack were less (maybe, it's kind of hard to say what the real % chance of this happening was because it's a situation of it happens or it doesn't, there is no statistical data) the cost would have been far greater. Not that the comparison is even relevant because like you said, the desk will not protect you*.

But since that's not a very useful analogy, I just go back to my main point. I don't agree that active shooter drills are something that children have to do. I mean, they do if the teacher tells them to, but should it be standard practice in our schools?

Personally, I've taken classes on active shooter scenarios. I think it's knowledge worth having but I also think it's highly unlikely that I ever use what I learn. I also think the practice is actually enjoyable, has other potential benefits outside of active shooter scenarios, and doesn't cause me psychological harm. It's my decision to learn and it doesn't impact my thoughts on how likely it is to happen. For kids being required to go through the drills, it's different. I can imagine that if I was told to participate in such drills as a middle schooler I would have thought "well, we're doing these drills to save our lives in a specific scenario so there must be a pretty good chance that it's going to happen".

So what is your opinion on the drills being conducted at your daughter's school? Obviously there has been a negative emotional impact, do you think that impact was worth her increased preparedness for an active shooter situation?

*I think. Maybe it depends on where you are in the blast radius?
I've had active shooter training/drills at my place of employment.  They go through how you can either hide, flee or fight but due to liability they will not actually tell you which you should do.  They leave that up to you.  Talking with my daughter it is the same thing, or "listen to your teacher", who likely had the same non-training.  Before I got trained I knew I could hide, flee or fight.  I learned that when I was three playing hide and seek (or we did not include the fight part but certainly could have).  They do the training in school or at work to avoid lawsuits if something were to happen, to be able to say they did not ignore the risk.  The school is not at fault if a shooter shows up anymore than a bank is at fault if it is robbed, so suing them is stupid, but that does not stop people from doing it.  Asides from all that you are twisting this discussion into a line you want it to go, and one I'm not interested in. 

It is irrelevant what I think of the drills or if I think they should happen.  The point I was making is things have escalated to the point that we now even have to consider your questions, and that in the problem I am talking about.  You cannot argue that the risk of a school shooting has increased.  School just were not targets at the rate they are now, which is why we did not have those drills.  Police departments were not talking about this and not training their officers on how to take out active shooters, those were tactics reserved for SWAT teams and other specialists, because those events were "special" not common place enough to mandate the training.  You appear to be denying the shift and saying it is not there and we are just training because we want to, not because any change happened, but because we want to create some false sense of peril that it appears you are trying to convince me is not there.

What other beneficial situation benefits from active shooter training?  Are you talking about using what you learned on the weekend playing paintball with your friends?  Nothing I learned on active shooter training helps be shop for groceries, mow my lawn, fix my car or do anything else I do in life.  Hiding, fleeing or fighting someone who is trying to kill me is not a very transferable skill.  What exactly are you finding this useful for?

I'm definitely not arguing that the risk hasn't increased, it has. I'm arguing that the risk does not justify the emotion and fear that it has created. Going back to the beginning of this, the only reason I said anything was that several comments gave the idea that active shooter training in schools is a necessity and that in turn kids are scared and upset. I think the psychological cost outweighs the potential benefit.

Other benefits of training - situational awareness, body awareness (It was more of a general self defense class), and the general benefit of learning something new. I think learning is good for my mental wellbeing. Oh and it makes me feel slightly cooler than I am and let's me fantasize about being a hero :)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on June 07, 2018, 02:54:41 PM
Oh and it makes me feel slightly cooler than I am and let's me fantasize about being a hero :)
Yes, and I think right here is a big reason a lot of people have a gun.  :) 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 07, 2018, 03:24:35 PM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on June 07, 2018, 05:35:08 PM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on June 07, 2018, 08:54:46 PM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 08, 2018, 05:28:18 AM
There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.

So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that.  At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender.  Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse.  When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.

At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man."  Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.

I think what MasterStache is trying to say is that using a firearm to defend your property does not cancel out an innocent person being murdered with a firearm.  You seem to be making the assumption that any criminal that a firearm owner interacts with is planning to murder you, so any defensive gun use counts as a saved life in your book.  While I don't have the data to back it up, my guess would be that he's right.  In fact, I think some defensive gun uses could lead to more unnecessary loss of life.  For instance, a robber breaking in to steal a TV with no intent to murder anyone being killed in the process is still one more life lost to firearms.  Sure, it's more justifiable because he was committing a crime at the time of his death, but it's still an unnecessary loss of life.  So I don't think you can say one defensive use of a firearm equals one life saved and therefore as long as there are more defensive gun uses than innocents murdered firearms are a net benefit.

Yep, pretty much! Apparently now it has evolved into you are probably going to die during an armed home invasion. Like GuitarStv said, fear sells. It doesn't have to be based on reality or even logical (defending yourself from a government). 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 08, 2018, 06:42:24 AM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 08, 2018, 07:03:07 AM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493

Yes, thats why so many restrictive gun controls were passed.  Like . . . uh . . . hmmm . . . none?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on June 08, 2018, 09:04:05 AM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 08, 2018, 09:12:36 AM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493

Yes, thats why so many restrictive gun controls were passed.  Like . . . uh . . . hmmm . . . none?

Again with the goal post moves. 

Kris said it wasn't Obama's rhetoric, it was the other side claiming what Obama would do.  I pointed out rhetoric where Obama did in fact say he was interested in banning certain types of guns.

That's it. 

The fact that he didn't pass any legislation, likely because he realized he wouldn't be able to, is completely besides the point.  There was Obama rhetoric on increased regulation, which counters Kris's argument. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 08, 2018, 09:14:37 AM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.

That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 08, 2018, 10:10:13 AM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.

That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made.

#MeToo

So if you were fearful of the assault weapons ban I assume you purchased assault weapons in which case you would be breaking the law. The talk of "increasing gun laws" was based on expanding background checks, which is overwhelmingly supported (even by NRA members), and preventing folks on terror watch list from purchasing weapons. It makes me wonder which of these you were most afraid of? I mean none of these would have any impact on your typical law abiding gun owner.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 08, 2018, 10:21:10 AM
Increased fear is a good thing for gun advocates.  It's at least part of the reason that they own guns.  It will help to sell more guns, and will get people more interested in owning a gun.  Telling them that you want to reduce this, is really not going to sell your argument . . . because you're trying to take away something seen as a benefit.

Obama was an excellent gun salesman. His rhetoric was one of the best gun selling tactics around.

Same with a terrorist attack too. Watch concealed weapon classes suddenly become booked and the ranges being filled.

Except that it had very little to do with *his* rhetoric. And quite a bit to do with the rhetoric that his opponents used.

President Obama and his administration made it clear they were in favor of another assault weapons ban.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/white-house-assault-weapons-ban-224493
I did not find him being in favor of that scary at all.  Did not keep me up at night, had no impact on my happiness rating at all.  Not sure how that helped sell guns except for fearful hoarders.

That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made.

#MeToo

So if you were fearful of the assault weapons ban I assume you purchased assault weapons in which case you would be breaking the law. The talk of "increasing gun laws" was based on expanding background checks, which is overwhelmingly supported (even by NRA members), and preventing folks on terror watch list from purchasing weapons. It makes me wonder which of these you were most afraid of? I mean none of these would have any impact on your typical law abiding gun owner.

Huh?  No.

Quote
On Monday, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett will host a mass conference call for the general public “about the need to renew the assault weapons ban and the different gun safety measures the Senate is set to vote on in the coming week.”

Vice President Joe Biden announced the call in a response to a petition on the White House’s “We the People” platform on Friday. The request for a ban on the AR-15 assault-style rifle was posted on Sunday, in the immediate aftermath of the Orlando shooting in which were 49 people were killed, and already had nearly 200,000 signatures by Friday.

“The president and I agree with you,” Biden wrote. “Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership

Last time there was an AWB, it banned the production and sale of new so-called assault weapons.  So-called "pre-ban" guns were legal to possess and resell, and went up in value pretty significantly.  So the thought was, you can buy a firearm you thought would be outlawed, and either keep it because you couldn't replace it, or resell it at a pretty good markup.  Either way, you win. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: acroy on June 08, 2018, 11:05:11 AM
That's fine.  I personally am a statistic.  I assumed the summer of 2016 that Hillary would win the presidency, and would be interested in increasing gun laws.  Therefore I went out and made some purchases assuming it was "now or never".  Happily, it turned out I was wrong, but I don't regret the purchases made.
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands. Gun control laws, especially in poor areas, are incredibly repressive/regressive; removing or placing high barriers to the most effective means of defense available. Absolute arrogant madness. Guns don't kill people but stupid gun laws sure do.

#MeToo
#awesome
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: bacchi on June 08, 2018, 11:33:27 AM
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 08, 2018, 01:57:02 PM
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be ~10 times more law abiding than even police officers. overall very law abiding.

That's a place to start, anyway.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 08, 2018, 02:06:44 PM
There were links earlier in this forum to the amount of guns stolen/borrowed/acquired from law abiding gun owners used in gun related incidents. I didn't even realize how out of control it is.

The original argument was about guns being a "net benefit" to society. And some sort of boggled calculations to support that ideal. I am not arguing there aren't situations were having a gun could very well save your or your families life. But there are situations where apparently it's perceived as the same (a benefit) simply shooting a person who's only intention was to burglarize. And adding all these up somehow cancels out innocents being killed. Just pointing out the numerous ways you cannot logically or morally assign variables to loss of life.

For the record I also brought up alternative means of self defense. Of course it was shot down because it didn't fit the agenda of the person arguing the "net benefit." Somehow the ability the protect ones self and/or family is only viable with a firearm.

So this is where I make a big deal about you using strawmans, and all that.  At this point it's clear you can't handle any sort of nuance of multidimensional considerations for how guns can be used defensively without actually shooting someone, that the "alternate" forms of self defense are irrelevant because it isn't incumbent on the victim to scale their defense to match that of the offender.  Of course you MIGHT be able to defend your family with a fire poker... but if the intruder has a gun, you're probably going to die. Even if the intruder only has a club, the force differential is minimal and he will likely try to fight you... meaning a high chance you're going to get beat up or worse.  When you have a gun, and make it known to the intruder... they may flee with no harm to anyone. Even if they have a gun, you at least have a chance to meet that threat. If you can't see that firearms are the ultimate way for a potential victim to ensure they are at LEAST on even ground with an intruder, then you're being dishonest or are ignoring it for your own agenda.

At this point it's clear you're being (probably deliberately) obtuse and are putting words in my mouth... you offer no solutions or even real opinions, and try to freak out and claim the high ground by calling any attempt to pin you down on something as a "straw man."  Anyway, you seem stuck on simplistic thoughts and responses so trying to discuss this complex issue with you in particular is a time-waster I won't engage in any longer.

I think what MasterStache is trying to say is that using a firearm to defend your property does not cancel out an innocent person being murdered with a firearm.  You seem to be making the assumption that any criminal that a firearm owner interacts with is planning to murder you, so any defensive gun use counts as a saved life in your book.  While I don't have the data to back it up, my guess would be that he's right.  In fact, I think some defensive gun uses could lead to more unnecessary loss of life.  For instance, a robber breaking in to steal a TV with no intent to murder anyone being killed in the process is still one more life lost to firearms.  Sure, it's more justifiable because he was committing a crime at the time of his death, but it's still an unnecessary loss of life.  So I don't think you can say one defensive use of a firearm equals one life saved and therefore as long as there are more defensive gun uses than innocents murdered firearms are a net benefit.

Yeah, I get what MS is saying. The problem is, MS is not comprehending what I did actually say.

I never said that one DGU=1life saved.  I do, and still make the assertion, that for everyone case where someone has been killed, there are as many or more cases where lives were saved. For every robbery at gunpoint,  there are as many or more prevented with a firearm. If you look at CDC figures for DGUs, even the LOW end estimates bear this out. Ergo, they are a net benefit. I've been going back and forth with MS about this for a while, but that individual I think, realizes what I am actually saying is correct... but decided to purposely misunderstand it so they can defeat a bad argument that I didn't make.

The latest post was me refuting this nonsense that "DGUs don't matter because they could have defended themselves other ways." I was merely explaining that in a case where someone is  intending physical harm, having a gun can at least put you on equal footing with the assailant... so it does infact weigh in favor of firearms. I also know that when you point out that a good portion of the murders, assaults, robberies, etc would happen with other weapons if guns weren't available, that's dismissed because "guns let them do it so much more effectively."  It works that way for defense, too.

Quote
Yep, pretty much! Apparently now it has evolved into you are probably going to die during an armed home invasion. Like GuitarStv said, fear sells. It doesn't have to be based on reality or even logical (defending yourself from a government).

For someone so quick to claim people were using 'strawmen' against them earlier in the thread, you sure are quick to throw up strawmen now. You're clearly trolling.  You bold 1 sentence to hide the context it was in... which was if you try to defend yourself from an intruder intending to harm you who has a firearm, using a fire poker... yeah, you're probably going to loose. that is not a statement that I think you are probably going to die in an armed home invasion.

Quote
I'm definitely not arguing that the risk hasn't increased, it has. I'm arguing that the risk does not justify the emotion and fear that it has created. Going back to the beginning of this, the only reason I said anything was that several comments gave the idea that active shooter training in schools is a necessity and that in turn kids are scared and upset. I think the psychological cost outweighs the potential benefit.

Some people don't have to argue it... they use data to show that the current risk is lower than at any point since the early 1990s... (but that with the Parkland shooting 2018 might be a year that upsets the trend.)
https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/02/26/schools-are-still-one-of-the-safest-places-for-children-researcher-says/

I googled this guy, and I can't seem to find anything to refute or change the context of this data. (except the "everytown" stuff, but they use a really misleading definition of school shooting to drive a pre-formed conclusion.)

Average deaths per year per million students, 1992 through 2000 school years: .30
Average deaths per year per million students, 2001 through 2007: .11
Average deaths per year per million students, 2008 through 2014 school years: .11

Quote
This is a good example of why I realize both sides aren’t going to come together any time soon. You really don’t understand why we are frustrated and want change. I do realize the odds are good my kid won’t be in a shooting situation. However, the drills and gun incidents elsewhere (there was actually a local elementary school blocks from our home where a kid brought a parent’s gun to school, and it’s very much still a topic of conversation around the school yard) are traumatizing on a different level. It makes our kids feel less safe in school, and feeds the anxiety beast that is already a problem in schools today.

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I don't intend to minimize the impact that the current level of school shootings has, but I do mean to counter this fear narrative from the left that they're getting drastically worse, and that the solution is restricting guns significantly. I also mean to say that the ramping up attention, the drills, assemblies, the constant attention on the issue is at best, creating excessive fear and at worse, might be contributing to it by keeping it at the forefront of the minds of individuals who might be inclined to do something like that.

Quote
Stopping the gun incidents is a whole lot more than just worrying your kid might end up dead. This is also why I oppose more cops in schools or arming more people there. Once again, it doesn’t do anything to solve the issue, but does make school seem like a scarier place.

I was fully on board with more police in schools until I saw data showing that all it did was turn common youthful indiscretions into life ruining criminal charges, and had no discernible effect on school shootings... so I'm coming around on this one.

Quote
I realize there are gun owners who support change. Unfortunately, most of them seem willing to accept *some* things, but only under duress if it has to happen. There will be zero encouraging politicians to support them. Which leaves only the gun control side asking for change. And the politicians continue to dance around the issue because the damn second amendment and fear of the gun owners who won’t accept anything but easier access to guns.

Most gun owners I know seem more than willing to accept some things that will make a difference, but not the symbolic, ineffective, or unreasonably onerous things  some propose.


Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on June 08, 2018, 02:14:24 PM
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be ~10 times more law abiding than even police officers.

Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 08, 2018, 02:56:40 PM
Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o (https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o)

Quote
CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on June 08, 2018, 03:04:48 PM
Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o (https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-that-plenty-o)

Quote
CDC surveys in the 1990s, never publicly reported, indicate nearly 2.5 million defensive uses of guns a year. That matches the results of Gary Kleck's controversial surveys, and it indicates more defensive than offensive uses of guns.

That's a completely unrelated claim/study.  Cool?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 08, 2018, 03:07:16 PM
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be ~10 times more law abiding than even police officers.

Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.

I didn't realize that had originated with Lott, or that it was flawed.
I am still convinced that CC holders are very much law abiding "good people with guns" but consider any comparison of that relative to police officers retracted until I find some other more credible source.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 08, 2018, 04:10:12 PM
Chicago needs a bunch of guns in good hands.

Who issues the "Good Guy" gun license and where do I get one? I've already got the white cowboy hat.

Concealed carry permit holders tend to be ~10 times more law abiding than even police officers.

Jesus Christ, that study was proven to be extremely flawed.

Quote
This claim also originates in analysis published by John Lott, and a flawed one at that. Roughly speaking, Lott uses figures taken from a study in the journal Police Quarterly to conclude that between 2005 and 2007, police officers nationwide committed crimes at a rate of 124 crimes per 100,000 members.

The scope of the Policy Quarterly study was extensive in one respect, in that it included all incidents of police officers’ being arrested (rather than limiting the data to incidents where officers were charged with and convicted of crimes). But the study’s scope was also limited in that the data points were collected from news media reports of police arrests

Quote
For police, Lott bases the crime rate on news reports about arrests nationwide from 2005 to 2007. For concealed permit holders, he bases the crime rate on permit revocations (not arrests) in just two states (from 1987 to 2015 for one state, and in 2012 for the other). The nature of the data he relies upon (news media reports about arrests vs. gun license revocations) are each incomplete measures of crime. To use them as the basis of a comparison of the criminality between two cohorts (police officers and concealed weapons permit holders) is simply not supportable.

It might be that police officers tend to commit crimes at a higher rate than civilians with concealed carry permits (or the opposite might be true), but Lott’s analysis is not robust evidence of that.

But that is for cops charged, yes?  Isn’t the big gripe that crooked cops are never held accountable for their crimes?  So it would stand to reason they aren’t charged?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 08, 2018, 05:39:28 PM

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 08, 2018, 07:09:08 PM

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world? 

Without a gun in your home, the US military under the orders of secret Muslim Kenyan Obama will invade your living room, turn your children communist, your dog gay, and your wife into a gay communist.  You're living under the sword of Damocles sheeple!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 08, 2018, 07:16:02 PM
I never said that one DGU=1life saved.  I do, and still make the assertion, that for everyone case where someone has been killed, there are as many or more cases where lives were saved.

So you did calculations that weren't actual calculations. And they were definitely not calculations in a since that they included weighing lives lost vs lives saved to arrive at some "net benefit." Except that's exactly what they were. Perhaps a mirror is your most logical "sparring" partner.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 09, 2018, 06:44:15 PM

I’m actually not going to tell you you’re wrong, because I think you’ve mostly characterized what’s been said well. The thing I learned, though, is that gun owners absolutely believe guns are a benefit and won’t come out to change things. Speaking specifically about school shootings, what I see is a weird dance of people saying they want to change something, but love that second amendment. Which shuts down any real hope of legislation.

I have a child who will be entering high school next year. This feels immediate and urgent. I absolutely reject more people with guns in schools (be they teachers or police - as we saw recently in Texas, even when there are school officers and they respond, people die). This is NOT a solution, but more like a bandaid. I’d love to see gun owners get active in policing themselves, advocating for laws that make sense, but I don’t see that. I don’t want my kids to experience this, okay? They already do lockdown drills and have had teachers go over what to do while they were walking down the street to another school to do an activity. My 7th grader came home telling how they’d all run into the bushes. Like, wtf kind of world do we live in that this is considered totally important to cover during the field trip rundown?!

I mean, I’d totally settle for gun owners being held responsible for what other people do with their weapons, and arresting the parents who let their kids have easy access (because almost all these gun incidents in schoools are kids bringing in their parent’s gun). But I understand how anathema that solution probably is because of how much many gun owners believe their guns are a net benefit. My concerns are not theirs. I feel helpless and hopeless this will change, so ban it is, as extreme and frustrating it feels that that might actually be the only thing that changes things.

Thanks for your response, TrudgingAlong. In this response, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth just express my feelings on part of the issue that may or may not even have much application to what you said. Please don't think that I'm thinking this is refuting what you said, I guess, is what I'm meaning. Just as you are expressing your feelings, I'm trying to as well although it may be a bit rambling.

The topic of the feelings of your children towards active shooter drills and shootings in general is something that's on my mind a lot recently, because my oldest child is about to start school for the first time in a couple of months. This has brought up thoughts about school shootings and the possibility of active shooter drills, and the like. However, when I think about it, I tend to think about things a little bit differently.

I guess I'll start with my whole perspective on fear and the like. I have trouble understanding the perpetual fear that I see people in when it comes to their physical safety. I know as I type this that many may give me crap about being a GRA while saying this, but it's true. It's frustrating that GCA people tend to think that all GRA people live in terror of bad things happening, which is why they have guns. Either that or they have fantasies of being Rambo and mowing down a horde of people trying to break into their house. I can honestly say (believe it or not) that I fit into neither of those categories. I do not live in fear of people breaking in at least in any way that I would define fear. By that, I mean, that I don't dwell on the possibility that someone could break in, and I would need to defend myself. The calculation for having versus not having a gun is based more on, as I've mentioned before, a weighing of two risks (harm coming because of it and benefit of having it), both of which I realize are remote. However, I see other people all the time that seem to be extremely preoccupied with fear of what could happen to them or their family in regards to the topic of guns or really in general. I have a close friend that mentions that when her husband and kids are riding together apart from her she is afraid because her whole life, as she termed it, is in that car, and something bad could happen to them. It plays out in all kinds of perspectives. This whole thing recently of people calling the police when they see someone who is a minority in some area just boggles my mind. They claim they are scared, and I dunno, if I give them the benefit of the doubt that at least some of them are actually scared (completely irrationally so, of course) and not all just total racist jerks, I have such a hard time understanding them. How does someone see someone else and just get scared because they are there? I don't get it. I can't think of one time in my life that I have been scared enough to call the police on someone because their very presence in a public area made me nervous... I have my own things I'm afraid of, but for whatever reason it's never been a general persistent fear that the lives of people I love will come to an abrupt end.

I'm dreading the day (if the school does these) when my child would come home scared to death of potential active shooters. I don't know for sure how I would respond to it. I do think that if it became a big enough issue and was handled in a way that engendered fear in what I felt was an unproductive way, I would probably talk to the school board about it. I don't like things being set up in a way that causes fear for something that has a remote possibility of happening. I mean, I don't think we even have tornado drills anymore, and those have actually happened in the area of my school before in the last few years or so.

I say this all with uncertainty, myself. All of this is encapsulated in the fact that I have also never been a victim or had anyone close be a victim of a violent crime. I've had a close family member die in an accident but never due to deliberate violence. How can I say to someone that has don't be afraid of it? How can I say to someone whose fears naturally align more to this than I do to not be afraid? I'm not sure, and I'm certainly not perfect. I do know of one thing, though. Even on the things that I do fear, when I am afraid of them, I don't like it. I don't want to be afraid or have people I care about afraid. I get frustrated when people try to make me afraid - easiest example to think of is the hyper risk inflated news where everything is going to kill you or get you or whatever.

None of this is to say there's not a problem. None of this is to say that there's not things we can do to help it. None of this is to say that all other GRA people are not afraid of bad guys and clinging to guns while living in fear. Just some thoughts in regards to how school shootings and drills for them inspire fear in kids in general and mine specifically, for what it's worth.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on June 11, 2018, 10:35:04 AM
Wolfpack, I appreciate your response. It is hard to know how you’ll feel until it’s your kid. Mine were h8meschooled until this year, so I’m sure that has a lot to do with my feelings. Sandy Hook didn’t hit me really at all, even though I had kids the same age at the time, because we were out of country then. It’s just different when yours are in n the middle of it. I am not generally a fearful person, to be clear. I am mostly frustrated because to me, this is so much a gun owner/parenting problem. Gun owners who feel no need to lock up their weapons because “their kid is so responsible, and they’ve been taught so well to be around guns!”

Except kids are kids, no matter how much you teach them, or how much they have been perfect angels in the past. Mine, who are generally well behaved and people often tell me that, still surprise me at their shockingly bad choices. My oldest did something super mean to another child soon after starting school that shocked BOTH the teacher and myself. He was having unexpected transition issues, and acted in frustration. We addressed it, and happily have had no more issues. But, what if his moment had come while there were weapons around? What if he thought hey, maybe I’ll threaten them with this? That’s the kind of dumb shit kids do. They don’t think things though. They react, especially when puberty starts.

I think I take huge issue with this insistence that gun owners are pretty much all “law abiding”, so any law is an offense and unfair to them. All these kids with guns (Parkland a rare exception) are because of “law abiding” gun owners who think leaving weapons easily accessible to their kids is somehow responsible. Background checks won’t fix this, but going after those gun owners will. I get the feeling, though, that that kind of law is anathema to the whole “good guy with a gun” construct (god god I think that s such a stupid phrase...).

I’d also be very interested if your school board would care you were against shooter drills. Every school has them, I imagine because it’s become a liability issue not to do it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on June 11, 2018, 11:12:39 AM

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world?

If society is so much safer, why do you need to ban guns? 

But regardless, I think you are being a little callous to a lot of people who do live in dangerous situations.  While it's pretty unlikely that I will need a gun for safety (at least at my house; not sure what my odds are of being mugged, although I'm guessing still relatively low), there are people who live within five miles of me who cannot say the same.  I don't really think it's fair for me to say they shouldn't be allowed a gun just because I don't need one. 

I'm also not sure how much my neighborhood being safe is attributable to the fact that if you break into a house at night, there's a probably greater than 50% chance you are going to come across someone with a gun.  Probably not as much of an impact as being in a neighborhood where the police chief will have to worry about his job if a crime problem takes hold, but probably not a tiny impact either. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 11, 2018, 12:08:34 PM

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world?

If society is so much safer, why do you need to ban guns? 

Just pointing out that the "guns keep us safe argument" is based on false assumptions.  The world, especially the West, is the safest it's been in history.  And it's not "guns" keeping you safe - we see strong drops in crime across the boards, even in countries with little or no guns among the populace.  But I don't expect data to change your mind...

But regardless, I think you are being a little callous to a lot of people who do live in dangerous situations.  While it's pretty unlikely that I will need a gun for safety (at least at my house; not sure what my odds are of being mugged, although I'm guessing still relatively low), there are people who live within five miles of me who cannot say the same.  I don't really think it's fair for me to say they shouldn't be allowed a gun just because I don't need one.

I'm also not sure how much my neighborhood being safe is attributable to the fact that if you break into a house at night, there's a probably greater than 50% chance you are going to come across someone with a gun.  Probably not as much of an impact as being in a neighborhood where the police chief will have to worry about his job if a crime problem takes hold, but probably not a tiny impact either.

Two things.  First, if someone is going to break into a house, if they think the owners are armed, they will simply bring their own guns and will also be much more likely to "shoot first, ask questions later".  The presence of guns escalates a simple b&e to a shootout and probable death.  Remove the guns and the b&e might still happen, but the chances of loss of life drop dramatically.

Second, if you talk to cops, like actual cops that work the street, you'll find that very often they are face with the same dilemma: "There's a greater than 50% chance that the suspect on the other side of this door is armed".  So they are also forced to "go in hot" as they say.  Which means they are more likely to shoot quickly out of the (quite correct) assumption that their lives are in immediate danger.

Don't you see how removing guns from the hands of EVERYONE (including the criminals) makes all of these situations safer?  Even for cops.  Especially for cops.  Don't you care about the lives of cops?  Because blue lives do matter.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 11, 2018, 12:22:43 PM

You're right, I don't understand why you're frustrated that schools are safer now than they were 20, 30 years ago. (Sorry for the snark.)

Don't think I don't know what it's like to have these things happen in my community. I went to UCC in Roseburg. I took a class in one of the places where the shooting happened. But the facts don't back up this sentiment that schools are unsafe, or that they're more unsafe now than they have been.
Overall crime trends don't back up this narrative that this is a growing crisis either.

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world?

If society is so much safer, why do you need to ban guns? 

Just pointing out that the "guns keep us safe argument" is based on false assumptions.  The world, especially the West, is the safest it's been in history.  And it's not "guns" keeping you safe - we see strong drops in crime across the boards, even in countries with little or no guns among the populace.  But I don't expect data to change your mind...

But regardless, I think you are being a little callous to a lot of people who do live in dangerous situations.  While it's pretty unlikely that I will need a gun for safety (at least at my house; not sure what my odds are of being mugged, although I'm guessing still relatively low), there are people who live within five miles of me who cannot say the same.  I don't really think it's fair for me to say they shouldn't be allowed a gun just because I don't need one.

I'm also not sure how much my neighborhood being safe is attributable to the fact that if you break into a house at night, there's a probably greater than 50% chance you are going to come across someone with a gun.  Probably not as much of an impact as being in a neighborhood where the police chief will have to worry about his job if a crime problem takes hold, but probably not a tiny impact either.

Two things.  First, if someone is going to break into a house, if they think the owners are armed, they will simply bring their own guns and will also be much more likely to "shoot first, ask questions later".  The presence of guns escalates a simple b&e to a shootout and probable death.  Remove the guns and the b&e might still happen, but the chances of loss of life drop dramatically.

Second, if you talk to cops, like actual cops that work the street, you'll find that very often they are face with the same dilemma: "There's a greater than 50% chance that the suspect on the other side of this door is armed".  So they are also forced to "go in hot" as they say.  Which means they are more likely to shoot quickly out of the (quite correct) assumption that their lives are in immediate danger.

Don't you see how removing guns from the hands of EVERYONE (including the criminals) makes all of these situations safer?  Even for cops.  Especially for cops.  Don't you care about the lives of cops?  Because blue lives do matter.

While I agree that removing guns from the interaction entirely makes it safer for everyone, I just want to comment on the bolded.

I think this assumption is very wrong. The vast majority of people breaking into homes are there to steal some stuff and get out. They are not there to hurt anyone or get hurt, if you raise the stakes of robbing someone to possibly being shot or shooting someone and getting a much harsher prison sentence, some, dare I say most, thieves would find another way.

That's not to say I feel strongly about the efficacy of self defense using a gun or whether I think the small chance that a gun may be used defensively makes their ownership worthwhile. I just think this is an incorrect assumption.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Jrr85 on June 11, 2018, 12:44:28 PM

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world?

If society is so much safer, why do you need to ban guns? 

Just pointing out that the "guns keep us safe argument" is based on false assumptions.  The world, especially the West, is the safest it's been in history.  And it's not "guns" keeping you safe - we see strong drops in crime across the boards, even in countries with little or no guns among the populace.  But I don't expect data to change your mind...
  The point is that with crime not really correlated with gun ownership rates, and the country getting safer, why are you so hell bent on taking people's guns?  If everyone is statistically getting safer, then it seems even less justifiable to take guns from the people who need them or even just want them for protection. 


But regardless, I think you are being a little callous to a lot of people who do live in dangerous situations.  While it's pretty unlikely that I will need a gun for safety (at least at my house; not sure what my odds are of being mugged, although I'm guessing still relatively low), there are people who live within five miles of me who cannot say the same.  I don't really think it's fair for me to say they shouldn't be allowed a gun just because I don't need one.

I'm also not sure how much my neighborhood being safe is attributable to the fact that if you break into a house at night, there's a probably greater than 50% chance you are going to come across someone with a gun.  Probably not as much of an impact as being in a neighborhood where the police chief will have to worry about his job if a crime problem takes hold, but probably not a tiny impact either.

Two things.  First, if someone is going to break into a house, if they think the owners are armed, they will simply bring their own guns and will also be much more likely to "shoot first, ask questions later".  The presence of guns escalates a simple b&e to a shootout and probable death.  Remove the guns and the b&e might still happen, but the chances of loss of life drop dramatically.
  You'd need to show some compelling data for this.  I don't think most criminals involved in "petty theft are like, B&E, first degree murder, no diff".  Certainly there are people who are ok with either, but I think many, many of the people who might be open to burglary, will resort to things like busting out car windows and snatching what they can rather than arm themselves for burglary.  At the very least, they will try to work during the day when they think people are less likely

Second, if you talk to cops, like actual cops that work the street, you'll find that very often they are face with the same dilemma: "There's a greater than 50% chance that the suspect on the other side of this door is armed".  So they are also forced to "go in hot" as they say.  Which means they are more likely to shoot quickly out of the (quite correct) assumption that their lives are in immediate danger.

Don't you see how removing guns from the hands of EVERYONE (including the criminals) makes all of these situations safer?  Even for cops.  Especially for cops.  Don't you care about the lives of cops?  Because blue lives do matter.
  As a practical matter, you are not proposing removing the guns from the hands of everyone.  So I am not sure you are moving the needle one way or the other for cops. 

And for everyone else, certainly a gun is more deadly than the alternatives in most situations, but on the flip side, a small female with a gun can be evenly matched with an assailant with a gun if she's moderately trained.  A small female with a bat may not stand a chance against an assailant with a bat, or even an unarmed assailant depending on how big the disparity in size and strength is.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 11, 2018, 01:06:43 PM

I agree, not just schools, but society overall is safer now than it has ever been, in history.  So tell me again why you need guns?  To protect yourself in an ever-increasingly-safe world?

If society is so much safer, why do you need to ban guns? 

Just pointing out that the "guns keep us safe argument" is based on false assumptions.  The world, especially the West, is the safest it's been in history.  And it's not "guns" keeping you safe - we see strong drops in crime across the boards, even in countries with little or no guns among the populace.  But I don't expect data to change your mind...
  The point is that with crime not really correlated with gun ownership rates, and the country getting safer, why are you so hell bent on taking people's guns?  If everyone is statistically getting safer, then it seems even less justifiable to take guns from the people who need them or even just want them for protection. 


But regardless, I think you are being a little callous to a lot of people who do live in dangerous situations.  While it's pretty unlikely that I will need a gun for safety (at least at my house; not sure what my odds are of being mugged, although I'm guessing still relatively low), there are people who live within five miles of me who cannot say the same.  I don't really think it's fair for me to say they shouldn't be allowed a gun just because I don't need one.

I'm also not sure how much my neighborhood being safe is attributable to the fact that if you break into a house at night, there's a probably greater than 50% chance you are going to come across someone with a gun.  Probably not as much of an impact as being in a neighborhood where the police chief will have to worry about his job if a crime problem takes hold, but probably not a tiny impact either.

Two things.  First, if someone is going to break into a house, if they think the owners are armed, they will simply bring their own guns and will also be much more likely to "shoot first, ask questions later".  The presence of guns escalates a simple b&e to a shootout and probable death.  Remove the guns and the b&e might still happen, but the chances of loss of life drop dramatically.
  You'd need to show some compelling data for this.  I don't think most criminals involved in "petty theft are like, B&E, first degree murder, no diff".  Certainly there are people who are ok with either, but I think many, many of the people who might be open to burglary, will resort to things like busting out car windows and snatching what they can rather than arm themselves for burglary.  At the very least, they will try to work during the day when they think people are less likely

Second, if you talk to cops, like actual cops that work the street, you'll find that very often they are face with the same dilemma: "There's a greater than 50% chance that the suspect on the other side of this door is armed".  So they are also forced to "go in hot" as they say.  Which means they are more likely to shoot quickly out of the (quite correct) assumption that their lives are in immediate danger.

Don't you see how removing guns from the hands of EVERYONE (including the criminals) makes all of these situations safer?  Even for cops.  Especially for cops.  Don't you care about the lives of cops?  Because blue lives do matter.
  As a practical matter, you are not proposing removing the guns from the hands of everyone.  So I am not sure you are moving the needle one way or the other for cops. 

And for everyone else, certainly a gun is more deadly than the alternatives in most situations, but on the flip side, a small female with a gun can be evenly matched with an assailant with a gun if she's moderately trained.  A small female with a bat may not stand a chance against an assailant with a bat, or even an unarmed assailant depending on how big the disparity in size and strength is.

Sure, here you go.  It doesn't show precisely rates of homocide during burglary, but it does show the broader point I'm trying to make.  And that point is this:

GRA people think that guns protect them.  In fact, mostly guns embolden and enable criminals. 


http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime


As you can see, when guns are removed from the equation, things like the murder rate go way, way, way down.  And that's given that Australia has similar drug use and rape rates to America, so they are not some abnormal "low crime" country.  They have their share of crime.  What they don't have is a flood of guns and the subsequent crazy high death rate from guns.  We do. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 11, 2018, 01:29:04 PM
Don't you see how removing guns from the hands of EVERYONE (including the criminals) makes all of these situations safer?


Of course.  But on what planet is that possible?  There are, what, 300M guns out there in the US alone, nevermind what can be snuck over the border.  So this fantasy of "well if we just waved our magic fairy wand and made all the guns disappear we'd all be safer" has fuckall to do with "legal gun owners shouldn't have guns because we can get rid of them for everyone." 

You can't. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 11, 2018, 01:35:20 PM
Right, so when you lose the "guns keep us safe" argument (they don't), then you fall back on the "it's impossible to collect the guns" argument (it's not).

Weak.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 11, 2018, 01:37:31 PM
Sure, here you go.  It doesn't show precisely rates of homocide during burglary, but it does show the broader point I'm trying to make.  And that point is this:

GRA people think that guns protect them.  In fact, mostly guns embolden and enable criminals. 


http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Australia/United-States/Crime


As you can see, when guns are removed from the equation, things like the murder rate go way, way, way down.  And that's given that Australia has similar drug use and rape rates to America, so they are not some abnormal "low crime" country.  They have their share of crime.  What they don't have is a flood of guns and the subsequent crazy high death rate from guns.  We do.

I would really like to see these two compared while also excluding gang or drug related crime.  Anybody know of where estimates can be had for the % of victims that partook in gangland warfare or participated in drug crime?  That would probably answer quite a few questions...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 11, 2018, 02:00:16 PM
Right, so when you lose the "guns keep us safe" argument (they don't), then you fall back on the "it's impossible to collect the guns" argument (it's not).

Weak.

I've never put forth the "guns keep us safe" argument.  I believe there is an existing deterrent effect because houses may or may not be armed, but aside from that I'm not a huge "I'm safer because I have a gun" guy.  I just believe it's a tool that MIGHT help me and therefore I'd rather have it than not.  Same way I have and use fire extinguishers, jack stands, and GFI outlets. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 11, 2018, 02:15:13 PM
They "might" help, you say?

THEY DON'T HELP KEEP YOU SAFER.  THEY ONLY MAKE IT MORE LIKELY YOU'LL GET SHOT BY A CRIMINAL.


That's the whole point of the US/Australia data that I shared earlier.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 11, 2018, 04:06:38 PM
Right, so when you lose the "guns keep us safe" argument (they don't), then you fall back on the "it's impossible to collect the guns" argument (it's not).

Weak.

I've never put forth the "guns keep us safe" argument.  I believe there is an existing deterrent effect because houses may or may not be armed, but aside from that I'm not a huge "I'm safer because I have a gun" guy.  I just believe it's a tool that MIGHT help me and therefore I'd rather have it than not.  Same way I have and use fire extinguishers, jack stands, and GFI outlets.

Fire extinguishers, Jack stands, and GFI outlets don't shoot back. You have them because there are low risk high reward. Firearms are the opposite. Thats a weak defense of guns. Also research and statistics show guns are pretty far down on the list of home invasion deterrents.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 11, 2018, 04:33:46 PM
Hey wow yeah you guys are right, I’m dumping all my guns in the lake tonight. Go me!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 11, 2018, 05:19:17 PM
Hey wow yeah you guys are right, I’m dumping all my guns in the lake tonight. Go me!

That wouldn't matter, actually.  The problem is a large scale one and needs to be dealt with at that level.  Guns systemically raise the threat level for everyone.  In order for changes to be effective, guns must by systemically removed from the system.  Only then will the overall threat level (and murder rate) drop. 

It's not unlike drunk driving back in the 70's and 80's.  A lot of people did it and most did not see it as a problem.  Till you saw all the stats and all the victims.  Then DUI laws were put in place and systemically enforced.  Which lead to EVERYONE being safer.  In spite of all the carping that people did at the time around "government over-reach" and "I drive better drunk that other people driving sober!" and other such self serving BS arguments. 

The results are clear though - everyone is safer and much less likely to become killed or injured by a drunk driver, thanks to systemic DUI laws.  That same approach is needed for guns. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 11, 2018, 08:18:50 PM
Hey wow yeah you guys are right, I’m dumping all my guns in the lake tonight. Go me!

That's not very mustachian.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on June 13, 2018, 07:52:37 PM
As you can see, when guns are removed from the equation, things like the murder rate go way, way, way down.  And that's given that Australia has similar drug use and rape rates to America, so they are not some abnormal "low crime" country.  They have their share of crime.  What they don't have is a flood of guns and the subsequent crazy high death rate from guns.  We do.

Numbers are good, but you exclude one very important aspect. The culture. You are comparing numbers but not looking at the source. If you remove the numbers from a subculture, you would find the gun problem is very severe in this subculture. The subculture is not in Australia, just like it isn't in Europe.

Instead of addressing the problem of violence in this subculture, we are concentrating arguments over a tool these criminals choose to use.

I can't find the FBI stats that show how less than 4% of the population (black male 13-25) commit the most homicides.

(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/figures/m6631qsf.gif)

And this is just the homicide rate. Let's look at the aspect violence too. Would the violence rate suddenly show that this same subculture is peaceful and representative of their percentage in society?

The answer is no. I can't find the breakdown by age, but https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21) this link also shows the commission of more than half the robberies occurring in the US. More than double for all violent crime based on population percentage.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on June 13, 2018, 09:42:53 PM
As you can see, when guns are removed from the equation, things like the murder rate go way, way, way down.  And that's given that Australia has similar drug use and rape rates to America, so they are not some abnormal "low crime" country.  They have their share of crime.  What they don't have is a flood of guns and the subsequent crazy high death rate from guns.  We do.

Numbers are good, but you exclude one very important aspect. The culture. You are comparing numbers but not looking at the source. If you remove the numbers from a subculture, you would find the gun problem is very severe in this subculture. The subculture is not in Australia, just like it isn't in Europe.

Instead of addressing the problem of violence in this subculture, we are concentrating arguments over a tool these criminals choose to use.

I can't find the FBI stats that show how less than 4% of the population (black male 13-25) commit the most homicides.

(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/figures/m6631qsf.gif)

And this is just the homicide rate. Let's look at the aspect violence too. Would the violence rate suddenly show that this same subculture is peaceful and representative of their percentage in society?

The answer is no. I can't find the breakdown by age, but https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21) this link also shows the commission of more than half the robberies occurring in the US. More than double for all violent crime based on population percentage.

Aaaand this thread just took a horrifyingly racist turn...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 14, 2018, 07:12:33 AM
Aaaand this thread just took a horrifyingly racist turn...

Is the data wrong?  Is he presenting anything other than numbers here?....
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 14, 2018, 07:54:12 AM
Aaaand this thread just took a horrifyingly racist turn...

Is the data wrong?  Is he presenting anything other than numbers here?....

Probably not... but is the racial disparity here perhaps better explained by gangs? Gangs, of course, being a consequence of the war on drugs.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 14, 2018, 08:01:34 AM
Aaaand this thread just took a horrifyingly racist turn...

Is the data wrong?  Is he presenting anything other than numbers here?....

Well, he's using the euphemism of a 'subculture' to refer to black people.  This is how the post reads when that's reverted to apparent intent of the poster:

As you can see, when guns are removed from the equation, things like the murder rate go way, way, way down.  And that's given that Australia has similar drug use and rape rates to America, so they are not some abnormal "low crime" country.  They have their share of crime.  What they don't have is a flood of guns and the subsequent crazy high death rate from guns.  We do.

Numbers are good, but you exclude one very important aspect. Black people. You are comparing numbers but not looking at the source. If you remove the numbers caused by black people, you would find the gun problem is very severe because of those people. There aren't as many black people in Australia, just like there aren't in Europe.

Instead of addressing the problem of violence caused by black people, we are concentrating arguments over a tool these criminals choose to use.

I can't find the FBI stats that show how less than 4% of the population (black male 13-25) commit the most homicides.

(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/figures/m6631qsf.gif)

And this is just the homicide rate. Let's look at the aspect violence too. Would the violence rate suddenly show that black people are peaceful and representative of their percentage in society?

The answer is no. I can't find the breakdown by age, but https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21) this link also shows the commission of more than half the robberies occurring in the US. More than double for all violent crime based on population percentage.

Sure, the numbers are correct.  The conclusion drawn from them is incorrect though.  It's implying causation of gun violence from correlation (race).  When you have any large population of poor people they tend to commit more crimes.  The problem is socioeconomic (inequality causes crime - https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf (https://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf), https://financesonline.com/how-income-inequality-affects-crime-rates/ (https://financesonline.com/how-income-inequality-affects-crime-rates/)), not racial makeup . . . but by calling it 'cultural' you're allowed to indulge in overtly racist remarks (and also to pass judgement on people for the colour of their skin) while pretending that you're being objective.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 14, 2018, 08:14:27 AM
Aaaand this thread just took a horrifyingly racist turn...

Is the data wrong?  Is he presenting anything other than numbers here?....

Probably not... but is the racial disparity here perhaps better explained by gangs? Gangs, of course, being a consequence of the war on drugs.

I would like to see a citation for the data, but assuming it's correct I agree with this take on it. Honestly I'm not really sure what px4shooter was getting at after the part where he said the culture is different in the US. I can't disagree with that but I don't see how it relates to this data.

If we're talking about the way gangs and drug trafficking relate to the higher levels of gun violence in the US, that's an important part of the conversation. I don't think trying to address this as "we need to focus on black men ages 13-25" is going to do us any good. What we need to ask is, what are the reasons for the disparity in those numbers? Specific populations don't deviate from normal that significantly without outside influences.

ETA: What Stv said. I try to give the benefit of the doubt but after rereading px4shooter's post (his original, not with culture subbed out for black people) I think he was pretty much blaming black people. If that was not the intention I hope he will elaborate.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on June 14, 2018, 09:19:48 AM
Yes, the word “subculture” and the implication that the data is this way because of the US having black people is why I called it racist. Newsflash: Australia has a significant native population who are quite dark in color. And they have also been treated abysmally over the years, which is why blacks in our country have such a high poverty rate. Plus they are arrested and sentenced much more harshly simply because of bias that lingers (and statements like that only fuel that bias).

Don’t forget this whole thread started because of a school shooting. That a WHITE MALE did. Nearly ALL school shooters are white males.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 14, 2018, 10:08:56 AM
Yes, the word “subculture” and the implication that the data is this way because of the US having black peoples is why I called it racist. Newsflash: Australia has a significant native population who are quite dark in color. And they have also been treated abysmally over the years, which is why blacks in our country have such a high poverty rate. Plus they are arrested and sentenced much more harshly simply because of bias that lingers (and statements like that only fuel that bias).

Don’t forget this whole thread started because of a school shooting. That a WHITE MALE did. Nearly ALL school shooters are white males.

Yes, but school shooters are extremely extremely rare statistically.  Throughout Themis thread we’ve talked about “OMG school shootings are terrible (they are)! The US is such a violent place( it isn’t outside a few cultures? Groups? Demographics?)”.

If you want to stop “school shootings” then you attack the problem in one way. If you want to stop “gun violence” sorry, you have to look at urban gangs which are almost all black or Latino. No, it’s not black skin or genetics or whatever that does it, but it’s absurd to say that point out the incredible stratification in the trends is racist. It’s fact. Until you accept the fact, you can’t possibly try to relieve it.

And frankly it isn’t even poverty; what’s the gun violence rate of rural Appalachia? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 14, 2018, 10:26:43 AM
Yes, the word “subculture” and the implication that the data is this way because of the US having black peoples is why I called it racist. Newsflash: Australia has a significant native population who are quite dark in color. And they have also been treated abysmally over the years, which is why blacks in our country have such a high poverty rate. Plus they are arrested and sentenced much more harshly simply because of bias that lingers (and statements like that only fuel that bias).

Don’t forget this whole thread started because of a school shooting. That a WHITE MALE did. Nearly ALL school shooters are white males.

Yes, but school shooters are extremely extremely rare statistically.  Throughout Themis thread we’ve talked about “OMG school shootings are terrible (they are)! The US is such a violent place( it isn’t outside a few cultures? Groups? Demographics?)”.

If you want to stop “school shootings” then you attack the problem in one way. If you want to stop “gun violence” sorry, you have to look at urban gangs which are almost all black or Latino. No, it’s not black skin or genetics or whatever that does it, but it’s absurd to say that point out the incredible stratification in the trends is racist. It’s fact. Until you accept the fact, you can’t possibly try to relieve it.

And frankly it isn’t even poverty; what’s the gun violence rate of rural Appalachia?

OK.  I accept your argument.  (I mean, rural Appalachia has the some of the highest proportion of firearm‐related domestic violence homicide in the US - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ruso.12206 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ruso.12206), but let's pretend that poverty doesn't matter).

Black and Latino people cause more crime than white people because of their inferior 'culture', not because of poverty.  What are you proposing to do to fix these races of people?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on June 14, 2018, 10:35:44 AM
An awful lot of cop killings are done by white males, too. And aren’t white, male, gun owners the ones threatening civil war if their guns are taken away? That’s some super peace loving people right there!

I want to kick my naive younger self who really thought this kind of race-BS was over with. Reading shit like this from people who are quite earnest about it still shocks me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 14, 2018, 12:28:32 PM
Yes, the word “subculture” and the implication that the data is this way because of the US having black peoples is why I called it racist. Newsflash: Australia has a significant native population who are quite dark in color. And they have also been treated abysmally over the years, which is why blacks in our country have such a high poverty rate. Plus they are arrested and sentenced much more harshly simply because of bias that lingers (and statements like that only fuel that bias).

Don’t forget this whole thread started because of a school shooting. That a WHITE MALE did. Nearly ALL school shooters are white males.

Yes, but school shooters are extremely extremely rare statistically.  Throughout Themis thread we’ve talked about “OMG school shootings are terrible (they are)! The US is such a violent place( it isn’t outside a few cultures? Groups? Demographics?)”.

If you want to stop “school shootings” then you attack the problem in one way. If you want to stop “gun violence” sorry, you have to look at urban gangs which are almost all black or Latino. No, it’s not black skin or genetics or whatever that does it, but it’s absurd to say that point out the incredible stratification in the trends is racist. It’s fact. Until you accept the fact, you can’t possibly try to relieve it.

And frankly it isn’t even poverty; what’s the gun violence rate of rural Appalachia?

Correct. That's not racist. Suggesting that it is because of their "culture" is racist.

If the reference was to gang culture, even that wouldn't be racist. But the way it was posted was to combine those two ideas that don't need to be combined. It serves no purpose other than to incite feelings of racism.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 14, 2018, 12:38:05 PM
Aaaand this thread just took a horrifyingly racist turn...

Is the data wrong?  Is he presenting anything other than numbers here?....

Probably not... but is the racial disparity here perhaps better explained by gangs? Gangs, of course, being a consequence of the war on drugs.

You'll find no disagreements from me there.  But how does banning 'Assault Rifles' help fix one of the root causes- Gang Warfare?  How does any gun control really help with that?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 14, 2018, 01:33:26 PM
Aaaand this thread just took a horrifyingly racist turn...

Is the data wrong?  Is he presenting anything other than numbers here?....

Probably not... but is the racial disparity here perhaps better explained by gangs? Gangs, of course, being a consequence of the war on drugs.

You'll find no disagreements from me there.  But how does banning 'Assault Rifles' help fix one of the root causes- Gang Warfare?  How does any gun control really help with that?

GRA folks are happy to say that 'gang warfare' or 'culture' or occasionally 'black people' are to blame for gun problems.  They're pretty short on suggesting solutions though.  You're arguing that gun control doesn't really help with that.  OK.  What better solution are you proposing?

Gangs typically come out of places where there are long standing problems with poverty, racism, income inequality, poor education, etc.  These are all areas where the typical GRA fights hard to keep things from changing as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 14, 2018, 01:49:46 PM
Aaaand this thread just took a horrifyingly racist turn...

Is the data wrong?  Is he presenting anything other than numbers here?....

Probably not... but is the racial disparity here perhaps better explained by gangs? Gangs, of course, being a consequence of the war on drugs.

You'll find no disagreements from me there.  But how does banning 'Assault Rifles' help fix one of the root causes- Gang Warfare?  How does any gun control really help with that?

GRA folks are happy to say that 'gang warfare' or 'culture' or occasionally 'black people' are to blame for gun problems.  They're pretty short on suggesting solutions though.  You're arguing that gun control doesn't really help with that.  OK.  What better solution are you proposing?

Gangs typically come out of places where there are long standing problems with poverty, racism, income inequality, poor education, etc.  These are all areas where the typical GRA fights hard to keep things from changing as well.

Actually I'm fully in favor of legalizing marijuana, and want to decriminalize most all other drug use.  Let keep the serious prison time for violent crimes.

Also, throwing out the globalism mindset and rebuilding manufacturing in the US (even with more autonomous work being done) certainly can't hurt.  Combine that with low minority unemployment and I think progress can be made.

There was a time when a manufacturing worker could be the family bread-winner and solidly middle class.  In 1960, the average manufacturing worker made $2.26 and hour.  Equivalent in today's dollars is $19.41 an hour or $48,000 a year with 5 hours weekly overtime.  Now the average manufacturing worker makes an average of $14.96 an hour, or $36,961.00 per year. 

For a family of 5, that is (1960) 141% the poverty rate (eg family breadwinner status) vs today 109% poverty level.  So you go from comfortable, maybe lower-middle class, to poor-near-poverty in today's manufacturing wages.

But please, don't let the poor lower-middle class get in that way of you saving 100 bucks on your newest iCrap.


Sources:  https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Manufacturing_Worker/Hourly_Rate (https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Manufacturing_Worker/Hourly_Rate)
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/content/?item_id=5435&filepath=/files/docs/publications/empbmark/emp_bmark_1909_1990_v1.pdf (https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/content/?item_id=5435&filepath=/files/docs/publications/empbmark/emp_bmark_1909_1990_v1.pdf)
https://q1medicare.com/q1group/MedicareAdvantagePartD/Blog/2018-Federal-Poverty-Level-Guidelines--FPL---2018-LIS-Qualifications-and-Benefits/674/8.html (https://q1medicare.com/q1group/MedicareAdvantagePartD/Blog/2018-Federal-Poverty-Level-Guidelines--FPL---2018-LIS-Qualifications-and-Benefits/674/8.html)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 14, 2018, 02:09:37 PM
Interesting.

So, you believe that closed border protectionism and the higher prices it will guarantee for everything you buy will lift people out of poverty?  You believe that high paying low skill work is going to make a comeback in the future?

Upon what information do you base this belief?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 14, 2018, 02:37:44 PM
Interesting.

So, you believe that closed border protectionism and the higher prices it will guarantee for everything you buy will lift people out of poverty?  You believe that high paying low skill work is going to make a comeback in the future?

Upon what information do you base this belief?

And out comes the "Low-skill" strawman...

There is nothing low skill about the vast majority of quality manufacturing.  Please be careful, your elitism is showing.

I believe in equal trade.  Particularly when it concerns entire industries.  Once you stack a 10% European tariff or the 0% both-ways Mexico tariffs on US autos with the necessary EPA regulations, corporate tax rate and other non-tariff factors, the discrepancy is huge.  Mexico has no minimum wage, no EPA-type enforcement, no OSHA and no workers-comp, and yet the 0% both-ways NAFTA agreement for autos isn't supposed to strangle American auto manufacturing?

C'mon, I know no one on this forum is that dense...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on June 14, 2018, 03:02:39 PM
ETA: What Stv said. I try to give the benefit of the doubt but after rereading px4shooter's post (his original, not with culture subbed out for black people) I think he was pretty much blaming black people. If that was not the intention I hope he will elaborate.

I apologize for not explaining a sub-culture better. It is not solely race. It is the sub-culture that exists in the US, which embraces violence, drugs, and degradation of women. The sub-culture that believes in entitlement and believes they have the right to take whatever they want. A sub-culture that romanticizes the murdering and harming of others, while believing women are only their to be sex objects and used at their will. In my community, it branches into all races. And I grew up as part of this sub-culture. When I finally realized what it was, I ran away as fast as I could.

Are numbers racist? The answer is no. These numbers are from the FBI and not a slanted analyzation of data. One may want to blame race, when race is not the issue. Do we see all races in this sub-culture? Yes. Is one race more represented in this sub-culture? I can't say for sure, as this mentality does cross racial lines. There is a predominance of it in certain communities though. Just tune in to some rap music and hear them spout their love for violence. Yes, all races rap, but not all rappers support this sub-culture mentality ;)

When you look at the offenders and their involvement in gangs, drugs, and this sub-culture, you see a link to the crime issues.

Having traveled in various parts of the world, I have recognized this as an issue. We don't see the same sub-culture in other countries. When we want to compare apples to apples, we can't. We have an orange in our bunch, with this sub-culture that is the problem with violence in the US. If we remove our orange, our violence rates are no longer the leader.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Poundwise on June 14, 2018, 03:05:34 PM
As you can see, when guns are removed from the equation, things like the murder rate go way, way, way down.  And that's given that Australia has similar drug use and rape rates to America, so they are not some abnormal "low crime" country.  They have their share of crime.  What they don't have is a flood of guns and the subsequent crazy high death rate from guns.  We do.

Numbers are good, but you exclude one very important aspect. The culture. You are comparing numbers but not looking at the source. If you remove the numbers from a subculture, you would find the gun problem is very severe in this subculture. The subculture is not in Australia, just like it isn't in Europe.

Instead of addressing the problem of violence in this subculture, we are concentrating arguments over a tool these criminals choose to use.

I can't find the FBI stats that show how less than 4% of the population (black male 13-25) commit the most homicides.

(https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/figures/m6631qsf.gif)

And this is just the homicide rate. Let's look at the aspect violence too. Would the violence rate suddenly show that this same subculture is peaceful and representative of their percentage in society?

The answer is no. I can't find the breakdown by age, but https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21) this link also shows the commission of more than half the robberies occurring in the US. More than double for all violent crime based on population percentage.

I'm a little confused by px4shooter's usage of this graphic. I found the source, here.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6631a9.htm

I read this graph as telling us who is dying of homicides, rather than who is doing the killing. Am I misunderstanding?

I mean, if it is more black people dying, it's not their subculture doing the killing necessarily. Maybe it's somebody else's.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Poundwise on June 14, 2018, 03:13:42 PM
TBH I do recall seeing stats at some point that black-on-black killings were highest in the US relative to other combinations of race. But I'm not sure that this graph says anything about that.

[edit] I found my old post. https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-is-your-definition-of-racism/msg1322151/#msg1322151

Quoted below.
Quote
From the FBI data below, it looks to me like a white person is much more likely to be murdered by another white person than by a black person.  Now, I'm too lazy to find the data for more than one year, but let's try to adjust for percentages. It looks like though blacks are a little over 12% of the population, they made up 13.6% of offenders  against whites (409/3005) in 2013.  Aha, bad blacks! But wait-- whites made up 83.5% of murderers (2509/3005) although they are only about 80% of the population (including Hispanic whites). Bad whites! If you're thinking statistically, maybe a white person had better cross the street when approached by another white person.  And maybe a black person had better avoid other black people.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 14, 2018, 03:35:13 PM
And if you don't believe me that manufcturing drove the results of the Trump election, maybe you will believe the New York Post (https://nypost.com/2017/09/16/the-day-that-destroyed-the-working-class-and-sowed-the-seeds-for-trump/), Usa Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/18/rust-belt-voters-donald-trump/96670922/), The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/349664-trumps-global-trade-policies-are-good-for-middle-class), NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html), Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/09/how-trump-won-the-revenge-of-working-class-whites/?utm_term=.694f5bd8cf9e), Pew Research (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/08/gop-gained-ground-in-middle-class-communities-in-2016/), NY Times (again) (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html), Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-great-betrayal-of-middle-america), The Gaurdian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/21/disaffected-rust-belt-voters-embraced-donald-trump-midwestern-obama), Project Syndicate (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-politics-job-polarization-by-simon-johnson-2016-11?barrier=accesspaylog) and Forbes (https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/09/donald-trumps-presidenti-victory-demographics/#480e50383b96).  There are plenty more out there saying the same thing.


And while this article from 'World Economic Forum' (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/automation-and-manufacturing-can-trump-bring-back-american-jobs) seeks to discredit Trump's agenda, it makes some very good points...
Quote
Employment in manufacturing fell by more than two million from 2004 to 2014, and now accounts for just over 8% of total employment – continuing a long decline since the 1950s.
Quote
The underlying problem is new technology, specifically information technology, and the way it has transformed the nature of work. As David Autor and David Dorn have shown, many middle-skill, middle-income, middle-class jobs have disappeared.
I would like to note that they haven't disappeared.  Someone, somewhere is still doing the job, they have just disappeared from America.

Quote
In this environment, with so many people insecure about their economic prospects, the push by President Barack Obama’s administration for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was a tone-deaf approach, at best. The administration argued that TPP would create some good jobs – and that people who lost jobs as a result could be “compensated.” But such compensation always proves to be minimal and is widely viewed as meaningless. That’s why Trump racked up large majorities in so many working-class bastions that had previously supported Obama.



Or to have it stated by Joan Williams:
Quote
The white working class– it’s very well documented over decades of studies– resents professionals but admires the rich. They resent professionals in part because they see them every day. They’re doctors. They’re teachers. And they feel that those people who are more educated are often looking down on them, feel superior to them, and I must say that Hillary’s deplorable comment seemed to confirm their worst fears, just as Obama’s earlier comment that there are some people who cling to guns and religion.

I don’t really fault these two [Obama and Hillary]. I fault the environment that both of them grew out of, which, while it has been exquisitely attuned to racial and gender disadvantage, some time has really been tone deaf to class disadvantage. So that resentment of professionals, unfortunately, Hilary was perfectly attuned to trigger.
- https://hbr.org/ideacast/2016/11/why-the-white-working-class-voted-for-trump (https://hbr.org/ideacast/2016/11/why-the-white-working-class-voted-for-trump)

Quote
NAFTA has cost the U.S. about a million jobs in the 23 years since it came into force, mainly in manufacturing jobs that have moved to Mexico. It’s also helped to drive down real wages, especially in the automotive industry. If the United States withdrew from NAFTA, it would make sense to levy tariffs in the range of 10 percent to 25 percent on Mexican-manufactured imports. It’s likely that businesses would react by immediately halting investment in Mexican production facilities and looking into bringing production back to the United States.
- http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/349664-trumps-global-trade-policies-are-good-for-middle-class (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/349664-trumps-global-trade-policies-are-good-for-middle-class)



Quote
The job losses here are staggering: In the seven Rust Belt states examined by the USA TODAY Network, more than 700,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 2000. Nationally, it’s some 7 million manufacturing jobs since 1980.

And while unemployment is down steeply in the aftermath of the last recession and some manufacturing gains have been seen, wages have declined or stayed flat in current dollars.

It’s a situation Trump’s supporters believe he will change, despite global forces arrayed against him.
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/18/rust-belt-voters-donald-trump/96670922/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/18/rust-belt-voters-donald-trump/96670922/)


The rise of China may have been a convenient source of cheap labor and more recently investment capital and lots of full load tuitions for universities, but according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, our deficit cost the country 3.4 million jobs, most in manufacturing.
https://www.epi.org/publication/growth-in-u-s-china-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2015-cost-3-4-million-jobs-heres-how-to-rebalance-trade-and-rebuild-american-manufacturing/ (https://www.epi.org/publication/growth-in-u-s-china-trade-deficit-between-2001-and-2015-cost-3-4-million-jobs-heres-how-to-rebalance-trade-and-rebuild-american-manufacturing/)

Aaron Renn describes this as “the decoupling of success in America. Those who are succeeding in America no longer need the overall prosperity of the country to personally do well. They can become enriched as a small, albeit sizable, minority.”



(Edit to add)
And maybe if you won't listen to me, you will listen to your homeboy Bill:
Quote
Clinton expressed his frustration with the most recent (at that time) Democratic debate, which he said lacked a single mention of the fact that “84 percent of the American people, after inflation, had not had a raise of 1 cent since the financial crash.”


“We have incredible debates all over America that shouldn’t exist between people in different racial groups because they don’t trust law enforcement anymore,” he continued. “And in the middle of all this we learned, breathtakingly, that middle-aged, non-college-educated white Americans’ life expectancy is going down and is now lower than Hispanics, even though they make less money.”

“And the gap between African Americans and whites is closing, but unfortunately not because the death rate among African Americans is dropping but because the death rate among white Americans is rising.” Clinton continued.

“Why? Because they don’t have anything to look forward to when they get up in the morning. Because their lives are sort of stuck in neutral. Because their lives are sort of stuck in neutral.”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/07/leaked-bill-clinton-speech-obama-years-left-no-hope-for-white-working-class/ (http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/07/leaked-bill-clinton-speech-obama-years-left-no-hope-for-white-working-class/)




What does all this have to do with firearms deaths?

Well its pretty simple, when the only choices for a teen barely graduating MLK High in Detroit are (1) selling drugs, (2) joining the Army or (3) joblessness, and it is possible to open up your so-called 'low-skill jobs' to that teen.  I would say that a pretty big fucking improvement.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 14, 2018, 03:55:35 PM
TBH I do recall seeing stats at some point that black-on-black killings were highest in the US relative to other combinations of race. But I'm not sure that this graph says anything about that.

[edit] I found my old post. https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-is-your-definition-of-racism/msg1322151/#msg1322151

Quoted below.
Quote
From the FBI data below, it looks to me like a white person is much more likely to be murdered by another white person than by a black person.  Now, I'm too lazy to find the data for more than one year, but let's try to adjust for percentages. It looks like though blacks are a little over 12% of the population, they made up 13.6% of offenders  against whites (409/3005) in 2013.  Aha, bad blacks! But wait-- whites made up 83.5% of murderers (2509/3005) although they are only about 80% of the population (including Hispanic whites). Bad whites! If you're thinking statistically, maybe a white person had better cross the street when approached by another white person.  And maybe a black person had better avoid other black people.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls

Take a look at the 'offenders' table from the Bureau of Justice Statistics snippet on murders.

(https://fournews-assets-prod-s3b-ew1-aws-c4-pml.s3.amazonaws.com/media/2014/11/27_bjs_use.jpg)
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf)

It is not a race problem, that is correlation.  It is a gang and drug problem.

Hence my long post upthread about expanding America's job base for all tiers of education, including middle-skill.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Poundwise on June 14, 2018, 04:08:54 PM
Got it, I just noticed that something didn't work with px4shooter's use of that graph to make that particular point.

TexasRunner, I will buy that joblessness and lack of opportunities will increase violence, homicides, and suicides in general, and gun assisted deaths in particular.

On the other hand, if all that Americans had to kill one another with were bananas, we'd  see fewer deaths no matter how despairing and dead-end their lives were. And it's not like other developed countries like Greece are strangers to unemployment. They have lower rates of gun ownership though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Gun control AND providing good jobs would be even better than gun control.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Poundwise on June 14, 2018, 04:12:44 PM
Just found this article... not sure if it has come up in this thread before. "America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns." 

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 14, 2018, 04:19:02 PM
Just found this article... not sure if it has come up in this thread before. "America doesn’t have more crime than other rich countries. It just has more guns." 

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe

And I will post this again.....

https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5 (https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5)

https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/the-left-is-making-the-wrong-case-on-gun-deaths-heres-a-better-case-1429e7ad2f25 (https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/the-left-is-making-the-wrong-case-on-gun-deaths-heres-a-better-case-1429e7ad2f25)

Please read it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 14, 2018, 04:30:34 PM
On the other hand, if all that Americans had to kill one another with were bananas, we'd  see fewer deaths no matter how despairing and dead-end their lives were. And it's not like other developed countries like Greece are strangers to unemployment. They have lower rates of gun ownership though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Gun control AND providing good jobs would be even better than gun control.

Maybe...

Maybe not.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/03/londons-murder-rate-higher-than-new-york-citys/480860002/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/03/londons-murder-rate-higher-than-new-york-citys/480860002/)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/)

Considering how other (much smaller and more easily controlled) countries such as the UK still have firearm murders, and then have a much larger percentage of knife or fixed blade murders to fill the gap left by unavailability of firearms, I wouldn't be so sure that removing firearms would help nearly as much as focusing on gang crime.

Not to mention there is no magical firearm-erasing fairy.  Plus chop-shops can always pop up in our great expanse of a nation to fill the economic black-market void, see: Toronto (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/05/28/these-guns-were-used-in-gta-crimes-their-manufacturer-said-he-thought-they-were-for-paintball.html).  If we think we can get rid of all the drugs by making them illegal (we can't), why on earth does the left think that same philosophy will work with firearms.  I would dare to venture that it is easier to machine a full-auto AK than cook methamphetamine...  Wouldn't you agree?  They are at least on the same level of complexity.

If anyone can find a report on the gun deaths (including suicides) once gang-vs-gang type of crime is removed, I would really like to find it.  So far I haven't found anything close enough.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 14, 2018, 08:11:08 PM
Interesting.

So, you believe that closed border protectionism and the higher prices it will guarantee for everything you buy will lift people out of poverty?  You believe that high paying low skill work is going to make a comeback in the future?

Upon what information do you base this belief?

And out comes the "Low-skill" strawman...

There is nothing low skill about the vast majority of quality manufacturing.  Please be careful, your elitism is showing.

I worked for several years doing manufacturing jobs working on different production lines in automotive manufacturing.  Loading/unloading a pallet doesn't require any skill or training.  The 10 - 20 minutes required to learn a new section of the production line was about as intensive as it gets.  I referred to them as low skilled jobs, because the majority of them are low skilled jobs.

Having low skilled jobs is kinda a requirement for you were proposing anyway - which (if you'll remember) was providing jobs to people who don't have significant employable skills, or much education . . . these are the people who end up in gangs.  Hardworking, skilled, and smart people tend to be able to escape that situation.



I believe in equal trade.  Particularly when it concerns entire industries.  Once you stack a 10% European tariff or the 0% both-ways Mexico tariffs on US autos with the necessary EPA regulations, corporate tax rate and other non-tariff factors, the discrepancy is huge.  Mexico has no minimum wage, no EPA-type enforcement, no OSHA and no workers-comp, and yet the 0% both-ways NAFTA agreement for autos isn't supposed to strangle American auto manufacturing?

C'mon, I know no one on this forum is that dense...

It's really weird to hear people with a right wing viewpoint admitting that the free market doesn't work and advocating for increased government controls.  This viewpoint switcharoo is one of the strangest things that Trump has achieved in his presidency.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 15, 2018, 06:52:57 AM
It's really weird to hear people with a right wing viewpoint admitting that the free market doesn't work and advocating for increased government controls.  This viewpoint switcharoo is one of the strangest things that Trump has achieved in his presidency.

Actually completely open markets would be fine IF there weren't such burdens on the employers of one country and not another.

I would be fine with a NAFTA for all items type of scenario between USA and Mexico provided Mexico accepted and enforced the EPA, OSHA and the same minimum wage laws (along with all the other thousands of regulations).  That would make it an even playing field.  The unevenness comes from USA's higher regulations (whose merits can be discussed separately) not being applied across all 'competing nations'.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ematicic on June 15, 2018, 07:07:09 AM
School shootings, mass shootings assuming the killer is apprehended and confirmed as most are, should have an expedited death penalty. One week from the shooting at the latest and public.

I have read many of the posts here but I feel like these shooters are attempting to emulate the other shooters. That Colorado theater shooter is still in the news, the Florida shooter is getting pallets of fan mail. The media is making them famous and too many are looking to them as role models. Lawyers are trying to find ways to free them, citing insanity or upbringing.

Putting them down in the street, in public, quickly will discourage the next youth from choosing that path and give faster closure to the families of victims.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: DarkandStormy on June 15, 2018, 07:25:09 AM
School shootings, mass shootings assuming the killer is apprehended and confirmed as most are, should have an expedited death penalty. One week from the shooting at the latest and public.


Putting them down in the street, in public, quickly will discourage the next youth from choosing that path and give faster closure to the families of victims.

I'm sorry, is this a democracy in 2018?  Jesus.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 15, 2018, 07:26:59 AM
School shootings, mass shootings assuming the killer is apprehended and confirmed as most are, should have an expedited death penalty. One week from the shooting at the latest and public.

I have read many of the posts here but I feel like these shooters are attempting to emulate the other shooters. That Colorado theater shooter is still in the news, the Florida shooter is getting pallets of fan mail. The media is making them famous and too many are looking to them as role models. Lawyers are trying to find ways to free them, citing insanity or upbringing.

Putting them down in the street, in public, quickly will discourage the next youth from choosing that path and give faster closure to the families of victims.

How many are taken alive anyways?  How many expect to be taken alive?  I think most of these guys go in as a suicide mission and planning to take down as many people as they perceived “wronged” them in the process.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on June 15, 2018, 08:05:12 AM
School shootings, mass shootings assuming the killer is apprehended and confirmed as most are, should have an expedited death penalty. One week from the shooting at the latest and public.


Putting them down in the street, in public, quickly will discourage the next youth from choosing that path and give faster closure to the families of victims.

I'm sorry, is this a democracy in 2018?  Jesus.

This is why our democracy is in the state it's in in 2018...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 15, 2018, 08:07:19 AM
School shootings, mass shootings assuming the killer is apprehended and confirmed as most are, should have an expedited death penalty. One week from the shooting at the latest and public.

I have read many of the posts here but I feel like these shooters are attempting to emulate the other shooters. That Colorado theater shooter is still in the news, the Florida shooter is getting pallets of fan mail. The media is making them famous and too many are looking to them as role models. Lawyers are trying to find ways to free them, citing insanity or upbringing.

Putting them down in the street, in public, quickly will discourage the next youth from choosing that path and give faster closure to the families of victims.

How many are taken alive anyways?  How many expect to be taken alive?  I think most of these guys go in as a suicide mission and planning to take down as many people as they perceived “wronged” them in the process.

Seems like the only ones taken alive are ones who were too cowardly to off themselves at the end of it.

It seems the notoriety is no small part of it. That should be taken away from them... they should only be referred to as something they'd find denigrating - "soy boy 12" or "tiny hands 11"  and their name somewhat ignored. It wouldn't stop all of them, but it might help. Given the first amendment, not sure how we'd do that though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 15, 2018, 08:18:15 AM
It's really weird to hear people with a right wing viewpoint admitting that the free market doesn't work and advocating for increased government controls.  This viewpoint switcharoo is one of the strangest things that Trump has achieved in his presidency.

Actually completely open markets would be fine IF there weren't such burdens on the employers of one country and not another.

I would be fine with a NAFTA for all items type of scenario between USA and Mexico provided Mexico accepted and enforced the EPA, OSHA and the same minimum wage laws (along with all the other thousands of regulations).  That would make it an even playing field.  The unevenness comes from USA's higher regulations (whose merits can be discussed separately) not being applied across all 'competing nations'.

I have heard (do not have details) that Canada has been pushing for labour related issues to be incorporated into NAFTA that the US does not like - so the gradient (in general) seems to be Canada - US - Mexico.  I don't know if maternity leave is one of our issues, but in general Canadians are appalled at American maternity leave policy.  And health care, and a bunch of other social issues you have.  Our pollution laws are national at the federal level and then the provinces can go stricter, so that may be an area that you are doing better than we are (as long as regulations are enforced, which can be an issue in any jurisdiction, especially if it is feeling a bit short financially).  I know for some air pollution issues Ontario is definitely laxer than both the US and the EU, and I would love to see them toughened up.  I am sure our Dougie would scream about Federal interference in provincial jurisdictions though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 15, 2018, 08:42:49 AM
It's really weird to hear people with a right wing viewpoint admitting that the free market doesn't work and advocating for increased government controls.  This viewpoint switcharoo is one of the strangest things that Trump has achieved in his presidency.

Actually completely open markets would be fine IF there weren't such burdens on the employers of one country and not another.

I would be fine with a NAFTA for all items type of scenario between USA and Mexico provided Mexico accepted and enforced the EPA, OSHA and the same minimum wage laws (along with all the other thousands of regulations).  That would make it an even playing field.  The unevenness comes from USA's higher regulations (whose merits can be discussed separately) not being applied across all 'competing nations'.

I have heard (do not have details) that Canada has been pushing for labour related issues to be incorporated into NAFTA that the US does not like - so the gradient (in general) seems to be Canada - US - Mexico.  I don't know if maternity leave is one of our issues, but in general Canadians are appalled at American maternity leave policy.  And health care, and a bunch of other social issues you have.  Our pollution laws are national at the federal level and then the provinces can go stricter, so that may be an area that you are doing better than we are (as long as regulations are enforced, which can be an issue in any jurisdiction, especially if it is feeling a bit short financially).  I know for some air pollution issues Ontario is definitely laxer than both the US and the EU, and I would love to see them toughened up.  I am sure our Dougie would scream about Federal interference in provincial jurisdictions though.

Exactly.  The same points apply.  If things were truly equal, then this free-trade advocate would be all for 0% tariffs- but that isn't how the world worlds.  As such, some slight barriers to trade are better for Canadians and Americans.


Some relevant points from Joan William's podcast:
Quote
Number one is to give [American Workers] respect, not to say they’re just stupid. The second thing is to realize that these trade deals– they are good for GDP, but they are really bad for some American workers, and that means if we ever again get to a situation where we can possibly have a trade deal, these trade deals are more expensive than we’ve been thinking of them and as, because we need to provide transition assistance to the American workers whose jobs leave for Vietnam.
- https://hbr.org/ideacast/2016/11/why-the-white-working-class-voted-for-trump (https://hbr.org/ideacast/2016/11/why-the-white-working-class-voted-for-trump)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 15, 2018, 09:53:20 AM
So MAGA is basically code for "abandon free trade" as a Republican policy.  Because you are right, free trade is great for GDP (and the S&P 500, which most of us around here invest in).  BUT, the reason free trade is good for GDP is because it's good for corporations.  And the reason it's good for corporations is it lets them more easily screw over American workers. 

So if you're pro business (as a party), its a bit of a conundrum.  Because unfettered free trade is undoubtedly good for companies, and just as undoubtedly bad for workers (some more than others).  So which do you support?  Capital, or Labor?  Seems like the working class people are finally waking up to the fact that the things that are good for the corporations are not actually good for the workers, and very little will 'trickle down' to them. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 15, 2018, 10:09:39 AM
So MAGA is basically code for "abandon free trade" as a Republican policy.  Because you are right, free trade is great for GDP (and the S&P 500, which most of us around here invest in).  BUT, the reason free trade is good for GDP is because it's good for corporations.  And the reason it's good for corporations is it lets them more easily screw over American workers. 

So if you're pro business (as a party), its a bit of a conundrum.  Because unfettered free trade is undoubtedly good for companies, and just as undoubtedly bad for workers (some more than others).  So which do you support?  Capital, or Labor?  Seems like the working class people are finally waking up to the fact that the things that are good for the corporations are not actually good for the workers, and very little will 'trickle down' to them. 

Aaron Renn describes this as “the decoupling of success in America. Those who are succeeding in America no longer need the overall prosperity of the country to personally do well. They can become enriched as a small, albeit sizable, minority.”

I'm not going to disagree with you.  But considering the accusations of RINO have been flying around for a decade on the right (and don't forget about the rise of the Tea Party), there is very much a shift in the fundamental economic concepts of the right at the grassroots level.

Hopefully that is picked up on by those in power, but I doubt it.  Both sides are bought out so much by special interests that it is going to take drastic steps to remove the reins from a select few with over-sized influence.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 15, 2018, 10:30:49 AM
So MAGA is basically code for "abandon free trade" as a Republican policy.  Because you are right, free trade is great for GDP (and the S&P 500, which most of us around here invest in).  BUT, the reason free trade is good for GDP is because it's good for corporations.  And the reason it's good for corporations is it lets them more easily screw over American workers. 

So if you're pro business (as a party), its a bit of a conundrum.  Because unfettered free trade is undoubtedly good for companies, and just as undoubtedly bad for workers (some more than others).  So which do you support?  Capital, or Labor?  Seems like the working class people are finally waking up to the fact that the things that are good for the corporations are not actually good for the workers, and very little will 'trickle down' to them. 

Aaron Renn describes this as “the decoupling of success in America. Those who are succeeding in America no longer need the overall prosperity of the country to personally do well. They can become enriched as a small, albeit sizable, minority.”

I'm not going to disagree with you.  But considering the accusations of RINO have been flying around for a decade on the right (and don't forget about the rise of the Tea Party), there is very much a shift in the fundamental economic concepts of the right at the grassroots level.

Hopefully that is picked up on by those in power, but I doubt it.  Both sides are bought out so much by special interests that it is going to take drastic steps to remove the reins from a select few with over-sized influence.

The irony, of course (if you study political history) is that the Democrats used to be the party of "the working man".  The Repubs were historically the party of big business, and the Dems were the party of the workers.  And that worked well because there was a balance and a real choice (economically and politically speaking).  But race is such a huge issue in this country, particularly the South, that when the Dems went for being the party of equal opportunity and fighting for minorities, all the working class white voters abandoned the party to become Repubs, who were more than willing to welcome in all the "blue dog dems" as they were known at the time. 

If the Dems are smart, they'll circle back and start re-connecting with their original message of fighting for the working man.  I think they can do it.  I think that's more likely to happen than for the Repubs to suddenly abandon big business, because big business is their bread and butter.  Plus, big business is were the VAST majority of Repub funding comes from. 

Or, maybe a viable 3rd party will finally emerge?  Dunno.

What I do know is that we'd all be safer if we could get this gun issue under control (haha, that's my attempt to keep this tangentially on topic!)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: rocketpj on June 15, 2018, 05:15:42 PM
School shootings, mass shootings assuming the killer is apprehended and confirmed as most are, should have an expedited death penalty. One week from the shooting at the latest and public.

I have read many of the posts here but I feel like these shooters are attempting to emulate the other shooters. That Colorado theater shooter is still in the news, the Florida shooter is getting pallets of fan mail. The media is making them famous and too many are looking to them as role models. Lawyers are trying to find ways to free them, citing insanity or upbringing.

Putting them down in the street, in public, quickly will discourage the next youth from choosing that path and give faster closure to the families of victims.

How many are taken alive anyways?  How many expect to be taken alive?  I think most of these guys go in as a suicide mission and planning to take down as many people as they perceived “wronged” them in the process.

Seems like the only ones taken alive are ones who were too cowardly to off themselves at the end of it.

It seems the notoriety is no small part of it. That should be taken away from them... they should only be referred to as something they'd find denigrating - "soy boy 12" or "tiny hands 11"  and their name somewhat ignored. It wouldn't stop all of them, but it might help. Given the first amendment, not sure how we'd do that though.

I've often thought that there would be a decent benefit to retroactively dig deep into the past and changing the name and all references to a shooter to 'Pathetic Loser'.  Change his birth certificate, school yearbooks, licenses, report cards, everything that ever referred to him.  Make it law (or as close as possible) that all public references describe him as 'the pathetic loser' rather than his name.

It would be costly and in some ways silly, but not as costly as many of the other options.  The whole 'blaze of glory' bullshit would change if you knew that all future and past references to you would not even use your name, but only 'Pathetic loser'.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gaja on June 16, 2018, 07:50:34 AM
School shootings, mass shootings assuming the killer is apprehended and confirmed as most are, should have an expedited death penalty. One week from the shooting at the latest and public.

I have read many of the posts here but I feel like these shooters are attempting to emulate the other shooters. That Colorado theater shooter is still in the news, the Florida shooter is getting pallets of fan mail. The media is making them famous and too many are looking to them as role models. Lawyers are trying to find ways to free them, citing insanity or upbringing.

Putting them down in the street, in public, quickly will discourage the next youth from choosing that path and give faster closure to the families of victims.

How many are taken alive anyways?  How many expect to be taken alive?  I think most of these guys go in as a suicide mission and planning to take down as many people as they perceived “wronged” them in the process.

Seems like the only ones taken alive are ones who were too cowardly to off themselves at the end of it.

It seems the notoriety is no small part of it. That should be taken away from them... they should only be referred to as something they'd find denigrating - "soy boy 12" or "tiny hands 11"  and their name somewhat ignored. It wouldn't stop all of them, but it might help. Given the first amendment, not sure how we'd do that though.

I've often thought that there would be a decent benefit to retroactively dig deep into the past and changing the name and all references to a shooter to 'Pathetic Loser'.  Change his birth certificate, school yearbooks, licenses, report cards, everything that ever referred to him.  Make it law (or as close as possible) that all public references describe him as 'the pathetic loser' rather than his name.

It would be costly and in some ways silly, but not as costly as many of the other options.  The whole 'blaze of glory' bullshit would change if you knew that all future and past references to you would not even use your name, but only 'Pathetic loser'.

This is a much better solution than killing them. The asshole bawbag (ABB) who killed 69 kids on Utψya in Norway was very disappointed that the police didn't kill him when he was arrested. He also fought hard to avoid being declared mentally unfit to stand trial. He dreamt about becoming a martyr, and he would have loved a public execution.

People who kill kids do not think logically. They are not stopped by things that normal (healthy) people fear, like getting killed or hurt.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on June 16, 2018, 08:01:33 PM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

ETA a picture of the rough life he is going to have.

(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01634/Halden-Prison_1634893c.jpg)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 16, 2018, 09:54:48 PM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gaja on June 17, 2018, 01:41:24 AM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

You explained the principle quite well. Our prison system is based on rehabilitation. The day ABB understands what he has done and regrets it, that will be our revenge. Until then, he will be kept locked up for everyone’s safety. Including his own. He has been sentenced to 21 years in prison, and “safeguarding” for life. In reality, he will be locked up the rest of his life. Death penalty would have given him what he wants, now he can stay on living and make a fool of himself.

And I really can’t be bothered to reply seriously  to px4shooter’s comment implying he thinks our jail cells are luxurious. My country has one of the smallest recidivism rates in the world, your has some of the largest.https://www.google.no/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12 We will keep to what works, not what feeds someone’s need for revenge.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on June 17, 2018, 06:26:33 AM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Shane on June 17, 2018, 08:17:35 AM
The film Breaking the Cycle (https://youtu.be/NuLQ4gqB5XE) about Norway's prison system is available on Netflix and for free on YouTube. It's worth the time to watch. Mass incarceration in the US doesn't prevent crime, it creates more of it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 17, 2018, 08:24:45 AM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Kris, the personal attack on px4 is unnecessary.

The first time i heard of restorative justice was an incident in washington stste where they tried it... they had a peace circle, waved burning sage around, and the defendant said he was sorry for all the robberies.  He was released. Two weeks later he stabbed someone to death.

As a concept maybe RJ hss some merit. I wonder what norway does differently?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 17, 2018, 08:37:29 AM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Kris, the personal attack on px4 is unnecessary.

The first time i heard of restorative justice was an incident in washington stste where they tried it... they had a peace circle, waved burning sage around, and the defendant said he was sorry for all the robberies.  He was released. Two weeks later he stabbed someone to death.

As a concept maybe RJ hss some merit. I wonder what norway does differently?

Everything?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 17, 2018, 10:16:54 AM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Kris, the personal attack on px4 is unnecessary.

The first time i heard of restorative justice was an incident in washington stste where they tried it... they had a peace circle, waved burning sage around, and the defendant said he was sorry for all the robberies.  He was released. Two weeks later he stabbed someone to death.

As a concept maybe RJ hss some merit. I wonder what norway does differently?

Everything?

Pretty much! Free education, universal healthcare, a strong sense of community, economic security for everyone (including stay at home folks), for starters.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gaja on June 17, 2018, 11:17:53 AM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Kris, the personal attack on px4 is unnecessary.

The first time i heard of restorative justice was an incident in washington stste where they tried it... they had a peace circle, waved burning sage around, and the defendant said he was sorry for all the robberies.  He was released. Two weeks later he stabbed someone to death.

As a concept maybe RJ hss some merit. I wonder what norway does differently?

I think we must live in different worlds. Restorative justice has nothing to do with waving smoke. It is hard work done by trained professionals, that takes a lot of time and resources. You basically retrain people, so they have the tools needed to be part of the “normal” society. Since  criminality is so expensive, it makes economic sense.

Maybe this is of some help? http://www.kriminalomsorgen.no/information-in-english.265199.no.html
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 17, 2018, 11:20:35 AM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Kris, the personal attack on px4 is unnecessary.

The first time i heard of restorative justice was an incident in washington stste where they tried it... they had a peace circle, waved burning sage around, and the defendant said he was sorry for all the robberies.  He was released. Two weeks later he stabbed someone to death.

As a concept maybe RJ hss some merit. I wonder what norway does differently?

Everything?

Pretty much! Free education, universal healthcare, a strong sense of community, economic security for everyone (including stay at home folks), for starters.

I meant in terms of what is meant by restorative justice but this is relevant as well.

I doubt Norway's system of restorative justice involves burning sage and peace circles so that Washington state example kind of seemed like a way to make fun of the concept. This comment does bring up another part of the equation though. You must acknowledge that the sense of community and strong social programs are significant variables when comparing the US and Norway.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 17, 2018, 11:39:25 AM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Kris, the personal attack on px4 is unnecessary.

The first time i heard of restorative justice was an incident in washington stste where they tried it... they had a peace circle, waved burning sage around, and the defendant said he was sorry for all the robberies.  He was released. Two weeks later he stabbed someone to death.

As a concept maybe RJ hss some merit. I wonder what norway does differently?

Everything?

Pretty much! Free education, universal healthcare, a strong sense of community, economic security for everyone (including stay at home folks), for starters.

I meant in terms of what is meant by restorative justice but this is relevant as well.

I doubt Norway's system of restorative justice involves burning sage and peace circles so that Washington state example kind of seemed like a way to make fun of the concept. This comment does bring up another part of the equation though. You must acknowledge that the sense of community and strong social programs are significant variables when comparing the US and Norway.

Absolutely! Like many other developed nation's that are so much further ahead than us. Not ironically, it also reflects in their lack of gun related incidents.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: px4shooter on June 17, 2018, 10:39:49 PM
I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Restorative is the restoration of what has occurred. How do you restore the murder of dozens of people? While he plays video games each day living in his apartment with two of his new best friends?

This isn't the simple case of damage or theft. When you look at the killing of someone, there is no simple restoration. There may be a reformation, but the restoration won't occur. Restoration has a time and purpose. When you look at cases of murder, there is no restoration. Where there is some relief due to a confession, admission, and apology, restoration is still not the primary form of justice.

The Old Testament was not revenge. It was equality. What you do unto others is done unto you. I know, a terrible idea, right?

Come participate in some alternative sentencing hearings. They are interesting. In the US, our revolving door justice system does little to show the punishment process is even in effect. It takes several trips before a person is actually sentenced to incarceration. These are the times where true alternative processes should be implemented and our system has failed to create a deterrent or help reform the person. I am not a lock the door and toss the key type, but certain crimes deserve that. Kill all those people--- death is the sentence. Rape children- lock em up and toss the key. Mass murderers can't be fixed and surely don't deserve to be free anyways. Child rapists are no different. They are a threat to children as long as they are able to move.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 17, 2018, 10:53:50 PM
And killing all those kids in Norway only got him a 10-21 year sentence. A fine example of a failure of the restorative justice concept.

Not exactly:

Quote
[he] was convicted as charged and sentenced to 21 years of preventive detention in prison (the maximum sentence allowed in Norway), at the expiration of which the sentence can be extended indefinitely, in five year increments at a time, as long as the prisoner is deemed a threat to society.

Maybe someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian legal system can elaborate.

quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

Also, I don't understand how this is "a failure of the restorative justice concept". What indicates the concept has failed in this instance?

I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Kris, the personal attack on px4 is unnecessary.

The first time i heard of restorative justice was an incident in washington stste where they tried it... they had a peace circle, waved burning sage around, and the defendant said he was sorry for all the robberies.  He was released. Two weeks later he stabbed someone to death.

As a concept maybe RJ hss some merit. I wonder what norway does differently?

Everything?

Pretty much! Free education, universal healthcare, a strong sense of community, economic security for everyone (including stay at home folks), for starters.

I meant in terms of what is meant by restorative justice but this is relevant as well.

I doubt Norway's system of restorative justice involves burning sage and peace circles so that Washington state example kind of seemed like a way to make fun of the concept. This comment does bring up another part of the equation though. You must acknowledge that the sense of community and strong social programs are significant variables when comparing the US and Norway.

No, I brought it up to show what moonbat leftists have tried to foist on the American public while calling it "restorative justice."  In this case, it seemed like restorative justice was another term for a policy of not holding people accountable for their actions. It sounds like restorative justice is infact something else, I was curious what it really meant.  I'll see what the link posted has to say about it.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on June 18, 2018, 05:57:02 AM
I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Restorative is the restoration of what has occurred. How do you restore the murder of dozens of people? While he plays video games each day living in his apartment with two of his new best friends?

This isn't the simple case of damage or theft. When you look at the killing of someone, there is no simple restoration. There may be a reformation, but the restoration won't occur. Restoration has a time and purpose. When you look at cases of murder, there is no restoration. Where there is some relief due to a confession, admission, and apology, restoration is still not the primary form of justice.

The Old Testament was not revenge. It was equality. What you do unto others is done unto you. I know, a terrible idea, right?

Come participate in some alternative sentencing hearings. They are interesting. In the US, our revolving door justice system does little to show the punishment process is even in effect. It takes several trips before a person is actually sentenced to incarceration. These are the times where true alternative processes should be implemented and our system has failed to create a deterrent or help reform the person. I am not a lock the door and toss the key type, but certain crimes deserve that. Kill all those people--- death is the sentence. Rape children- lock em up and toss the key. Mass murderers can't be fixed and surely don't deserve to be free anyways. Child rapists are no different. They are a threat to children as long as they are able to move.

As I said, it sounded like you did not understand the concept of restorative justice.

Thank you for confirming that.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 18, 2018, 06:46:04 AM
I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Restorative is the restoration of what has occurred. How do you restore the murder of dozens of people? While he plays video games each day living in his apartment with two of his new best friends?

This isn't the simple case of damage or theft. When you look at the killing of someone, there is no simple restoration. There may be a reformation, but the restoration won't occur. Restoration has a time and purpose. When you look at cases of murder, there is no restoration. Where there is some relief due to a confession, admission, and apology, restoration is still not the primary form of justice.

The Old Testament was not revenge. It was equality. What you do unto others is done unto you. I know, a terrible idea, right?

Come participate in some alternative sentencing hearings. They are interesting. In the US, our revolving door justice system does little to show the punishment process is even in effect. It takes several trips before a person is actually sentenced to incarceration. These are the times where true alternative processes should be implemented and our system has failed to create a deterrent or help reform the person. I am not a lock the door and toss the key type, but certain crimes deserve that. Kill all those people--- death is the sentence. Rape children- lock em up and toss the key. Mass murderers can't be fixed and surely don't deserve to be free anyways. Child rapists are no different. They are a threat to children as long as they are able to move.

It's like you glossed right over Gaja's comment.

Perhaps you should consider Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20% while in the US 76.6% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years. Guess they are doing something right.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on June 18, 2018, 09:13:39 AM
Mass shooting last night--1 dead (one of the gunmen), 17 injured by gunfire (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/nyregion/trenton-mass-shooting.html).  The gunman who died was a convicted felon.  Authorities say it was gang-related.

In Seattle, a good guy with a gun story (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/breaking-gunfire-reported-at-tumwater-walmart-law-enforcement-on-the-scene/).  Well, actually two good guys with guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 18, 2018, 09:17:05 AM
I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Restorative is the restoration of what has occurred. How do you restore the murder of dozens of people? While he plays video games each day living in his apartment with two of his new best friends?

This isn't the simple case of damage or theft. When you look at the killing of someone, there is no simple restoration. There may be a reformation, but the restoration won't occur. Restoration has a time and purpose. When you look at cases of murder, there is no restoration. Where there is some relief due to a confession, admission, and apology, restoration is still not the primary form of justice.

The Old Testament was not revenge. It was equality. What you do unto others is done unto you. I know, a terrible idea, right?

Come participate in some alternative sentencing hearings. They are interesting. In the US, our revolving door justice system does little to show the punishment process is even in effect. It takes several trips before a person is actually sentenced to incarceration. These are the times where true alternative processes should be implemented and our system has failed to create a deterrent or help reform the person. I am not a lock the door and toss the key type, but certain crimes deserve that. Kill all those people--- death is the sentence. Rape children- lock em up and toss the key. Mass murderers can't be fixed and surely don't deserve to be free anyways. Child rapists are no different. They are a threat to children as long as they are able to move.

According to that logic, if killers should be killed as the punishment fits the crime, then the punishment for child rape, or any rape for that matter, is not to be locked up and the key thrown away.  Per the OT principle you invoked, such people should themselves be raped.  At least once.  And maybe more.

Personally I find such an idea repulsive.  But then again I feel the same way about using murder as punishment, too.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: gaja on June 18, 2018, 05:37:31 PM
I'm not at all sure Px4 understands the words "restorative" or "justice." What he wants is called "revenge." Not the same thing. And since Norway's system doesn't look like Old Testament revenge (eye for an eye death penalty) he seems unable to widen his brain enough to encompass that their concept is different.

Restorative is the restoration of what has occurred. How do you restore the murder of dozens of people? While he plays video games each day living in his apartment with two of his new best friends?

This isn't the simple case of damage or theft. When you look at the killing of someone, there is no simple restoration. There may be a reformation, but the restoration won't occur. Restoration has a time and purpose. When you look at cases of murder, there is no restoration. Where there is some relief due to a confession, admission, and apology, restoration is still not the primary form of justice.

The Old Testament was not revenge. It was equality. What you do unto others is done unto you. I know, a terrible idea, right?

Come participate in some alternative sentencing hearings. They are interesting. In the US, our revolving door justice system does little to show the punishment process is even in effect. It takes several trips before a person is actually sentenced to incarceration. These are the times where true alternative processes should be implemented and our system has failed to create a deterrent or help reform the person. I am not a lock the door and toss the key type, but certain crimes deserve that. Kill all those people--- death is the sentence. Rape children- lock em up and toss the key. Mass murderers can't be fixed and surely don't deserve to be free anyways. Child rapists are no different. They are a threat to children as long as they are able to move.

A lot of americans look at our system and see naive do-gooders. What they, and likely you, fail to grasp, is that our system is built by cold hearted economists. I don’t know the English term, but everything we do is based on “societal economic calculations”. Every human has a cost, through the cost of their birth, healthcare, education, use of common resources like roads and governance, etc. If that person grows up to work and pay taxes, we might end up with a net gain. If they get too sick to work, or become addicted to drugs, or become criminals, we are looking at a net loss. And those costs can be very large.

Killing off someone you have spent substantial resources on, would be wasteful. Some cases might be hopeless, but this is a big number’s game. For every person we can turn back into a tax payer, the net profit over a lifetime makes it worth while.

And then there is the deterrent effect; for the type of crimes we are discussing here, the research seems to indicate that you can’t scare people off doing it by adding harsh punishments. That can work against economic criminality, speeding, and other types of crime where you are weighing the pros (short time gain) and cons (high fines or jail). By killing them or punishing them very harshly, you can make a sort of hero in certain environments. This can be avoided by letting them show themselves as the idiots they are. And if you can get them to the point where they admit they were wrong, that can be used for propaganda.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 18, 2018, 06:37:06 PM
Mass shooting last night--1 dead (one of the gunmen), 17 injured by gunfire (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/nyregion/trenton-mass-shooting.html).  The gunman who died was a convicted felon.  Authorities say it was gang-related.

In Seattle, a good guy with a gun story (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/breaking-gunfire-reported-at-tumwater-walmart-law-enforcement-on-the-scene/).  Well, actually two good guys with guns.

So, from the stories you posted, after all is tallied up . . .

Net benefit of gun availability: 1 car saved
Net disadvantage of gun availability: 2 dead, 19 injured

Which side are you arguing for again?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on June 18, 2018, 08:31:00 PM
Mass shooting last night--1 dead (one of the gunmen), 17 injured by gunfire (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/nyregion/trenton-mass-shooting.html).  The gunman who died was a convicted felon.  Authorities say it was gang-related.

In Seattle, a good guy with a gun story (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/breaking-gunfire-reported-at-tumwater-walmart-law-enforcement-on-the-scene/).  Well, actually two good guys with guns.

So, from the stories you posted, after all is tallied up . . .

Net benefit of gun availability: 1 car saved
Net disadvantage of gun availability: 2 dead, 19 injured

Which side are you arguing for again?
I'd say that "gun availability to law-abiding citizens" would move those two dead into the "benefit" column, along with a fair number of injuries avoided, plus the prevention of the crimes those two deceased individuals would have committed through the rest of their lives had they been left unopposed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 19, 2018, 05:50:27 AM
Mass shooting last night--1 dead (one of the gunmen), 17 injured by gunfire (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/nyregion/trenton-mass-shooting.html).  The gunman who died was a convicted felon.  Authorities say it was gang-related.

In Seattle, a good guy with a gun story (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/breaking-gunfire-reported-at-tumwater-walmart-law-enforcement-on-the-scene/).  Well, actually two good guys with guns.

So, from the stories you posted, after all is tallied up . . .

Net benefit of gun availability: 1 car saved
Net disadvantage of gun availability: 2 dead, 19 injured

Which side are you arguing for again?
I'd say that "gun availability to law-abiding citizens" would move those two dead into the "benefit" column, along with a fair number of injuries avoided, plus the prevention of the crimes those two deceased individuals would have committed through the rest of their lives had they been left unopposed.

Amazing how you can spin a mass shooting into something positive. Hey 17 people were shot and multiple injured during the ensuing stampede, but let's look at what could have happened and spin this into a win for "good guys with guns." Man that is some twisted fucked up logic.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ncornilsen on June 19, 2018, 07:47:02 AM
Mass shooting last night--1 dead (one of the gunmen), 17 injured by gunfire (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/nyregion/trenton-mass-shooting.html).  The gunman who died was a convicted felon.  Authorities say it was gang-related.

In Seattle, a good guy with a gun story (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/breaking-gunfire-reported-at-tumwater-walmart-law-enforcement-on-the-scene/).  Well, actually two good guys with guns.

So, from the stories you posted, after all is tallied up . . .

Net benefit of gun availability: 1 car saved
Net disadvantage of gun availability: 2 dead, 19 injured

Which side are you arguing for again?
I'd say that "gun availability to law-abiding citizens" would move those two dead into the "benefit" column, along with a fair number of injuries avoided, plus the prevention of the crimes those two deceased individuals would have committed through the rest of their lives had they been left unopposed.

Amazing how you can spin a mass shooting into something positive. Hey 17 people were shot and multiple injured during the ensuing stampede, but let's look at what could have happened and spin this into a win for "good guys with guns." Man that is some twisted fucked up logic.

That math is a bit suspect in my mind... clearly the shootings certainly weren't positive things, but someone who was shooting people was stopped by armed citizens. Stopping a criminal with clear murderous intent IS a positive thing. Unless you were willing to gamble that the third, or fourth victim of the carjacker was only going to be seriously injured, not killed?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on June 19, 2018, 07:47:16 AM
Mass shooting last night--1 dead (one of the gunmen), 17 injured by gunfire (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/nyregion/trenton-mass-shooting.html).  The gunman who died was a convicted felon.  Authorities say it was gang-related.

In Seattle, a good guy with a gun story (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/breaking-gunfire-reported-at-tumwater-walmart-law-enforcement-on-the-scene/).  Well, actually two good guys with guns.

So, from the stories you posted, after all is tallied up . . .

Net benefit of gun availability: 1 car saved
Net disadvantage of gun availability: 2 dead, 19 injured

Which side are you arguing for again?
I'd say that "gun availability to law-abiding citizens" would move those two dead into the "benefit" column, along with a fair number of injuries avoided, plus the prevention of the crimes those two deceased individuals would have committed through the rest of their lives had they been left unopposed.

Amazing how you can spin a mass shooting into something positive. Hey 17 people were shot and multiple injured during the ensuing stampede, but let's look at what could have happened and spin this into a win for "good guys with guns." Man that is some twisted fucked up logic.
I re-read my post, and I don't see where you get the "something positive."  I would much prefer a world where two people didn't get killed and 24 injured.  But I also recognize that such is not the world we live in.  Since that ideal isn't available to us, we must look to the best (or least-bad) outcome among those that *are* available.  In this case, two would-be murders dead instead of a much larger number of intended victims is a net positive.  I absolutely wish those two individuals had chosen a better path in life, and that nobody would have been injured or killed.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on June 19, 2018, 08:03:25 AM
Mass shooting last night--1 dead (one of the gunmen), 17 injured by gunfire (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/nyregion/trenton-mass-shooting.html).  The gunman who died was a convicted felon.  Authorities say it was gang-related.

In Seattle, a good guy with a gun story (https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/breaking-gunfire-reported-at-tumwater-walmart-law-enforcement-on-the-scene/).  Well, actually two good guys with guns.

So, from the stories you posted, after all is tallied up . . .

Net benefit of gun availability: 1 car saved
Net disadvantage of gun availability: 2 dead, 19 injured

Which side are you arguing for again?
I'd say that "gun availability to law-abiding citizens" would move those two dead into the "benefit" column, along with a fair number of injuries avoided, plus the prevention of the crimes those two deceased individuals would have committed through the rest of their lives had they been left unopposed.

Amazing how you can spin a mass shooting into something positive. Hey 17 people were shot and multiple injured during the ensuing stampede, but let's look at what could have happened and spin this into a win for "good guys with guns." Man that is some twisted fucked up logic.
I re-read my post, and I don't see where you get the "something positive."  I would much prefer a world where two people didn't get killed and 24 injured.  But I also recognize that such is not the world we live in.  Since that ideal isn't available to us, we must look to the best (or least-bad) outcome among those that *are* available.  In this case, two would-be murders dead instead of a much larger number of intended victims is a net positive.  I absolutely wish those two individuals had chosen a better path in life, and that nobody would have been injured or killed.
And many of us have been suggesting putting our energy to figuring exactly why this is versus saying guns helped save people.  Because you know what, this is the world much of the rest of the planet is living in, where 2 people are not killed and 24 injured because of whatever is causing people in our country to do these things at a rate that exceeds what happens elsewhere. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 08:12:23 AM

And many of us have been suggesting putting our energy to figuring exactly why this is versus saying guns helped save people.  Because you know what, this is the world much of the rest of the planet is living in, where 2 people are not killed and 24 injured because of whatever is causing people in our country to do these things at a rate that exceeds what happens elsewhere.

Well, here you go:

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

That gets you started.

And that's why indulging in this fantasyland of outlawing guns and rounding them up is simple liberal masturbation and a giant waste of time.  That's not the world (country) we live in.  And that's why law abiding gun owners don't want to give theirs up, because they recognize and understand this, that it's better to not let the criminals be the only guys with guns because they aren't going away.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on June 19, 2018, 08:17:56 AM

And many of us have been suggesting putting our energy to figuring exactly why this is versus saying guns helped save people.  Because you know what, this is the world much of the rest of the planet is living in, where 2 people are not killed and 24 injured because of whatever is causing people in our country to do these things at a rate that exceeds what happens elsewhere.

Well, here you go:

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

That gets you started.

And that's why indulging in this fantasyland of outlawing guns and rounding them up is simple liberal masturbation and a giant waste of time.  That's not the world (country) we live in.  And that's why law abiding gun owners don't want to give theirs up, because they recognize and understand this, that it's better to not let the criminals be the only guys with guns because they aren't going away.
Well, here you go:

1. Stop leaping to removing guns being the only solution and therefore we should just not actually work and think of a solution.

I never said in this instance that the goal was to ban or even curtail weapons.  The goal is to stop having this crap happen in our country when it does not in others.  Are you saying the reason it does not happen elsewhere is because they have banned guns?  If so, then I guess you are right in suggesting that guns are the cause.  But my guess is that is not what you are suggesting, you are just responding poorly.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 08:20:55 AM

And many of us have been suggesting putting our energy to figuring exactly why this is versus saying guns helped save people.  Because you know what, this is the world much of the rest of the planet is living in, where 2 people are not killed and 24 injured because of whatever is causing people in our country to do these things at a rate that exceeds what happens elsewhere.

Well, here you go:

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

That gets you started.

And that's why indulging in this fantasyland of outlawing guns and rounding them up is simple liberal masturbation and a giant waste of time.  That's not the world (country) we live in.  And that's why law abiding gun owners don't want to give theirs up, because they recognize and understand this, that it's better to not let the criminals be the only guys with guns because they aren't going away.
Well, here you go:

1. Stop leaping to removing guns being the only solution and therefore we should just not actually work and think of a solution.

I never said in this instance that the goal was to ban or even curtail weapons.  The goal is to stop having this crap happen in our country when it does not in others.  Are you saying the reason it does not happen elsewhere is because they have banned guns?  If so, then I guess you are right in suggesting that guns are the cause.  But my guess is that is not what you are suggesting, you are just responding poorly.

Hey, we're in agreement!

Now just get the rest of the gun grabbers on board and we're in business. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 09:40:53 AM

And many of us have been suggesting putting our energy to figuring exactly why this is versus saying guns helped save people.  Because you know what, this is the world much of the rest of the planet is living in, where 2 people are not killed and 24 injured because of whatever is causing people in our country to do these things at a rate that exceeds what happens elsewhere.

Well, here you go:

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

That gets you started.

And that's why indulging in this fantasyland of outlawing guns and rounding them up is simple liberal masturbation and a giant waste of time.  That's not the world (country) we live in.  And that's why law abiding gun owners don't want to give theirs up, because they recognize and understand this, that it's better to not let the criminals be the only guys with guns because they aren't going away.
Well, here you go:

1. Stop leaping to removing guns being the only solution and therefore we should just not actually work and think of a solution.

I never said in this instance that the goal was to ban or even curtail weapons.  The goal is to stop having this crap happen in our country when it does not in others.  Are you saying the reason it does not happen elsewhere is because they have banned guns?  If so, then I guess you are right in suggesting that guns are the cause.  But my guess is that is not what you are suggesting, you are just responding poorly.

Hey, we're in agreement!

Now just get the rest of the gun grabbers on board and we're in business.

A small minority of the US supports a complete ban and a small number of people have suggested support for such a thing on this forum. Those that have cite frustration with lack of compromise from the GRA crowd. I don't agree with that reasoning, but the point is this argument (and many of your arguments on this topic) are against things that don't exist.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on June 19, 2018, 09:44:25 AM

And many of us have been suggesting putting our energy to figuring exactly why this is versus saying guns helped save people.  Because you know what, this is the world much of the rest of the planet is living in, where 2 people are not killed and 24 injured because of whatever is causing people in our country to do these things at a rate that exceeds what happens elsewhere.

Well, here you go:

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

That gets you started.

And that's why indulging in this fantasyland of outlawing guns and rounding them up is simple liberal masturbation and a giant waste of time.  That's not the world (country) we live in.  And that's why law abiding gun owners don't want to give theirs up, because they recognize and understand this, that it's better to not let the criminals be the only guys with guns because they aren't going away.
Well, here you go:

1. Stop leaping to removing guns being the only solution and therefore we should just not actually work and think of a solution.

I never said in this instance that the goal was to ban or even curtail weapons.  The goal is to stop having this crap happen in our country when it does not in others.  Are you saying the reason it does not happen elsewhere is because they have banned guns?  If so, then I guess you are right in suggesting that guns are the cause.  But my guess is that is not what you are suggesting, you are just responding poorly.

Hey, we're in agreement!

Now just get the rest of the gun grabbers on board and we're in business.

A small minority of the US supports a complete ban and a small number of people have suggested support for such a thing on this forum. Those that have cite frustration with lack of compromise from the GRA crowd. I don't agree with that reasoning, but the point is this argument (and many of your arguments on this topic) are against things that don't exist.

Yes, but if one constantly argues against something that doesn't exist, one can permanently avoid a discussion of any real substance regarding trying to change the status quo re gun violence.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TrudgingAlong on June 19, 2018, 09:55:15 AM
The core problem with this whole “good guy” belief is the giant fallacy of human nature. People aren’t born good or bad. I get that it’s probably very satisfying to strap on a weapon every morning and feel like you are one of the “good” ones, that your kids will never be “those” kids. I bet everyone who knew the Vegas shooter thought that. I find it so interesting that when they couldn’t come up with a good mental health angle, everyone stopped talking about that guy. He’s one of yours. Which is why just allowing anyone who wants to be armed is not seen as a great answer. A huge part of this problem is all these “good guys” allowing their weapons to get in the wrong hands. Including their own children.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 09:58:30 AM

And many of us have been suggesting putting our energy to figuring exactly why this is versus saying guns helped save people.  Because you know what, this is the world much of the rest of the planet is living in, where 2 people are not killed and 24 injured because of whatever is causing people in our country to do these things at a rate that exceeds what happens elsewhere.

Well, here you go:

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

That gets you started.

And that's why indulging in this fantasyland of outlawing guns and rounding them up is simple liberal masturbation and a giant waste of time.  That's not the world (country) we live in.  And that's why law abiding gun owners don't want to give theirs up, because they recognize and understand this, that it's better to not let the criminals be the only guys with guns because they aren't going away.
Well, here you go:

1. Stop leaping to removing guns being the only solution and therefore we should just not actually work and think of a solution.

I never said in this instance that the goal was to ban or even curtail weapons.  The goal is to stop having this crap happen in our country when it does not in others.  Are you saying the reason it does not happen elsewhere is because they have banned guns?  If so, then I guess you are right in suggesting that guns are the cause.  But my guess is that is not what you are suggesting, you are just responding poorly.

Hey, we're in agreement!

Now just get the rest of the gun grabbers on board and we're in business.

A small minority of the US supports a complete ban and a small number of people have suggested support for such a thing on this forum. Those that have cite frustration with lack of compromise from the GRA crowd. I don't agree with that reasoning, but the point is this argument (and many of your arguments on this topic) are against things that don't exist.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 19, 2018, 10:08:06 AM
Ah yes, the old "There's certainly no difference in deadliness between a heavy machine gun and a BB gun, so restricting sales of the former is the same as restricting sales of the latter" argument.  I know that GRA folks typically think that anyone who doesn't hold their point of view is an idiot regarding firearms . . . but that belief leads to some laughably bad logic, as demonstrated by Chris.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on June 19, 2018, 10:20:53 AM
Ah yes, the old "There's certainly no difference in deadliness between a heavy machine gun and a BB gun, so restricting sales of the former is the same as restricting sales of the latter" argument.  I know that GRA folks typically think that anyone who doesn't hold their point of view is an idiot regarding firearms . . . but that belief leads to some laughably bad logic, as demonstrated by Chris.

Except the lines are drawn so low that every gun of mine is illegal in California.  Including my .22, laughably so.

If you are going to make every gun or a vast majority of guns illegal for millions of gun owners, it is basically the same thing.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 19, 2018, 10:21:50 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 10:48:35 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

Well, it didn't take long to get back into fantasyland, did it?  Sweet jesus.

If someone made a magical fairy wand that, if waved, would make all guns disappear from the world, yes, 2A supporters would have to take a very long look in the mirror and think about the ramifications of using that.

Absent that, in the real world where all of us live, there exists no possible method to "just get rid of the sharks."  All you can do is disarm the law abiding.  And THAT is untenable. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 19, 2018, 10:54:14 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

Well, it didn't take long to get back into fantasyland, did it?  Sweet jesus.

If someone made a magical fairy wand that, if waved, would make all guns disappear from the world, yes, 2A supporters would have to take a very long look in the mirror and think about the ramifications of using that.

Absent that, in the real world where all of us live, there exists no possible method to "just get rid of the sharks."  All you can do is disarm the law abiding.  And THAT is untenable.

Hey, at least we agree in principle that removing guns from the system is the safest option.  We only disagree about the practicality.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 11:00:59 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

Well, it didn't take long to get back into fantasyland, did it?  Sweet jesus.

If someone made a magical fairy wand that, if waved, would make all guns disappear from the world, yes, 2A supporters would have to take a very long look in the mirror and think about the ramifications of using that.

Absent that, in the real world where all of us live, there exists no possible method to "just get rid of the sharks."  All you can do is disarm the law abiding.  And THAT is untenable.

Hey, at least we agree in principle that removing guns from the system is the safest option.  We only disagree about the practicality.

Love to see your plan.

Also, it's safe for me because I'm a relatively young, fit, largish able-bodied man.  Nobody looks at me and thinks "soft target".  Plus I'm straight and white and Protestant.  For all their talk about protecting minorities, the left never really understands the best way for a person to protect themselves if they are for instance a minority who might be targeted for abuse or harassment is with the 2A. 

Check out something like pinkpistols.org sometime. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ematicic on June 19, 2018, 11:04:00 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 19, 2018, 11:21:37 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

Well, it didn't take long to get back into fantasyland, did it?  Sweet jesus.

If someone made a magical fairy wand that, if waved, would make all guns disappear from the world, yes, 2A supporters would have to take a very long look in the mirror and think about the ramifications of using that.

Absent that, in the real world where all of us live, there exists no possible method to "just get rid of the sharks."  All you can do is disarm the law abiding.  And THAT is untenable.

Hey, at least we agree in principle that removing guns from the system is the safest option.  We only disagree about the practicality.

Love to see your plan.

Also, it's safe for me because I'm a relatively young, fit, largish able-bodied man.  Nobody looks at me and thinks "soft target".  Plus I'm straight and white and Protestant.  For all their talk about protecting minorities, the left never really understands the best way for a person to protect themselves if they are for instance a minority who might be targeted for abuse or harassment is with the 2A. 

Check out something like pinkpistols.org sometime.

Cases like Philando Castile's would seem to argue that carrying a gun isn't safe for minorities.  The fact that there has been no outcry over the case from GRAs and the NRA shows how hollow and false this 'protect the minorities' sentiment really is.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 11:24:56 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

Well, it didn't take long to get back into fantasyland, did it?  Sweet jesus.

If someone made a magical fairy wand that, if waved, would make all guns disappear from the world, yes, 2A supporters would have to take a very long look in the mirror and think about the ramifications of using that.

Absent that, in the real world where all of us live, there exists no possible method to "just get rid of the sharks."  All you can do is disarm the law abiding.  And THAT is untenable.

Hey, at least we agree in principle that removing guns from the system is the safest option.  We only disagree about the practicality.

Love to see your plan.

Also, it's safe for me because I'm a relatively young, fit, largish able-bodied man.  Nobody looks at me and thinks "soft target".  Plus I'm straight and white and Protestant.  For all their talk about protecting minorities, the left never really understands the best way for a person to protect themselves if they are for instance a minority who might be targeted for abuse or harassment is with the 2A. 

Check out something like pinkpistols.org sometime.

Cases like Philando Castile's would seem to argue that carrying a gun isn't safe for minorities.  The fact that there has been no outcry over the case from GRAs and the NRA shows how hollow and false this 'protect the minorities' sentiment really is.

Quote
Loesch pointed out in her Thursday tweet that Castile was breaking the law by having a controlled substance in his possession at the time of the shooting. According to a memo filed during Yanez's case by his attorneys, Castile was a regular marijuana user and had high levels of THC in his system when he died.

According to the memo, Castile lied on his application for his firearm permit by denying he was "unlawful user of any controlled substance." It is a felony to be in possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm, even if lawfully in possession of the gun.

Yanez testified that the car smelled like marijuana when he pulled Castile over, and later on, Castile's fiancι Diamond Reynolds told police they had smoked marijuana before being pulled over, and had the drug in their car.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dana-loesch-explains-why-the-nra-didnt-defend-philando-castile
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ematicic on June 19, 2018, 11:34:20 AM
Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/3-killed-12-wounded-in-shootings-in-chicago-monday/

Three people were killed and 13 others were wounded in shootings across the city between about 1 a.m. and 11 p.m. Monday.

By 5 a.m., 11 people had been shot.

The most recent fatal shooting happened about 1:35 p.m. in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

Anthony Perry, 30, was shot in the chest and abdomen about 1:35 p.m. in the 500 block of North Laramie after getting into an argument with a group of four males, according to Chicago Police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, authorities said. He lived in the Lawndale neighborhood.

Witnesses told police they saw four males running away from the scene, police said. Area North detectives were investigating.

Five people were shot, two fatally, minutes after the sun rose in the University Village neighborhood on the Near West Side.

The shooting happened about 4:50 a.m. after a party at the ABLA/Brooks Homes in the 1300 block of South Loomis, police said.

Shalonza E. McToy, 22, was discovered at 1400 South Washburne and was pronounced dead at the scene, according to police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. She had been shot in the head, chest, left arm and ear.

Erin Carey, 17, was shot multiple times in the head and was taken by paramedics to Stroger Hospital in “very critical” condition. The boy died about 1:15 a.m. Tuesday at the hospital, according to authorities.

When officers arrived at the scene, a 21-year-old man and a 23-year-old man ran up to a police car. The younger man had been shot in the right calf and the older man suffered a gunshot wound to the right arm. Paramedics took both men to Stroger where their conditions had stabilized.

A 23-year-old man was taken to Mount Sinai hospital by his girlfriend where he was his condition stabilized. He had been shot multiple times in the abdomen, police said. Area Central detectives were conducting a homicide investigation.

The two most recent non-fatal shootings both happened in the Albany Park neighborhood on the Northwest Side.

At 11:02 p.m., a 33-year-old man was walking when he got into an argument with someone who fired a shot, striking him in the leg at 11:02 p.m. in the 4700 block of North Kimball, according to police.

He took himself to Swedish Covenant Hospital and was transferred to Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where his condition was stabilized, police said.

About 10:42 p.m., a 30-year-old man was sitting in a vehicle with two friends when someone walked up and fired shots in the 3400 block of West Montrose, striking him in the torso, according to police. He was taken to Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where his condition stabilized, police said.

About 7:55 p.m., a 28-year-old man was wounded in a shooting in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

The man was walking in the 100 block of North Parkside when he was shot in the chest, according to police. He did not know where the shots came from.

He was taken to Loretto Hospital, where his condition stabilized, police said.

Another man was shot about 4:20 p.m. in the South Side Woodlawn neighborhood.

The 29-year-old was driving a vehicle west in the 1600 block of East 67th Street about 4:20 p.m. when a small, black SUV pulled up and two people got out and opened fire, according to police.

He suffered a gunshot wound to the hand and drove himself to University of Chicago Medical Center, where his condition stabilized, police said.

A 44-year-old man was shot during a carjacking in the East Garfield Park neighborhood on the West Side about 5:10 a.m.

The carjacker shot the man in his abdomen and then stole his vehicle  in the 700 block of North Monticello. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in serious condition, police said.

Earlier in the morning, two men were seriously wounded in separate shootings in the Englewood neighborhood on the South Side.

A 37-year-old man was standing outside when he heard gunfire and was shot in the back about 4:30 a.m., in the 6600 block of South Justine Street. He was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center, where he was in serious condition, police said.

Another man was seriously wounded in Englewood about 2:40 a.m.

The 30-year-old was traveling in a vehicle in the 6000 block of South Racine when someone in a a vehicle following the man pulled out a weapon and fired shots, striking the man in the face, police said.

He took himself to Saint Bernard Hospital, where he was in serious condition.

Five minutes earlier, a 20-year-old woman was shot multiple times in the South Side Avalon Park neighborhood.

Witnesses told police they heard shots and found the woman lying in the street about 2:35 a.m. in the 1100 block of East 83rd Street. She was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center, where her condition stabilized. She had been shot multiple times in her head, leg, arm and hand, police said.

Five minutes before that, a 33-year-old man was shot in the Park Manor neighborhood on the South Side.

About 2:30 a.m., the man was arguing with someone about money in the 7400 block of South Perry Avenue, according to police. The other person pulled out a weapon and shot the man in his chest.

He was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center in critical condition, police said.

The first non-fatal shooting of the day happened about 1:10 a.m. A 22-year-old man was taking out his garbage when someone in a passing vehicle fired shots in the 2600 block of South Homan Avenue in the Little Village neighborhood, police said.

He was struck in his leg and was taken in fair condition to Mount Sinai Hospital, police said. Area Central detectives were investigating the shooting.

On Sunday, three people were killed and 16 others were wounded by gun violence.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 19, 2018, 11:41:45 AM
That just proves my point Chris.  Smelling weed in a car is no reason for an officer to shoot someone dead.

Castille is dead because he was a minority carrying a gun . . . which you're saying makes people safer.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 19, 2018, 11:57:03 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

Well, it didn't take long to get back into fantasyland, did it?  Sweet jesus.

If someone made a magical fairy wand that, if waved, would make all guns disappear from the world, yes, 2A supporters would have to take a very long look in the mirror and think about the ramifications of using that.

Absent that, in the real world where all of us live, there exists no possible method to "just get rid of the sharks."  All you can do is disarm the law abiding.  And THAT is untenable.

Hey, at least we agree in principle that removing guns from the system is the safest option.  We only disagree about the practicality.

Love to see your plan.

Also, it's safe for me because I'm a relatively young, fit, largish able-bodied man.  Nobody looks at me and thinks "soft target".  Plus I'm straight and white and Protestant.  For all their talk about protecting minorities, the left never really understands the best way for a person to protect themselves if they are for instance a minority who might be targeted for abuse or harassment is with the 2A. 

Check out something like pinkpistols.org sometime.

When are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence proving that owning a gun DOES NOT make you safer? It's technically not untenable to disarm the law abiding. Repeal the 2A and ban firearms. Those owning a firearm are now no longer law abiding. Not saying I support such a move, but it's absolutely possible. And you never know, as law abiding gun owners continue to fuel gun violence at an alarming rate, such a move could gain support in the future. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 19, 2018, 12:09:21 PM
Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Ah.  Lots of shootings in Chicago.  That must mean that the gun control laws Chicago has don't work, right?

Well, it turns out that the majority (by a safe margin) of the guns recovered from Chicago crimes come from other states.  States without strong gun laws.  Lax gun laws impact people far away from the states that legislate them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 12:12:58 PM

And many of us have been suggesting putting our energy to figuring exactly why this is versus saying guns helped save people.  Because you know what, this is the world much of the rest of the planet is living in, where 2 people are not killed and 24 injured because of whatever is causing people in our country to do these things at a rate that exceeds what happens elsewhere.

Well, here you go:

Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

That gets you started.

And that's why indulging in this fantasyland of outlawing guns and rounding them up is simple liberal masturbation and a giant waste of time.  That's not the world (country) we live in.  And that's why law abiding gun owners don't want to give theirs up, because they recognize and understand this, that it's better to not let the criminals be the only guys with guns because they aren't going away.
Well, here you go:

1. Stop leaping to removing guns being the only solution and therefore we should just not actually work and think of a solution.

I never said in this instance that the goal was to ban or even curtail weapons.  The goal is to stop having this crap happen in our country when it does not in others.  Are you saying the reason it does not happen elsewhere is because they have banned guns?  If so, then I guess you are right in suggesting that guns are the cause.  But my guess is that is not what you are suggesting, you are just responding poorly.

Hey, we're in agreement!

Now just get the rest of the gun grabbers on board and we're in business.

A small minority of the US supports a complete ban and a small number of people have suggested support for such a thing on this forum. Those that have cite frustration with lack of compromise from the GRA crowd. I don't agree with that reasoning, but the point is this argument (and many of your arguments on this topic) are against things that don't exist.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

Quote
Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote
Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

Step 2 would be a significantly smaller number but I accept that the transition could take many years. Still, it's not uncommon for mass shooters to purchase weapons shortly before they plan to use them.

Step 3 may still apply, but it would almost certainly increase the difficulty and cost of obtaining banned guns. I agree that we can't stop an individual from doing something 100% of the time; where there's a will, there's a way. But it's fairly obvious on a societal level people are lazy and most choose the path of least resistance.

*I recognize the complexity and that there are common misconceptions about what an assault weapon is. In this context I am using it to represent guns which are actually more dangerous and not just guns that look more dangerous. The specifics should be decided by experts.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 12:13:48 PM
Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Ah.  Lots of shootings in Chicago.  That must mean that the gun control laws Chicago has don't work, right?

Well, it turns out that the majority (by a safe margin) of the guns recovered from Chicago crimes come from other states.  States without strong gun laws.  Lax gun laws impact people far away from the states that legislate them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280)

Well obviously Chicago needs to build themselves a wall.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 12:23:59 PM
That just proves my point Chris.  Smelling weed in a car is no reason for an officer to shoot someone dead.

Castille is dead because he was a minority carrying a gun . . . which you're saying makes people safer.

Smelling weed doesn't justify shooting someone, however do you understand your demand that the NRA defend him is ridiculous?

If they defend him, they're defending someone who lied on their 4473, and who carried under the influence, and who according to the law, shouldn't have a gun.

If they don't defend him, they're a racist organization.

Nice choice you've attempted to give them.  Staying quiet is their only option.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ematicic on June 19, 2018, 12:26:01 PM
Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Ah.  Lots of shootings in Chicago.  That must mean that the gun control laws Chicago has don't work, right?

Well, it turns out that the majority (by a safe margin) of the guns recovered from Chicago crimes come from other states.  States without strong gun laws.  Lax gun laws impact people far away from the states that legislate them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280)

Well obviously Chicago needs to build themselves a wall.

They need something. Did you read all of the violence, all from just Monday. And if you go to the source, Sunday was worse. 6 people dead in 2 days. My argument is not "pro-gun" just that "Gun Violence" has less to do with the gun and more to do with human nature. This death rate is a societal norm for this region. Face it, 2A is not going away, period. But nobody wants to discuss root cause. And worse, they want to demonize police for trying to keep violence at bay. Yes, I agree some cops are bad, a very few. And yes, I am sure many are not trained well enough to police in a near-war zone. People need to be held accountable if the lawless mentality is ever expected to reverse course.

It is too easy to laugh it off and to say, well yeah, but that is Chicago.... And move on as if these people aren't important. Gang violence, drug violence they are directly tied to the movement of large scale weapon caches. Even consider absent parents and a lack of morals and virtues, many of these kids are raised in gang violence, who protests that? People claim like they want to be a hero and make a difference but what good is a rally to protest a cold dead gun when gangs and drugs are so prevalent?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 12:26:31 PM

When are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence proving that owning a gun DOES NOT make you safer?

Given the way it's twisted and tortured to make a point (i.e., including suicides), probably never.

Quote
It's technically not untenable to disarm the law abiding. Repeal the 2A and ban firearms.

Good luck getting the votes to repeal the 2A.  Like the steps to being a millionaire "step 1, get $1M..."

Quote
Those owning a firearm are now no longer law abiding. Not saying I support such a move, but it's absolutely possible.

It's possible, sure, just like winning Powerball is "possible".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 12:28:09 PM
Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Ah.  Lots of shootings in Chicago.  That must mean that the gun control laws Chicago has don't work, right?

Well, it turns out that the majority (by a safe margin) of the guns recovered from Chicago crimes come from other states.  States without strong gun laws.  Lax gun laws impact people far away from the states that legislate them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280)

But those places don't have high gun crime rates.  Wait a minute!  Does that mean that gun laws are mostly irrelevant to gun crime rates?  So the solution is....more gun laws?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 12:50:10 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

Quote
Quote
Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote
Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

Roll eyes.  Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works?  It's not a 67% popularity contest.  I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant.  That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 19, 2018, 12:51:48 PM
Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Ah.  Lots of shootings in Chicago.  That must mean that the gun control laws Chicago has don't work, right?

Well, it turns out that the majority (by a safe margin) of the guns recovered from Chicago crimes come from other states.  States without strong gun laws.  Lax gun laws impact people far away from the states that legislate them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280)

But those places don't have high gun crime rates.  Wait a minute!  Does that mean that gun laws are mostly irrelevant to gun crime rates?  So the solution is....more gun laws?

Good question!  Let's check your assumption.

The states providing the most guns to criminals in Chicago were IN, MS, WI, OH, KY, and TX.

The firearm death rate in Illinois is 11.7 per 100,000 population.

Of the supplier states:

IN   15
MS   19.9
WI   11.4
OH   12.9
KY   17.5
TX   12.1

only Wisconsin has a lower rate . . . and it's generally considered more a restrictive than permissive place to buy a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state)


Or we could look at the question visually:
(https://imagesvc.timeincapp.com/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2018%2F03%2Fdeath_rate_featured.png&w=800&q=85)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 12:56:22 PM
Your numbers are wrong.  According to your chart, LA has the highest at 10.2, IL you claim has 11.7? 

Also, IL is darker than IN, but you claim IL is 11.7 and IN is 15?

Nice try though. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 19, 2018, 01:00:08 PM
Given the way it's twisted and tortured to make a point (i.e., including suicides), probably never.

So basically you twist and torture the evidence to validate your stance? Not surprising, but at least you are honest.

Quote
Good luck getting the votes to repeal the 2A.  Like the steps to being a millionaire "step 1, get $1M..."
Quote
It's possible, sure, just like winning Powerball is "possible".

It's nice to see you admit it's possible. Actually roughly 1 in 5 Americans support repealing the 2nd amendment. So likely much closer to your chances of becoming a millionaire than hitting the powerball. BTW, repealing the 2A doesn't automatically mean a complete ban of firearms. Probably why it has more backing than you give it credit for.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ematicic on June 19, 2018, 01:01:43 PM
Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/3-killed-12-wounded-in-shootings-in-chicago-monday/

Three people were killed and 13 others were wounded in shootings across the city between about 1 a.m. and 11 p.m. Monday.

By 5 a.m., 11 people had been shot.

The most recent fatal shooting happened about 1:35 p.m. in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

Anthony Perry, 30, was shot in the chest and abdomen about 1:35 p.m. in the 500 block of North Laramie after getting into an argument with a group of four males, according to Chicago Police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where he was pronounced dead, authorities said. He lived in the Lawndale neighborhood.

Witnesses told police they saw four males running away from the scene, police said. Area North detectives were investigating.

Five people were shot, two fatally, minutes after the sun rose in the University Village neighborhood on the Near West Side.

The shooting happened about 4:50 a.m. after a party at the ABLA/Brooks Homes in the 1300 block of South Loomis, police said.

Shalonza E. McToy, 22, was discovered at 1400 South Washburne and was pronounced dead at the scene, according to police and the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office. She had been shot in the head, chest, left arm and ear.

Erin Carey, 17, was shot multiple times in the head and was taken by paramedics to Stroger Hospital in “very critical” condition. The boy died about 1:15 a.m. Tuesday at the hospital, according to authorities.

When officers arrived at the scene, a 21-year-old man and a 23-year-old man ran up to a police car. The younger man had been shot in the right calf and the older man suffered a gunshot wound to the right arm. Paramedics took both men to Stroger where their conditions had stabilized.

A 23-year-old man was taken to Mount Sinai hospital by his girlfriend where he was his condition stabilized. He had been shot multiple times in the abdomen, police said. Area Central detectives were conducting a homicide investigation.

The two most recent non-fatal shootings both happened in the Albany Park neighborhood on the Northwest Side.

At 11:02 p.m., a 33-year-old man was walking when he got into an argument with someone who fired a shot, striking him in the leg at 11:02 p.m. in the 4700 block of North Kimball, according to police.

He took himself to Swedish Covenant Hospital and was transferred to Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where his condition was stabilized, police said.

About 10:42 p.m., a 30-year-old man was sitting in a vehicle with two friends when someone walked up and fired shots in the 3400 block of West Montrose, striking him in the torso, according to police. He was taken to Illinois Masonic Medical Center, where his condition stabilized, police said.

About 7:55 p.m., a 28-year-old man was wounded in a shooting in the West Side Austin neighborhood.

The man was walking in the 100 block of North Parkside when he was shot in the chest, according to police. He did not know where the shots came from.

He was taken to Loretto Hospital, where his condition stabilized, police said.

Another man was shot about 4:20 p.m. in the South Side Woodlawn neighborhood.

The 29-year-old was driving a vehicle west in the 1600 block of East 67th Street about 4:20 p.m. when a small, black SUV pulled up and two people got out and opened fire, according to police.

He suffered a gunshot wound to the hand and drove himself to University of Chicago Medical Center, where his condition stabilized, police said.

A 44-year-old man was shot during a carjacking in the East Garfield Park neighborhood on the West Side about 5:10 a.m.

The carjacker shot the man in his abdomen and then stole his vehicle  in the 700 block of North Monticello. He was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in serious condition, police said.

Earlier in the morning, two men were seriously wounded in separate shootings in the Englewood neighborhood on the South Side.

A 37-year-old man was standing outside when he heard gunfire and was shot in the back about 4:30 a.m., in the 6600 block of South Justine Street. He was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center, where he was in serious condition, police said.

Another man was seriously wounded in Englewood about 2:40 a.m.

The 30-year-old was traveling in a vehicle in the 6000 block of South Racine when someone in a a vehicle following the man pulled out a weapon and fired shots, striking the man in the face, police said.

He took himself to Saint Bernard Hospital, where he was in serious condition.

Five minutes earlier, a 20-year-old woman was shot multiple times in the South Side Avalon Park neighborhood.

Witnesses told police they heard shots and found the woman lying in the street about 2:35 a.m. in the 1100 block of East 83rd Street. She was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center, where her condition stabilized. She had been shot multiple times in her head, leg, arm and hand, police said.

Five minutes before that, a 33-year-old man was shot in the Park Manor neighborhood on the South Side.

About 2:30 a.m., the man was arguing with someone about money in the 7400 block of South Perry Avenue, according to police. The other person pulled out a weapon and shot the man in his chest.

He was taken to University of Chicago Medical Center in critical condition, police said.

The first non-fatal shooting of the day happened about 1:10 a.m. A 22-year-old man was taking out his garbage when someone in a passing vehicle fired shots in the 2600 block of South Homan Avenue in the Little Village neighborhood, police said.

He was struck in his leg and was taken in fair condition to Mount Sinai Hospital, police said. Area Central detectives were investigating the shooting.

On Sunday, three people were killed and 16 others were wounded by gun violence.


So from all this, you still see the gun at fault? awesome.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 01:05:40 PM
Given the way it's twisted and tortured to make a point (i.e., including suicides), probably never.

So basically you twist and torture the evidence to validate your stance? Not surprising, but at least you are honest.

Quote
Good luck getting the votes to repeal the 2A.  Like the steps to being a millionaire "step 1, get $1M..."
Quote
It's possible, sure, just like winning Powerball is "possible".

It's nice to see you admit it's possible. Actually roughly 1 in 5 Americans support repealing the 2nd amendment. So likely much closer to your chances of becoming a millionaire than hitting the powerball. BTW, repealing the 2A doesn't automatically mean a complete ban of firearms. Probably why it has more backing than you give it credit for.

And one third of millennials think the earth is flat.  So whatever.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Millennials-flat-earth-theory-two-thirds-study-12813321.php
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: MasterStache on June 19, 2018, 01:12:17 PM
Given the way it's twisted and tortured to make a point (i.e., including suicides), probably never.

So basically you twist and torture the evidence to validate your stance? Not surprising, but at least you are honest.

Quote
Good luck getting the votes to repeal the 2A.  Like the steps to being a millionaire "step 1, get $1M..."
Quote
It's possible, sure, just like winning Powerball is "possible".

It's nice to see you admit it's possible. Actually roughly 1 in 5 Americans support repealing the 2nd amendment. So likely much closer to your chances of becoming a millionaire than hitting the powerball. BTW, repealing the 2A doesn't automatically mean a complete ban of firearms. Probably why it has more backing than you give it credit for.

And one third of millennials think the earth is flat.  So whatever.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Millennials-flat-earth-theory-two-thirds-study-12813321.php

https://www.sciencealert.com/one-third-millennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk (https://www.sciencealert.com/one-third-millennials-believe-flat-earth-conspiracy-statistics-yougov-debunk)

Good grief! At least all your other post make sense now ( :
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 01:19:59 PM
Meanwhile, just yesterday in Chicago, 3 killed and 13 wounded. One Day. Chicago has very strict gun laws in comparison to the National averages. I would make an argument that many of the shooters in this "non-story" should have a gun if they are in fact law abiding. This is one day and only made the local news because it is the norm.

Ah.  Lots of shootings in Chicago.  That must mean that the gun control laws Chicago has don't work, right?

Well, it turns out that the majority (by a safe margin) of the guns recovered from Chicago crimes come from other states.  States without strong gun laws.  Lax gun laws impact people far away from the states that legislate them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/07/where-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/?utm_term=.d459db524280)

Well obviously Chicago needs to build themselves a wall.

They need something. Did you read all of the violence, all from just Monday. And if you go to the source, Sunday was worse. 6 people dead in 2 days. My argument is not "pro-gun" just that "Gun Violence" has less to do with the gun and more to do with human nature. This death rate is a societal norm for this region. Face it, 2A is not going away, period. But nobody wants to discuss root cause. And worse, they want to demonize police for trying to keep violence at bay. Yes, I agree some cops are bad, a very few. And yes, I am sure many are not trained well enough to police in a near-war zone. People need to be held accountable if the lawless mentality is ever expected to reverse course.

It is too easy to laugh it off and to say, well yeah, but that is Chicago.... And move on as if these people aren't important. Gang violence, drug violence they are directly tied to the movement of large scale weapon caches. Even consider absent parents and a lack of morals and virtues, many of these kids are raised in gang violence, who protests that? People claim like they want to be a hero and make a difference but what good is a rally to protest a cold dead gun when gangs and drugs are so prevalent?

- Nobody? I guess I'm a nobody
- Who's they?
- Chicago is certainly different than say New York City or Houston (23.8 murders/100,000 - 3.4 murder/100,000 - Houston 13.3 murders/100,000), but I don't think that's funny.
- How do you protest absent parents? Maybe ask for laws that encourage parents to be responsible? worth considering
- Some. But not as much as other angles to approach the problem from. Unfortunately it's hard to get people together to protest things that are less visible like those morals you brought up.

I can agree that the existence of guns isn't the only driver of violent crime. I think most if not all of the GCA crowd would agree as well, but I don't see that as an argument for or against gun control.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 19, 2018, 01:20:41 PM
Your numbers are wrong.  According to your chart, LA has the highest at 10.2, IL you claim has 11.7? 

Also, IL is darker than IN, but you claim IL is 11.7 and IN is 15?

Nice try though.

The difference you're describing is probably due to the fact that the image is for death rates without suicides (as is described on the picture).  The data from Wikipedia includes suicides.

Do you have any complaints that are not related to your apparent difficulties with reading?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 01:26:06 PM
Your numbers are wrong.  According to your chart, LA has the highest at 10.2, IL you claim has 11.7? 

Also, IL is darker than IN, but you claim IL is 11.7 and IN is 15?

Nice try though.

The difference you're describing is probably due to the fact that the image is for death rates without suicides (as is described on the picture).  The data from Wikipedia includes suicides.

Do you have any complaints that are not related to your apparent difficulties with reading?

That's rich.  My inabilities to read?  You put some numbers and then show me a graph that directly contradicts those numbers with the caption "let's look at it visually" and it's my inability to read?  Why is it not your inability to provide consistent sources?

BUT, now that you've asked, yes, I do have an issue with the numbers, namely that when you exclude suicides which I think is the obvious thing to do when discussing gun crimes, all of the states you cited except MS have a lower rate than IL, even with their more permissive gun laws. 

So, it would seem my point stands, if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?  You've basically only proved my point for me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 01:27:45 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

Quote
Quote
Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote
Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

Roll eyes.  Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works?  It's not a 67% popularity contest.  I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant.  That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

No, because you wouldn't need to amend the constitution to ban assault weapons. That's why it's different.

Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 01:32:35 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

Quote
Quote
Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote
Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

Roll eyes.  Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works?  It's not a 67% popularity contest.  I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant.  That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

No, because you wouldn't need to amend the constitution to ban assault weapons. That's why it's different.

Why is there such a liberal hardon to ban "assault weapons" given their tiny contribution to overall gun crimes?

Quote
Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?

Huh?  My original 67% comment was an obvious reference to how you overturn the 2A (simplified ignoring that it's states not people blah blah blah).  If you're shifting the conversation now to something other than overturning the 2A, then it's an entirely different conversation than the one I was having. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 01:41:39 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

First of all, you don't seem to understand what the word "exact" means. I was giving you a chance to reword this but you don't seem interested in changing your mind.

Then you mention that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns would ban 80% of weapons. But I thought "any sort of firearm-specific ban" would be the exact same, not "this very restrictive ban I just made up to fit my already flimsy logic"
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 19, 2018, 01:43:03 PM
if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime?  No.
Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed?  No.
Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime?  Yes.


You keep making the claim that states with lax gun laws don't have a problem with guns.  The evidence doesn't really agree with you:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W)
(http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gun-laws-and-deaths-2.png?w=352)
 (http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gun-laws-and-deaths-1.png?w=352)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 01:46:46 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

First of all, you don't seem to understand what the word "exact" means. I was giving you a chance to reword this but you don't seem interested in changing your mind.

Then you mention that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns would ban 80% of weapons. But I thought "any sort of firearm-specific ban" would be the exact same, not "this very restrictive ban I just made up to fit my already flimsy logic"

Sorry, I didn't understand exactly which semantics game we were playing. 

The explicit thing I meant was

Quote
If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Exact same thing being "silly and ineffective". 

IOW, if you agree rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective than rounding up all guns of a certain type is also silly and ineffective.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 01:48:44 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

Quote
Quote
Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote
Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

Roll eyes.  Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works?  It's not a 67% popularity contest.  I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant.  That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

No, because you wouldn't need to amend the constitution to ban assault weapons. That's why it's different.

Why is there such a liberal hardon to ban "assault weapons" given their tiny contribution to overall gun crimes?

Quote
Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?

Huh?  My original 67% comment was an obvious reference to how you overturn the 2A (simplified ignoring that it's states not people blah blah blah).  If you're shifting the conversation now to something other than overturning the 2A, then it's an entirely different conversation than the one I was having.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

"any sort of firearm-specific ban" would not require the 2nd amendment to be overturned.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 01:52:40 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

First of all, you don't seem to understand what the word "exact" means. I was giving you a chance to reword this but you don't seem interested in changing your mind.

Then you mention that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns would ban 80% of weapons. But I thought "any sort of firearm-specific ban" would be the exact same, not "this very restrictive ban I just made up to fit my already flimsy logic"

Sorry, I didn't understand exactly which semantics game we were playing. 

The explicit thing I meant was

Quote
If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Exact same thing being "silly and ineffective". 

IOW, if you agree rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective than rounding up all guns of a certain type is also silly and ineffective.

Call it semantics if you want but:

ex·act - 1.not approximated in any way; precise.

This is kind of like when a teenage girl says "I literally put my foot in my mouth". I have to ask to be sure she didn't mean the opposite of literally.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 01:53:41 PM
if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime?  No.
Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed?  No.
Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime?  Yes.


You keep making the claim that states with lax gun laws don't have a problem with guns.  The evidence doesn't really agree with you:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W)
(http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gun-laws-and-deaths-2.png?w=352)
 (http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gun-laws-and-deaths-1.png?w=352)

Your freely oscillating between figures that include suicides and facts that don't is either sloppy or disingenuous. 

"In Alaska, suicide was the leading cause of gun deaths, with it being the main factor in more than 80% of all firearm deaths."

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/


So are you talking about gun crimes or gun deaths, including or excluding suicides?  Why not pick one and stick to it so we can stop playing this silly game of gotcha?


At any rate, I didn't make the claim that states with lax gun laws don't have a problem with guns, I said that their problem isn't as bad as IL's, even though it has strict gun laws, and your own figures proved that true with the exception of Mississippi. 

So,
-given that states with lax gun laws don't have as big a problem with guns (*ex Mississippi) as Illinois,
and,
-it is already illegal to buy a handgun over state lines without going through a licensed FFL in you home state in all 50 states,

What new laws do you propose that are going to magically fix Illinois's gun violence problem? 

Because from where I sit, it does not appear that your theory that lax gun laws in other states is IL's problem is true. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 01:54:24 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

First of all, you don't seem to understand what the word "exact" means. I was giving you a chance to reword this but you don't seem interested in changing your mind.

Then you mention that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns would ban 80% of weapons. But I thought "any sort of firearm-specific ban" would be the exact same, not "this very restrictive ban I just made up to fit my already flimsy logic"

Sorry, I didn't understand exactly which semantics game we were playing. 

The explicit thing I meant was

Quote
If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Exact same thing being "silly and ineffective". 

IOW, if you agree rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective than rounding up all guns of a certain type is also silly and ineffective.

Call it semantics if you want but:

ex·act - 1.not approximated in any way; precise.

This is kind of like when a teenage girl says "I literally put my foot in my mouth". I have to ask to be sure she didn't mean the opposite of literally.

Again, the antecedent of "exact same thing" is "silly and ineffective".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ematicic on June 19, 2018, 01:58:46 PM
if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime?  No.
Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed?  No.
Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime?  Yes.


You keep making the claim that states with lax gun laws don't have a problem with guns.  The evidence doesn't really agree with you:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W)
(http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gun-laws-and-deaths-2.png?w=352)
 (http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gun-laws-and-deaths-1.png?w=352)

I see your stats, what do you propose? I try to avoid guns are good / guns are bad counter productivity but what laws are you proposing? Most of the laws currently being discussed are "Assualt" style weapons but the 2 day death and injury toll seems to be mostly hand guns. In both Chicago and most likely the states in violation, the guns being used are supposed to be tracked by laws that were broken.

Most of the offenders are likely prior offenders, so is this a prison release, reform issue also or are we just looking at the guns as the violators?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 02:00:54 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

Quote
Quote
Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote
Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

Roll eyes.  Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works?  It's not a 67% popularity contest.  I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant.  That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

No, because you wouldn't need to amend the constitution to ban assault weapons. That's why it's different.

Why is there such a liberal hardon to ban "assault weapons" given their tiny contribution to overall gun crimes?

Quote
Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?

Huh?  My original 67% comment was an obvious reference to how you overturn the 2A (simplified ignoring that it's states not people blah blah blah).  If you're shifting the conversation now to something other than overturning the 2A, then it's an entirely different conversation than the one I was having.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

"any sort of firearm-specific ban" would not require the 2nd amendment to be overturned.

You're conflating two separate ideas.

Originally, someone said something about outlawing all guns.  I gave them a blueprint, including overturning the 2A. 

Then you chimed in with it's not about banning all guns, and I said that a partial ban on guns, like an assault weapons ban or magazine capacity ban, is silly for the same reasons, and those ARE approaches favored by the left. 

I never meant to insinuate that you need to overturn the 2A to institute those bans, however I think we are inching closer to that issue being heard by the Supreme Court (see the recent restraining order on Deerfield, IL's AWB).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: ematicic on June 19, 2018, 02:12:55 PM
I really missed the mark here. I really just stumbled onto Monday's Chicago festivities. I forgot it was Fathers Day Weekend. There are better stats for this active Chicago time. Yeah, really going to hold on to my weapons as Baltimore and Philadelphia start to look more and more like Chicago.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/18/chicago-violence-54-shootings-fathers-day-weekend/711238002/

CHICAGO — At least nine people were killed and 45 others were wounded over the weekend in shootings, an ugly turn for the nation's third-largest city as it made progress stemming the murder rate in the first half of 2018.

In addition to the weekend’s fatal shootings, the city recorded a tenth homicide early Monday. A man, who police said was in his 30s, was killed by blunt force trauma on the city’s Southwest Side. Police said they found a weapon but declined to give details about it or the circumstances of the killing.

Investigators said many of the weekend's incidents were gang-related. The city historically sees a frustrating uptick in gun violence as the temperature warms. Chicago reached a high of 95 on Sunday, according to the National Weather Service.

First Deputy Superintendent Anthony Riccio said the spike in violence is “frustrating,” even as Chicago has seen gun violence decline in recent months — shootings and murders are down about 20 percent so far this year.

The downward trend in violence in 2018 follows two difficult years — Chicago recorded 650 murders in 2017 and 762 in 2016 — in which the city saw homicide rates of the late 1980s and 1990s, when Chicago and other big metropolises were in the midst of the crack-cocaine epidemic.

“We continue to make progress despite what some of these numbers look like — some very good progress,” Riccio told reporters about the bloody weekend. “But we’re not happy at all about this. We’re not saying our progress is a success by any means. But we are continuing to move in the right direction.”

In one of the most chaotic scenes over the weekend, a 23-year-old woman was fatally shot and five others were wounded in a pre-dawn incident Monday on the grounds of a public housing complex on the city’s West Side. Police said the shooting was sparked by a dispute, and bullet casings recovered by detectives indicated multiple weapons were fired.


When police and EMTs arrived, one of the wounded, a 17-year-old boy, appeared so badly injured that first responders thought he was dead and placed a sheet over him as they tended to the other victims.

Riccio said officers realized the boy was still alive after seeing movement under the sheet. The boy was taken to a nearby hospital, where he remains on life support, Riccio said.

At least four of the victims were “known to police” prior to the incident, and there is an ongoing conflict between rival gangs going on in the area, Riccio said. None of the victims is cooperating with the police.

“We believe they have a significant amount of information that would be helpful in this case,” Riccio said. “But for reasons we do not know, they are not cooperating,”

In another multiple casualty incident, three men and a woman were wounded on the city’s Southwest side late Sunday by an unknown assailant. The most seriously injured in that incident was a 21-year-old man who police described as known gang member. He had a gunshot wound to the chest and was listed in critical condition.

Police said no suspects were in custody in any of the deadly shootings.

The other fatal incidents include:
•A 26-year-old man was standing on the sidewalk on the city’s South Side Sunday when an unknown assailant approached and fired several shots The victim, who was shot in the head, was pronounced dead on the scene.
•A 17-year-old boy, who police said was a known gang member, was shot Saturday while in the backyard of a home on the city’s West Side.
•A 28-year-old man, who police said had gang ties, died in the hospital after being shot several times in the upper body late Friday. A second victim in that incident, a 24-year-old male who police said was also a gang member, had a graze wound to the foot and refused medical attention, police said.
•A 24-year-old man shot himself in the head after a SWAT officer shot him in the stomach several hours into an encounter early Saturday on the South Side, police said. Police arrived after receiving reports that the man had fired shots from a handgun before barricading himself in a garage.
•A 43-year-old man and 22-year-old were killed outside a retail establishment on the South Side late Friday. Police said the 22-year-old, who was shot in the chest, was a known gang member and appeared to be the intended target. The older victim happened to be near and got hit in the gunfire.
•A 26-year-old man was in the basement of a home Friday on the North Side when he got into an argument with another man, who pulled out a gun and shot the victim in the head.
•A 12-year-old girl was pronounced dead early Friday after being shot in the neck while attending an outdoor gathering on the city’s West Side. She'nyah O'Flynn, who was from Michigan and visiting family, and a 36-year-old man, who was shot in the leg, were struck when two unknown gunmen opened fire at the scene. Police said neither were the intended targets of the gunmen.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 02:21:07 PM
It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

Do you really believe this? What do you mean by exact same?

I do.  What do I mean?  A number of different things.  One is that a ban of semiautomatic rifles and handguns is a de facto ban on 80% of all weapons, because they are the most popular and most prevalent.  It's also nonsensical because assault weapons make up a tiny percentage of crimes committed. 

Quote
Quote
Step 1: Convince 67% of the population to overturn 2A and outlaw guns
Step 2: Somehow round up the +/- 300M guns that are out there in circulation
Step 3: Secure the border to ensure no more guns come in

If this was about assault weapons* Step 1 would no longer apply

Quote
Substantial majorities also favor creating a federal government database to track all gun sales (71%), banning assault-style weapons (68%), and banning high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition (65%).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/

Roll eyes.  Do I really need to explain how a Constitutional amendment works?  It's not a 67% popularity contest.  I'll assume this is just not an argument made in good faith and you knew exactly what I meant.  That all of CA and NYC believe something doesn't mean you can amend the Constitution.

No, because you wouldn't need to amend the constitution to ban assault weapons. That's why it's different.

Why is there such a liberal hardon to ban "assault weapons" given their tiny contribution to overall gun crimes?

Quote
Regardless, if 68% of the population agrees, why would we need to convince the other 67%?

Huh?  My original 67% comment was an obvious reference to how you overturn the 2A (simplified ignoring that it's states not people blah blah blah).  If you're shifting the conversation now to something other than overturning the 2A, then it's an entirely different conversation than the one I was having.

It's not just about a total ban, I would put any sort of firearm-specific ban like an assault weapons ban or a magazine capacity limit as the same damned thing, and those have wide support on the left.  If you admit that rounding up all guns is silly and ineffective, then rounding up all guns of a specific type is the exact same thing.

"any sort of firearm-specific ban" would not require the 2nd amendment to be overturned.

You're conflating two separate ideas.

Originally, someone said something about outlawing all guns.  I gave them a blueprint, including overturning the 2A. 

Then you chimed in with it's not about banning all guns, and I said that a partial ban on guns, like an assault weapons ban or magazine capacity ban, is silly for the same reasons, and those ARE approaches favored by the left. 

I never meant to insinuate that you need to overturn the 2A to institute those bans, however I think we are inching closer to that issue being heard by the Supreme Court (see the recent restraining order on Deerfield, IL's AWB).

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.



Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 02:26:22 PM

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence? 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 02:36:34 PM

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

I don't know why some people feel that way. If you were referring to me, I don't have strong feelings about it but I do support a ban of certain weapons.

My stance on banning assault weapons has played no part in our conversation until now. You were the first to mention assault weapons and so I used that example as a proxy for
any sort of firearm-specific ban
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 02:41:00 PM

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

I don't know why some people feel that way. If you were referring to me, I don't have strong feelings about it but I do support a ban of certain weapons.

My stance on banning assault weapons has played no part in our conversation until now. You were the first to mention assault weapons and so I used that example as a proxy for
any sort of firearm-specific ban

Which weapons?  Why?

Based on how many posts you made to argue semantics about how to outlaw certain weapons, it seems you have pretty strong feelings on some sort of ban.

I'm curious why.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 19, 2018, 02:42:11 PM

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

Many pages ago I pointed out that hand guns are much more generally a problem.   They make suicide easy, they are often involved in gang violence.  Part of Canada's better numbers are that we have very few legal handguns.  We do have illegal hand guns, mostly in the hands of gangs and mostly smuggled in from the US.

Assault weapons (here I am basically thinking of guns that can shoot repeatedly very quickly, not just what they look like) are a problem with mass shootings because they can kill/injure so many people so fast.  And what is their raison d'etre?  To kill lots of targets really fast.  So of course they get attention because the shootings they are involved in get lots of attention, because they are effective at hurting lots of people in a very short time.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 19, 2018, 02:46:35 PM

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

Many pages ago I pointed out that hand guns are much more generally a problem.   They make suicide easy, they are often involved in gang violence.  Part of Canada's better numbers are that we have very few legal handguns.  We do have illegal hand guns, mostly in the hands of gangs and mostly smuggled in from the US.

Assault weapons (here I am basically thinking of guns that can shoot repeatedly very quickly, not just what they look like) are a problem with mass shootings because they can kill/injure so many people so fast.  And what is their raison d'etre?  To kill lots of targets really fast.  So of course they get attention because the shootings they are involved in get lots of attention, because they are effective at hurting lots of people in a very short time.

Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your second?  Assault weapons are not really a problem except in a few very rare cases?  And there have been plenty of mass shootings carried out with handguns and shotguns as well.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 19, 2018, 02:56:11 PM

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

I don't know why some people feel that way. If you were referring to me, I don't have strong feelings about it but I do support a ban of certain weapons.

My stance on banning assault weapons has played no part in our conversation until now. You were the first to mention assault weapons and so I used that example as a proxy for
any sort of firearm-specific ban

Which weapons?  Why?

Based on how many posts you made to argue semantics about how to outlaw certain weapons, it seems you have pretty strong feelings on some sort of ban semantics.

I'm curious why.
FTFY
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 19, 2018, 02:59:31 PM


Many pages ago I pointed out that hand guns are much more generally a problem.   They make suicide easy, they are often involved in gang violence.  Part of Canada's better numbers are that we have very few legal handguns.  We do have illegal hand guns, mostly in the hands of gangs and mostly smuggled in from the US.

Assault weapons (here I am basically thinking of guns that can shoot repeatedly very quickly, not just what they look like) are a problem with mass shootings because they can kill/injure so many people so fast.  And what is their raison d'etre?  To kill lots of targets really fast.  So of course they get attention because the shootings they are involved in get lots of attention, because they are effective at hurting lots of people in a very short time.

Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your second?  Assault weapons are not really a problem except in a few very rare cases?  And there have been plenty of mass shootings carried out with handguns and shotguns as well.
[/quote]

No, they are not a contradiction.  Handguns are commonly used in suicides, assault rifles are not.  And many many gun deaths are suicides.  I also left the definition of assault weapon open, because are there not many shot guns and hand guns that can be set up to shoot many rounds quickly?  In that case they fall into my definition of assault weapon, which is anything that can do a lot of shooting quickly.  I specifically said the appearance was irrelevant.

I was trying to point out that although there are good arguments for stricter control on assault weapons, there are equally good arguments to be made for stricter control on handguns.   Mass shootings are more newsworthy, but hand guns kill a lot of people, in ones and twos and threes, instead of dozens at a time.

Sort of the same as an airplane tragedy kills a lot of people at once, but car accidents kill a lot more people, just in ones and twos and threes.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 19, 2018, 04:15:57 PM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.

I thought one of the biggest points on the GRA side is that they are law abiding citizens.  Are you saying that if guns are made illegal that they'll stop abiding by the law?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 20, 2018, 07:39:56 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.

I thought one of the biggest points on the GRA side is that they are law abiding citizens.  Are you saying that if guns are made illegal that they'll stop abiding by the law?

Come on, man.  Law abiding means they (we) aren't out killing anyone or committing armed robbery, that sort of thing.  And quite frankly, unless you change the Constitution, any attempt to confiscate all guns will be viewed as not a legal law, given that it's unconstitutional. 

If, for instance, I lived in Deerfield right now (and it's only a couple of towns over from me) I would not be planning on turning in any AR-15s or pistols with "high capacity" magazines I may or may not own just because some chucklehead town council members said I should in violation of the laws of Illinois. 

Of course you're going to point to this and scream "see, not law abiding, see!" but that's very different than not law abiding like the three-time convict wandering Chicago with a hand gun and a gang affiliation looking to knock over a liquor store or defend his "turf" against a rival gang. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 20, 2018, 08:07:23 AM
if other states' more permissive gun laws are the cause of IL's problem, why then do those other states not have as much a problem as IL?

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime?  No.
Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed?  No.
Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime?  Yes.


You keep making the claim that states with lax gun laws don't have a problem with guns.  The evidence doesn't really agree with you:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/27/states-with-strict-gun-laws-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-heres-how-your-state-stacks-up.html)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W)
(http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gun-laws-and-deaths-2.png?w=352)
 (http://www.scarymommy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/gun-laws-and-deaths-1.png?w=352)

Your freely oscillating between figures that include suicides and facts that don't is either sloppy or disingenuous. 

"In Alaska, suicide was the leading cause of gun deaths, with it being the main factor in more than 80% of all firearm deaths."

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/21/


So are you talking about gun crimes or gun deaths, including or excluding suicides?

Both gun crimes and gun deaths are problems exacerbated by availability of guns.  I'm talking about both.  That's why I've been referencing information about both.



At any rate, I didn't make the claim that states with lax gun laws don't have a problem with guns, I said that their problem isn't as bad as IL's, even though it has strict gun laws, and your own figures proved that true with the exception of Mississippi. 

The figures that I provide show that gun deaths tend to be higher in places with lax gun laws.  You appear to be referring specifically to the problem of gun crime.  Chicago has more crime than many other places in the US.  Access to guns doesn't cause crime of course, there are plenty of factors involved in that.  Providing criminals with easy access to guns (as the permissive states you're talking about do) is a problem though.



So,
-given that states with lax gun laws don't have as big a problem with guns (*ex Mississippi) as Illinois,
and,

They have a bigger problem with guns - more people die per 100,000.  They have lower crime overall, and therefore less gun crime.



-it is already illegal to buy a handgun over state lines without going through a licensed FFL in you home state in all 50 states,

It's a good thing that criminals obey the law then . . . otherwise this would obviously be a huge problem.



What new laws do you propose that are going to magically fix Illinois's gun violence problem? 

I don't have a magical fix for Illinois gun violence problem.  I have suggestions that will help though (and will also help reduce the number of guns that get into the hands of criminals nation wide).

- Make a background check a requirement for all sales of firearms in the US.
- Keep a national registry of firearms sold.

This way it won't be possible for criminals to buy a gun.  It will be easy to prosecute people making straw purchases for criminals.  Anyone out of state who buys a gun can be flagged so that they're searched when re-entering their state (or they can simply be prevented from buying a gun that's not legal in their home state - whichever is deemed less intrusive to the rights of gun owners).



Because from where I sit, it does not appear that your theory that lax gun laws in other states is IL's problem is true.

Possibly because I never argued what you're saying.  This is what I've been arguing:

Criminals in Illinois get most of their guns from other states.

Will all crime stop by removing the easy source of guns used in crime?  No.
Will the conditions that cause crime be fixed?  No.
Will the situation be improved by removing the easy source of the guns used in crime?  Yes.

Lax gun laws in other states makes Illinois gun crime problem worse.  It's certainly not the only thing that can be improved, but is a contributing factor.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on June 20, 2018, 08:11:03 AM

Yes, that person was you.

Actually, that person was caracarn.

My disagreement was that those same reasons did not apply. Primarily the one about needing to overturn the 2nd amendment. Which now you agree with, so I'm glad we settled that.

But my question remains; why such the hardon to outlaw assault weapons given they are such a minor contributor to gun violence?

Many pages ago I pointed out that hand guns are much more generally a problem.   They make suicide easy, they are often involved in gang violence.  Part of Canada's better numbers are that we have very few legal handguns.  We do have illegal hand guns, mostly in the hands of gangs and mostly smuggled in from the US.

Assault weapons (here I am basically thinking of guns that can shoot repeatedly very quickly, not just what they look like) are a problem with mass shootings because they can kill/injure so many people so fast.  And what is their raison d'etre?  To kill lots of targets really fast.  So of course they get attention because the shootings they are involved in get lots of attention, because they are effective at hurting lots of people in a very short time.

Doesn't your first paragraph contradict your second?  Assault weapons are not really a problem except in a few very rare cases?  And there have been plenty of mass shootings carried out with handguns and shotguns as well.

Have you ever done any risk management?  When you're assessing risks and deciding which ones to take steps to mitigate you don't only address the events that are most likely to happen.  You also take steps to mitigate rare events with catastrophic results.  You have to consider the frequency and the severity.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 20, 2018, 08:12:56 AM
Both gun crimes and gun deaths are problems exacerbated by availability of guns.  I'm talking about both.  That's why I've been referencing information about both.

The problem is your jumping back and forth between them to try and make your point. dishonestly.  We get it, this is how you argue. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on June 20, 2018, 08:27:16 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.

I thought one of the biggest points on the GRA side is that they are law abiding citizens.  Are you saying that if guns are made illegal that they'll stop abiding by the law?

I actually read this more as an argument that criminals who use guns to break the law obviously don't care about breaking the law and therefore won't follow the law that restricts their owning a gun. I think this argument is flawed because it's not just a matter of "deciding" to break the law. It's a matter of access and convenience. This is also why I care more about things like universal background checks and a gun registry, but I can acknowledge that a full on ban would absolutely reduce the number of guns available to criminals (not that I support such a thing). Yes there are millions of guns out there right now and yes there would be a significant transition period as these guns are taken away from the population, but making guns more scarce would make it harder for criminals to obtain them.

I suspect this is also why Illinois' restrictions have not seen better results. It is now illegal for certain people to have guns in Chicago but those people still have easy access to guns. So the argument that criminals don't follow the rules is true but we don't necessarily need them to. We need the gun shops and lawful gun owners to not sell guns to/allow them to be stolen by the wrong people. Doing so in a small localized area is going to be inadequate for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 20, 2018, 08:28:30 AM
Having guns every where is like swimming with sharks.  You might feel "Well if I own a trained shark it will protect me from all the other sharks out there". 

People fail to see that the best option is to just remove the sharks from the system.  The very fact of having sharks in the water raises the threat level for everyone, regardless of whether you have your own trained protector shark. 

Just get rid of the sharks and everyone is safer. 

How can people not see this basic logic?

The "Basic Logic" is severely flawed with the assumption people will follow the rules and laws. Are you suggesting that the Government declare martial law and confiscate everyone's weapons? In most criminal shootings there are existing gun laws that have been broken.

Put up a sign, and have that sign say "No Sharks Allowed", I suspect that it will not deter many sharks.

I thought one of the biggest points on the GRA side is that they are law abiding citizens.  Are you saying that if guns are made illegal that they'll stop abiding by the law?

Come on, man.  Law abiding means they (we) aren't out killing anyone or committing armed robbery, that sort of thing.  And quite frankly, unless you change the Constitution, any attempt to confiscate all guns will be viewed as not a legal law, given that it's unconstitutional. 

If, for instance, I lived in Deerfield right now (and it's only a couple of towns over from me) I would not be planning on turning in any AR-15s or pistols with "high capacity" magazines I may or may not own just because some chucklehead town council members said I should in violation of the laws of Illinois. 

Of course you're going to point to this and scream "see, not law abiding, see!" but that's very different than not law abiding like the three-time convict wandering Chicago with a hand gun and a gang affiliation looking to knock over a liquor store or defend his "turf" against a rival gang.

Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone.  And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation.  You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns.  I agree. 

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 20, 2018, 08:37:28 AM
Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone.  And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation.  You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns.  I agree. 

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine.  I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 20, 2018, 08:43:38 AM
Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone.  And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation.  You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns.  I agree. 

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine.  I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

What laws are you referring to that infringe on the second amendment?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Chris22 on June 20, 2018, 08:47:03 AM
Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone.  And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation.  You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns.  I agree. 

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine.  I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

What laws are you referring to that infringe on the second amendment?

All sorts of things.  I'm required to have a FOID in IL to buy a firearm or ammo.  I'm required to wait a certain time between purchasing and possessing a firearm.  I'm charged a substantial fee for exercising my right to carry a weapon.  Etc etc etc.

Basically, I look at it like this: take any law regarding firearms, and apply it to voting, and see if you would allow it to stand.  If not, why should one Constitutional right be subject to more restraints than another?  Why is an ID to vote completely unacceptable but one to own a gun is?  Etc.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on June 20, 2018, 08:56:29 AM
Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone.  And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation.  You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns.  I agree. 

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine.  I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

That's exactly what I have been saying, this entire thread.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on June 20, 2018, 09:10:51 AM
Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone.  And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation.  You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns.  I agree. 

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine.  I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

What laws are you referring to that infringe on the second amendment?

All sorts of things.

I'm required to have a FOID in IL to buy a firearm or ammo.  I'm required to wait a certain time between purchasing and possessing a firearm.  I'm charged a substantial fee for exercising my right to carry a weapon.  Etc etc etc.

Basically, I look at it like this: take any law regarding firearms, and apply it to voting, and see if you would allow it to stand.  If not, why should one Constitutional right be subject to more restraints than another?  Why is an ID to vote completely unacceptable but one to own a gun is?  Etc.

The voting laws you're referring to are very explicit and covered by multiple amendments to ensure their clarity in the constitution.  Nobody objects to people being required to identify themselves to vote.  Recent objections have been made when identity as a formal process is used to disproportionately exclude people based on race (which is a clear violation of the 15th amendment).

Amendment 15:
"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."


An FOID (for example) is quite dissimilar . . . as no attempt has been made to clearly exclude people from owning firearms based on race.  There's also no further amendment protecting the rights of any race, sex, or age to own firearms (all of the previous have their own amendments for voting).  Even the right to own a gun is not protected by the second amendment . . . it just refers to amorphous 'arms'.
 Can you elaborate exactly what part of the second amendment you feel is being violated by the items you listed?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on June 20, 2018, 09:13:55 AM
Look, we agree that guns saturating the system raises the threat level for everyone.  And the best (most effective solution) is to remove guns from the equation.  You point out correctly that the 2nd Amendment will have to be repealed in order for any serious attempt to remove the guns.  I agree. 

Guns are a net detriment to society and we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Fine.  I ask that, given you recognize that, you [on the left] stop trying to backdoor repeal the 2A with various types of do-nothing bullshit laws that infringe on the 2A, and just get to work trying to repeal it.

What laws are you referring to that infringe on the second amendment?

All sorts of things.  I'm required to have a FOID in IL to buy a firearm or ammo.  I'm required to wait a certain time between purchasing and possessing a firearm.  I'm charged a substantial fee for exercising my right to carry a weapon.  Etc etc etc.

Basically, I look at it like this: take any law regarding firearms, and apply it to voting, and see if you would allow it to stand.  If not, why should one Constitutional right be subject to more restraints than another?  Why is an ID to vote completely unacceptable but one to own a gun is?  Etc.

Because different situations/problems call for different solutions?  An ID for voting is not completely unacceptable to me.  If it is provided freely and at times and places that are convenient for everybody then I would be fine with requiring an ID to vote.  I would also be fine with placing the same requirements on a federal firearms ID if we created one.

If that's your standard though, I'm not sure why you have a problem with having a waiting period.  Only ~17 states currently allow same day registration.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Poundwise on February 15, 2019, 11:49:07 AM
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 15, 2019, 12:43:05 PM
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org

Out of (about) 120 MILLION gun owners...

So that's 1 child per 100,000 gun owners.  But that number includes gang violence (committed generally by illegal gun owners, not legal gun owners) and homicides (again generally committed by illegal gun owners, not legal gun owners).  The only number that really represents legal gun owners at fault is accidents, which was probably around 200 kids or so.  Or in other words a rate of 0.16 : 100,000 or 1 per 600,000 gun owners.

Not to mention that in 2016, 4,648 young people ages 10-24 were victims of homicide - an average of 13 each day.  But yet only 1200 below 18 died of gunshots... So it seems that we have a violence problem not a firearm problem.

Once we take a look at where the violence is occurring, it becomes pretty clear that rural, white gun owners aren't the problem.  Violent crime is the problem, and its consistently falling.  And yet all of the 'gun control' is aimed directly at white, typically rural, gun owners.

Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/)
Source: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/ (https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/)
Source: https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.XGcSraJKhhE (https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.XGcSraJKhhE)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 15, 2019, 12:55:54 PM
TexasRunner, the difficulty in doing analysis from those articles is that they don't differentiate (or at least I missed it) what kind of gun.  People comment on the gun mortality differences between Canada and the US, but the biggest difference is that we basically prohibit handguns and the US doesn't.  Basically if someone who is not law enforcement (or a Brinks guard) has a handgun, it is an illegal handgun - so we get gang shootings with handguns. 


There have been so many threads about US gun control in Off Topic, and they have all gone nowhere and eventually have been shut down, please read them before getting the whole discussion going again here.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 15, 2019, 12:56:42 PM
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org
Not to mention that in 2016, 4,648 young people ages 10-24 were victims of homicide - an average of 13 each day.  But yet only 1200 below 18 died of gunshots... So it seems that we have a violence problem not a firearm problem.

So you're comparing two different age groups over two different time periods?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 15, 2019, 01:00:59 PM
Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

You have to consider the frequency and the severity.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 15, 2019, 01:04:25 PM
Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

You have to consider the frequency and the severity.

So the war on drugs hasn't been severe?...  Because I don't see either party or basically any resources going into that fight and it kills thousands more kids and young adults than guns.

s/
But sure, make my 30-round mag cabable guns illegal.  That'll help. /s
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 15, 2019, 01:07:09 PM
Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

You have to consider the frequency and the severity.

So the war on drugs hasn't been severe?...  Because I don't see either party or basically any resources going into that fight and it kills thousands more kids and young adults than guns.

s/
But sure, make my 30-round mag cabable guns illegal.  That'll help. /s

I think making handguns illegal is a better solution that worrying about rifles, even "assault guns" don't do as much harm as handguns.

And legalize drugs.  At least pot and coke and the various hallucinogens.  That cuts drug violence in half, if not more. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 15, 2019, 01:10:01 PM
Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

You have to consider the frequency and the severity.

So the war on drugs hasn't been severe?...  Because I don't see either party or basically any resources going into that fight and it kills thousands more kids and young adults than guns.

s/
But sure, make my 30-round mag cabable guns illegal.  That'll help. /s

Can you do everyone a favor and let this discussion go for a page or so before you ruin it with nonsense? Pretty please?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 15, 2019, 01:11:27 PM
Why don't you do something about the drug war, or parents who don't strap in their kids when driving, or LITERALLY any number of things that would have a much greater positive impact on society than attempting to control what I can and can't buy.

Not that I don't want to address those things as well, but I think that I addressed the reason why some people are more concerned about guns a few posts back...

You have to consider the frequency and the severity.

So the war on drugs hasn't been severe?...  Because I don't see either party or basically any resources going into that fight and it kills thousands more kids and young adults than guns.

s/
But sure, make my 30-round mag cabable guns illegal.  That'll help. /s

Um, whut?

Senator introduces a bill to legalize marijuana and it’s called S.420 (https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/8/18217226/s-420-marijuana-bill-senate-legalization-weed)
Quote
A new bill introduced in the Senate today would legalize weed, and it’s not just the text of the bill that’s a nod to marijuana culture. The bill, introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), is labeled with a conspicuous number: S.420.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 15, 2019, 01:23:42 PM
Can you do everyone a favor and let this discussion go for a page or so before you ruin it with nonsense? Pretty please?

Well I'm not on page 26, only had one post on 27, only one post on 29, and nothing on 30 until #1493...

But go ahead shut me out, it just goes to show how you can't stand a differing opinion.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 15, 2019, 01:29:07 PM
Um, whut?

Senator introduces a bill to legalize marijuana and it’s called S.420 (https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/8/18217226/s-420-marijuana-bill-senate-legalization-weed)
Quote
A new bill introduced in the Senate today would legalize weed, and it’s not just the text of the bill that’s a nod to marijuana culture. The bill, introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), is labeled with a conspicuous number: S.420.

And it will (unfortunately) get destroyed by the right AND the left, or let die in committee.

Or are you forgetting that BOTH Bush and Obama raided medical marijuana facilities in states that dared to legalize them, and the left has yet to actually abandon the War on Drugs wholesale.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obamas-war-on-pot-231820/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obamas-war-on-pot-231820/)
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-past-and-future-of-federal-marijuana-enforcement (https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-past-and-future-of-federal-marijuana-enforcement)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 15, 2019, 01:37:29 PM
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org

Thanks for the link Poundwise. I haven't had a chance to read much but I'll try to later.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of using emotion and telling the stories of people who have been through tragedy to make a point. I'm also not trying to be critical of the project. I appreciate it for what it is, but I don't think it has a place in a debate of logic. I'll agree that the number, 1200, is meaningful. Their individual stories, less so. I know that sounds cold-hearted but that's not my intent.

What I'm trying to get at is that everyone has a story. When someone's story ends too soon, it's terrible, but I could use anyone's tragic story who died in a non gun related incident to elicit the same emotions. I hope I'm explaining my feelings on this clearly because I know it's a sensitive topic and I don't mean to minimize anyone's personal experience.

And despite the opinion I'm trying to express here I also acknowledge that the majority of people don't put nearly this much thought into the issue so, the hell with it, maybe we do need to pull on some heart strings to get anything done. I don't really know anymore.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Davnasty on February 15, 2019, 01:45:20 PM
Can you do everyone a favor and let this discussion go for a page or so before you ruin it with nonsense? Pretty please?

Well I'm not on page 26, only had one post on 27, only one post on 29, and nothing on 30 until #1493...

But go ahead shut me out, it just goes to show how you can't stand a differing opinion.

I love differing opinions, there would be no discussion without them. There's a number of posters who keep their cool on the gun topic and argue rationally. I enjoy talking to them.

You, however tend to use lots of erroneous numbers like comparing 2016 homicides of 10-24 year olds with gun homicides between 2/15/18-2/14/19 of 0-18 year olds. Why would you compare these things?

Then you said no resources are going towards the drug law debate? Do you stand by that statement?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 15, 2019, 01:53:47 PM
And it will (unfortunately) get destroyed by the right AND the left, or let die in committee.

Or are you forgetting that BOTH Bush and Obama raided medical marijuana facilities in states that dared to legalize them, and the left has yet to actually abandon the War on Drugs wholesale.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obamas-war-on-pot-231820/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/obamas-war-on-pot-231820/)
https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-past-and-future-of-federal-marijuana-enforcement (https://www.thirdway.org/memo/the-past-and-future-of-federal-marijuana-enforcement)

Well, that's a bit different from what you said in your previous post isn't it...

So the war on drugs hasn't been severe?...  Because I don't see either party or basically any resources going into that fight and it kills thousands more kids and young adults than guns.

s/
But sure, make my 30-round mag cabable guns illegal.  That'll help. /s

And personally, I'll take "yet to actually abandon the War on Drugs wholesale" over the alternative any day...

What Jeff Sessions Has Said About Marijuana (https://www.newsweek.com/jeff-sessions-marijuana-quotes-about-pot-570177)
Quote
"I think one of [Obama's] great failures, it's obvious to me, is his lax treatment in comments on marijuana... It reverses 20 years almost of hostility to drugs that began really when Nancy Reagan started 'Just Say No.'"

ETA:  And all of this is beside the point that I think your focusing on frequency again.  We don't see mass drug overdoses being reported constantly like we do with mass shootings.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 15, 2019, 03:01:02 PM
That said, I'm not a huge fan of using emotion and telling the stories of people who have been through tragedy to make a point. I'm also not trying to be critical of the project. I appreciate it for what it is, but I don't think it has a place in a debate of logic. I'll agree that the number, 1200, is meaningful. Their individual stories, less so. I know that sounds cold-hearted but that's not my intent.

What I'm trying to get at is that everyone has a story. When someone's story ends too soon, it's terrible, but I could use anyone's tragic story who died in a non gun related incident to elicit the same emotions. I hope I'm explaining my feelings on this clearly because I know it's a sensitive topic and I don't mean to minimize anyone's personal experience.
Wow, that was very well put.

I love differing opinions, there would be no discussion without them. There's a number of posters who keep their cool on the gun topic and argue rationally. I enjoy talking to them.

You, however tend to use lots of erroneous numbers like comparing 2016 homicides of 10-24 year olds with gun homicides between 2/15/18-2/14/19 of 0-18 year olds. Why would you compare these things?

Then you said no resources are going towards the drug law debate? Do you stand by that statement?
I think he was being sarcastic on that second point.

As for the first point, yes, it's a clumsy application of statistics.  At the same time, however, the age distribution of those who are murdered is very significant.  The website Poundwise linked uses the term "children," and while technically correct, it is also a bit misleading. For most people, that term conjures up images of younger kids, but a very large percentage of those killed are teenagers.  This is important because an overwhelming percentage of murders in that demographic are committed in connection with gang activity.

Speaking of which, it is telling to me that in the stories of the deceased, they never seem to mention the word "gang."  I didn't read all 1200 stories, but I did read through 15-20, and not a single story mentioned gang activity.  One mentioned a drug deal, one mentioned trouble with the law (without any specifics), and one mentioned a social media feud.

I feel it's also important when discussing public policy to keep a sense of perspective and scale.  There are 74 million kids in the US in that age range, which means that those 1,200 gun deaths account for 0.0016% of all children.  I don't wish to minimize the personal tragedy each story represents, but when discussing public policy, it's important to quantify the size of the problem and the expected effect of any proposal, and define how any proposal will be evaluated for efficacy.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 15, 2019, 03:39:50 PM
I feel it's also important when discussing public policy to keep a sense of perspective and scale.  There are 74 million kids in the US in that age range, which means that those 1,200 gun deaths account for 0.0016% of all children.  I don't wish to minimize the personal tragedy each story represents, but when discussing public policy, it's important to quantify the size of the problem and the expected effect of any proposal, and define how any proposal will be evaluated for efficacy.

Seriously, I think this argument misses the point entirely and yet it keeps coming up...

You have to consider the frequency and the severity.

Yes, it's a occurs infrequently, but when it does it results in death or serious injury to one or often many people.  How often do terrorists fly planes into buildings?  How many precautionary measures do we take (and how invasive are they) to prevent that one possibility?  Do you think those measures are justified because terrorists are frequently hijacking airplanes or because the consequences when they do are so severe?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: TexasRunner on February 15, 2019, 03:44:24 PM
I feel it's also important when discussing public policy to keep a sense of perspective and scale.  There are 74 million kids in the US in that age range, which means that those 1,200 gun deaths account for 0.0016% of all children.  I don't wish to minimize the personal tragedy each story represents, but when discussing public policy, it's important to quantify the size of the problem and the expected effect of any proposal, and define how any proposal will be evaluated for efficacy.

That was the net statement of my post that I was intending.  The current gun control laws are useless when you start discussing kids (as was presented in that website).  Effectively an efficacy rate of zero...

Well, that's a bit different from what you said in your previous post isn't it...
...
And personally, I'll take "yet to actually abandon the War on Drugs wholesale" over the alternative any day...

ETA:  And all of this is beside the point that I think your focusing on frequency again.  We don't see mass drug overdoses being reported constantly like we do with mass shootings.

My previous post was pointing out the War on Drugs is a massive failure and the deadly results of such claim WAY more lives than gun control proposes to correct.

What alternative to abandoning the War on Drugs would you like to see?  Personally, I would prefer de-decriminalization (but mandatory rehabilitation) of 'hard' drug usage (with the same current levels of "criminalization" of dealing hard drugs) and complete legalization of weed, at the very least. (Edit:  Which is what I would consider 'abandoning' the war on drugs).

And overdoses kill 70,237 annually, going up (source (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html)) each year while rifles only killed 374 in 2016 (source (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls)) and yet rifles are the target of legislation, and very little is being done on the drug-usage front...  You're telling me that 'frequency' is the issue that pushes the gun-control narrative?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Poundwise on February 15, 2019, 04:02:18 PM
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org

Out of (about) 120 MILLION gun owners...

So that's 1 child per 100,000 gun owners.
The point of the website is to show how that one child who died mattered.

Quote
But that number includes gang violence (committed generally by illegal gun owners, not legal gun owners) and homicides (again generally committed by illegal gun owners, not legal gun owners). 
And those kids matter too.

Legal, illegal, the more guns in the system, the more deaths there will be.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 15, 2019, 04:05:46 PM
My previous post was pointing out the War on Drugs is a massive failure and the deadly results of such claim WAY more lives than gun control proposes to correct.

What alternative to abandoning the War on Drugs would you like to see?  Personally, I would prefer de-decriminalization (but mandatory rehabilitation) of 'hard' drug usage (with the same current levels of "criminalization" of dealing hard drugs) and complete legalization of weed, at the very least. (Edit:  Which is what I would consider 'abandoning' the war on drugs).

And overdoses kill 70,237 annually, going up (source (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/29/upshot/fentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html)) each year while rifles only killed 374 in 2016 (source (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls)) and yet rifles are the target of legislation, and very little is being done on the drug-usage front...  You're telling me that 'frequency' is the issue that pushes the gun-control narrative?

No, I'm saying it's the severity of the individual events.  The vast majority of those overdose deaths were probably individuals overdosing in private, not 30-50 people overdosing in one dramatic incident that also terrorizes the entire town that it occurs in (especially since overdoses are generally 'self-inflicted').

As to the drug war, I'd say I'm mostly in agreement with what you just described.  I just disagree that neither party is doing anything to move us towards those goals.  I think one party is definitely taking steps to move us towards ending the drug war while the other is trying to drag us back into it.

I also believe that the same party that is trying to adress gun control is also the one trying to address the drug war and that we can and should address both.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Poundwise on February 15, 2019, 04:07:25 PM
In the twelve months since Parkland, 1200 children have been killed by gun violence in America. Teen journalists researched and wrote about each of them at the following website.

https://sinceparkland.org

Thanks for the link Poundwise. I haven't had a chance to read much but I'll try to later.

That said, I'm not a huge fan of using emotion and telling the stories of people who have been through tragedy to make a point. I'm also not trying to be critical of the project. I appreciate it for what it is, but I don't think it has a place in a debate of logic. I'll agree that the number, 1200, is meaningful. Their individual stories, less so. I know that sounds cold-hearted but that's not my intent.

What I'm trying to get at is that everyone has a story. When someone's story ends too soon, it's terrible, but I could use anyone's tragic story who died in a non gun related incident to elicit the same emotions. I hope I'm explaining my feelings on this clearly because I know it's a sensitive topic and I don't mean to minimize anyone's personal experience.

And despite the opinion I'm trying to express here I also acknowledge that the majority of people don't put nearly this much thought into the issue so, the hell with it, maybe we do need to pull on some heart strings to get anything done. I don't really know anymore.

The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic. In fact the OP was simply reporting something sad. Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order for us to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: shenlong55 on February 15, 2019, 04:09:20 PM
The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic.  Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order to to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.

For the record, I think it is entirely logical.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 15, 2019, 04:21:11 PM
It is not *logical*, per se.

But I personally think it's quite good that those kids are doing it. I'm hoping they can spark a new generation of activists who actually care to try to change things in the world. Caring that people are dying from gun violence, and actually wanting to do something about it, is not a bad thing. As is saying that those lives mattered, and pointing out that they were lost senselessly. And that maybe we should care more about that than we do.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Poundwise on February 15, 2019, 04:32:10 PM
  At the same time, however, the age distribution of those who are murdered is very significant.  The website Poundwise linked uses the term "children," and while technically correct, it is also a bit misleading. For most people, that term conjures up images of younger kids, but a very large percentage of those killed are teenagers.  This is important because an overwhelming percentage of murders in that demographic are committed in connection with gang activity.

Speaking of which, it is telling to me that in the stories of the deceased, they never seem to mention the word "gang."  I didn't read all 1200 stories, but I did read through 15-20, and not a single story mentioned gang activity.  One mentioned a drug deal, one mentioned trouble with the law (without any specifics), and one mentioned a social media feud.

I continue to use the word "children" because as a parent of a teen, I see these young people as children and feel for them.

I thought https://sinceparkland.org is striking because it follows the story of all these children, cute or not cute, gang members or not. Perhaps many more of these young people would be alive today if guns weren't so readily available, even if they were in gangs.  The problem with a powerful weapon like a gun is that it turns a child's impulse or mistake, into forever.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 15, 2019, 06:24:58 PM
The problem is not that it's not logical to care about children. I feel that it's logical, and I think most would as well.

The problem is when people use stories like these as trump cards. These stories are important. They should inform our decisions like stories from all different perspectives on the issue. The fact that it's kids getting hurt, though, shouldn't mean that it gets to trump everything else, though. Tragedies abound every day. Stories about them are important and should inform our decisions. They should work together with statistics when looking at the overall issue and policy decisions.

I make it a point to listen to stories like these. I realize that by being against many gun control positions, there are consequences. I listened to a story where a CNN reporter could barely make it through reading a note a mom wrote to her daughter a year after she was killed. Was it moving? Of course. Would it have also been moving if it were the story of someone who lost her son to any number of other things? Absolutely.

The problem is when these stories are used to perpetuate things like "even one death is too many." Is one death too many? Philosophically, absolutely. Practically? In general (not in all situations) no, because there's almost always a trade off. In this case, the trade off is freedom of people who want to be able to defend themselves/just like to shoot or whatnot. A balance has to be struck between the two, and it is a poor argument, imo, that uses anecdotal stories as a trump card to insinuate that no measure is too great for it. I'm not saying anyone here is/has done that, but that's why people tend to be wary of these things.

The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic.  Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order to to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.

For the record, I think it is entirely logical.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 15, 2019, 09:54:51 PM
The problem is not that it's not logical to care about children. I feel that it's logical, and I think most would as well.

The problem is when people use stories like these as trump cards. These stories are important. They should inform our decisions like stories from all different perspectives on the issue. The fact that it's kids getting hurt, though, shouldn't mean that it gets to trump everything else, though. Tragedies abound every day. Stories about them are important and should inform our decisions. They should work together with statistics when looking at the overall issue and policy decisions.

I make it a point to listen to stories like these. I realize that by being against many gun control positions, there are consequences. I listened to a story where a CNN reporter could barely make it through reading a note a mom wrote to her daughter a year after she was killed. Was it moving? Of course. Would it have also been moving if it were the story of someone who lost her son to any number of other things? Absolutely.

The problem is when these stories are used to perpetuate things like "even one death is too many." Is one death too many? Philosophically, absolutely. Practically? In general (not in all situations) no, because there's almost always a trade off. In this case, the trade off is freedom of people who want to be able to defend themselves/just like to shoot or whatnot. A balance has to be struck between the two, and it is a poor argument, imo, that uses anecdotal stories as a trump card to insinuate that no measure is too great for it. I'm not saying anyone here is/has done that, but that's why people tend to be wary of these things.

The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic.  Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order to to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.

For the record, I think it is entirely logical.

The problem is that "I just like to shoot" is not a very good tradeoff for "My kid is dead".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 16, 2019, 05:08:26 AM
Thanks for highlighting half of what I said... two things: one, if it were only "I just like to shoot", and there were no aspects of defense of you or your family(which you ignored), it would be different and two, "I just like to drink" seems be a pretty well agreed upon trade-off for kids and wives dead of domestic violence or families impoverished for generations.

The problem is not that it's not logical to care about children. I feel that it's logical, and I think most would as well.

The problem is when people use stories like these as trump cards. These stories are important. They should inform our decisions like stories from all different perspectives on the issue. The fact that it's kids getting hurt, though, shouldn't mean that it gets to trump everything else, though. Tragedies abound every day. Stories about them are important and should inform our decisions. They should work together with statistics when looking at the overall issue and policy decisions.

I make it a point to listen to stories like these. I realize that by being against many gun control positions, there are consequences. I listened to a story where a CNN reporter could barely make it through reading a note a mom wrote to her daughter a year after she was killed. Was it moving? Of course. Would it have also been moving if it were the story of someone who lost her son to any number of other things? Absolutely.

The problem is when these stories are used to perpetuate things like "even one death is too many." Is one death too many? Philosophically, absolutely. Practically? In general (not in all situations) no, because there's almost always a trade off. In this case, the trade off is freedom of people who want to be able to defend themselves/just like to shoot or whatnot. A balance has to be struck between the two, and it is a poor argument, imo, that uses anecdotal stories as a trump card to insinuate that no measure is too great for it. I'm not saying anyone here is/has done that, but that's why people tend to be wary of these things.

The site is relevant to this thread, which to my knowledge was not limited to a debate of logic.  Caring about other people's lives, and other people's children's lives, is not necessarily logical. But in order to to stop talking past one another, it would help if it were the starting assumption for all.

For the record, I think it is entirely logical.

The problem is that "I just like to shoot" is not a very good tradeoff for "My kid is dead".
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2019, 07:50:31 AM
If the police force in your country is unable to provide sufficient protection for its citizens (you and your family), that's a serious problem.  Arguing that the solution is more guns doesn't make any kind of sense though.  The problem is not a lack deadly weapons, it's a matter of policing.

Trying to link shootings/easy gun availability with domestic assault/easy access to liquor is also nonsensical.  I need a gun to shoot someone.  I don't need a drink to hit someone (or to be impoverished).  They're fundamentally different.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 16, 2019, 08:23:43 AM
If the police force in your country is unable to provide sufficient protection for its citizens (you and your family), that's a serious problem.  Arguing that the solution is more guns doesn't make any kind of sense though.  The problem is not a lack deadly weapons, it's a matter of policing.

Talk about making no sense - the belief that the police can truly protect you in a way that makes self-defense completely unnecessary is a ridiculous proposition. No police force in any country can guarantee protection. The more rural the area, the less possible it is. It's not a knock on them, it's just the reality.

Any situation could come in to play where a person was confronted by a superior force weapons or no weapons. Weapons can allow you to be able to defend yourself better. Of course it's a trade-off, as they would be more able to have a gun as well, but that's just what it is, a trade off. To take the stance as if it's completely illogical to have a gun to defend yourself because the police can somehow protect you at all times in the black and white formula you presented is to undermine self-defense altogether (which you, of course, can do if you're a total pacifist, but I choose not to).

Trying to link shootings/easy gun availability with domestic assault/easy access to liquor is also nonsensical.  I need a gun to shoot someone.  I don't need a drink to hit someone (or to be impoverished).  They're fundamentally different.

Linking shootings/easy gun availability with lives lost for domestic violence and generational poverty and deaths due to DUI etc. is not only not nonsensical, it's one of the best arguments I've ever heard on the issue. You say need a gun to shoot people. Of course you do, but what I care about is crime overall not just crime with a gun (a tact many gun rights advocates use when talking statistics - conflating gun crimes going down ignoring overall crime of the same type that may stay the same or go up). Your attempt to say I don't need a drink to hit someone (or to be impoverished) is the nonsensical argument, and I don't see how you don't see it. I can kill someone without a gun. I can hit someone or be impoverished or hit someone with a car and hurt them without alcohol. Both are important because both exacerbate the situation. Alcohol affects more lives than guns and you (collective not you particular) have for it is the argument that it's fun (like it's fun to shoot). You don't even have the practical use of self-defense for it that you have for guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2019, 10:37:03 AM
The role of a police force is to protect citizens of a country.  Somehow, in Canada and Australia (both of which have sensible gun control laws) the police are able to do this.  Citizens do not live in fear of regularly being victimized by criminals.

If the police in the US are unable to provide the same level of protection, then let's discuss how to fix the problem.  If the police are able to provide similar levels of protection, then there exists no need for personal firearms for defence.  Either way, guns aren't necessary.

I think that you're overlooking a fact related to guns when comparing gun usage to alcohol.  Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently.  This is fundamentally different than alchohol.

Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 16, 2019, 11:43:35 AM
The role of a police force is to protect citizens of a country.  Somehow, in Canada and Australia (both of which have sensible gun control laws) the police are able to do this.  Citizens do not live in fear of regularly being victimized by criminals.

If the police in the US are unable to provide the same level of protection, then let's discuss how to fix the problem.  If the police are able to provide similar levels of protection, then there exists no need for personal firearms for defence.  Either way, guns aren't necessary.

I think that you're overlooking a fact related to guns when comparing gun usage to alcohol.  Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently.  This is fundamentally different than alchohol.

Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat.

The problem is you're making a logical argument and it'll never work.  That's because the real reason behind wanting a gun 'for protection' is intensely emotional.  The desire to protect "me and mine" runs very deep in a large percentage of people.  To remove guns from their ownership makes them feel incredibly vulnerable. 

Thus you see that when presented with certain facts (ie, guns are death machines, or that other countries manage just fine without them, etc...) they just double down.  You'll never change their minds because this touches on an area that's very primal and simply isn't open to reason. 

Unfortunately it seems that this is biologically programmed in some people more strongly than others.  In the US we just happen to have a lot of them.  The only real way to change things is not via discussion, but simply outvote them. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 16, 2019, 01:15:43 PM
The role of a police force is to protect citizens of a country.  Somehow, in Canada and Australia (both of which have sensible gun control laws) the police are able to do this.  Citizens do not live in fear of regularly being victimized by criminals.

If the police in the US are unable to provide the same level of protection, then let's discuss how to fix the problem.  If the police are able to provide similar levels of protection, then there exists no need for personal firearms for defence.  Either way, guns aren't necessary.

The role of the police is to protect citizens of a country. OK, so we agree there. (I won't even bring up for argument the supreme court ruling saying police don't have to protect us because I'm sure you would say, let's change that then, but either way, it's the current law of the land).

Citizens in Canada and Australia don't live in regular fear of being victimized by criminals. Great. I don't live in regular fear of it here either. The police can do things up to a certain point. Unless you want a thought crime totalitarian regime, they will not be able to prevent all violent crime (and probably not even then). There's another thread on here about universal healthcare where some progressive posters (and maybe you too, I can't remember) lay into people who are arguing philosophically against universal healthcare, telling them, let's look at what practically works. Well, practically speaking, police in the known history of the earth (that I'm aware of) have never eliminated crime. It's just not practical. There will always be a risk of getting victimized. So to act like police is the argument to end any arguments that you might need to defend yourself is simply impractical. It would need to be a foolproof argument to totally dismiss the self defense argument like you seem to want to, and it's just not. There is risk of you or your family getting hurt. There always well be. A by definition less than perfect means of preventing it means that people are going to have rational arguments that they should be able to have the tools that can help to defend themselves.


I think that you're overlooking a fact related to guns when comparing gun usage to alcohol.  Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently.  This is fundamentally different than alcohol.

Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat.


I'm not overlooking the fact of intent. I will give you that it's the only argument that remotely has merit since the statistics of more alcohol related deaths than guns is pretty clear, and I'm glad you aren't arguing it from a what's actually causing the most harm standpoint because one is certainly worse than the other.

I'll address your two points. First, the intent. The point of a gun is for the most part to shoot a bullet. Some guns now are designed with the fun of target shooting as the primary objective, so this is not a universal point like you keep trying to make. So yes, designed to shoot a bullet. Kill efficiently...no, otherwise they're pretty terrible at it because most gun shots don't end in death. Guns have a variety of aspects of them. One that is used a lot in gun circles is stopping power. This is highlighted because most people who have guns and want to use them in self defense wouldn't try to kill efficiently They would try to stop who was coming at them. Lethality wouldn't be the primary goal. I can hear the arguments now - you're being pedantic, or whatnot. This is important. You ascribe the intent of all guns to kill efficiently thereby ascribing the intent of people using guns to kill efficiently. This just isn't so in all instances as proven by my sports shooting example and example of what a rational person wants to do in defense, which is why it needs to be argued.

Let's set all this aside (of course you can argue against it if you'd like). Let's just say the intent of guns is violence to keep it simple. This is another reason why the alcohol argument is also so applicable. Alcohol has an intent too! The intent of alcohol is to inebriate, plain and simple. You can call it loosening up or whatever you'd like, but alcohol works by loosening inhibitions, period. In a world where, as you just stated, violence is a part of human society, loosening up inhibitions includes loosening up restrictions people place on themselves to stop violent tendencies. When it happens, a very much non-zero percentage of the population ends up violent (or making any other number of poor life choices), and you get what we have with society and alcohol. Alcohol doesn't have some angelic intent. So yes, let's talk about intent, because it's just another aspect that ties guns to alcohol.

Now the "Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat."

Gun deaths being replaced by other deaths means there's no utility of guns. There's tons of examples why this isn't a good 1:1 argument. First of all, I didn't say gun deaths compared to other deaths. I commented about crime. Gun deaths could go down but rapes, assaults, etc. could skyrocket. Then would the utility of guns which prevented those not outweigh the deaths that reduce? I don't know, we'd have to look at the whole picture. If guns were banned and shootings went down but deaths went up, why would that mean guns provide no utility over a baseball bat? People who rob or assault or rape could be more physically imposing and be able to exert their will over people who could only have defended themselves with a gun. There's a million permutations of what could happen that make that argument not a straightforward proposition.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 16, 2019, 01:23:15 PM

The problem is you're making a logical argument and it'll never work.  That's because the real reason behind wanting a gun 'for protection' is intensely emotional.  The desire to protect "me and mine" runs very deep in a large percentage of people.  To remove guns from their ownership makes them feel incredibly vulnerable. 

Thus you see that when presented with certain facts (ie, guns are death machines, or that other countries manage just fine without them, etc...) they just double down.  You'll never change their minds because this touches on an area that's very primal and simply isn't open to reason. 

Unfortunately it seems that this is biologically programmed in some people more strongly than others.  In the US we just happen to have a lot of them.  The only real way to change things is not via discussion, but simply outvote them.

I have never once accused someone of this on this on this board, but seriously, dude, are you trolling? You blanket ignore a discussion being had in good faith and claim that the only possible reason someone arguing against gun control could be emotional? I reiterate....seriously?

On an argument where, as I mentioned before, CNN anchors are reading intentionally tear-jerk letters about one specific person who had a tragedy to bring out the emotion. On an argument where gun control proponents highlight school shootings as if you should be afraid every waking moment your kids are in school for their lives? On a thread that was freaking revived for an article that highlighted every death of a child by shootings, which in isolation is, of course, there to make us feel emotional about an issue (not saying this is an unfair play of emotion, just that it's certainly emotional). I've had discussions with you before, and you tend to not actually respond to my comments, as I remember, so I doubt you'll respond to this. If you do though, please by all means explain why the gun control side has the moral high ground on not being emotional. I can't wait.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Boofinator on February 16, 2019, 02:06:40 PM
The statistics hit close to home this week: There was a school shooting at 1 of the 2 public high schools in the city I live in on the one-year anniversary of Parkland. Valentine's Day is apparently a popular time to pop a cap.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/police-teen-planned-to-shoot-ex-girlfriend-at-rio-rancho/article_11e6bbf0-77a9-5154-8135-0e8a3a37d6f0.html (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/police-teen-planned-to-shoot-ex-girlfriend-at-rio-rancho/article_11e6bbf0-77a9-5154-8135-0e8a3a37d6f0.html)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2019, 02:59:24 PM
Citizens in Canada and Australia don't live in regular fear of being victimized by criminals. Great. I don't live in regular fear of it here either

If there's no real fear of being victimized by criminals, then there's no real need to walk around armed all the time.



The police can do things up to a certain point. Unless you want a thought crime totalitarian regime, they will not be able to prevent all violent crime (and probably not even then). There's another thread on here about universal healthcare where some progressive posters (and maybe you too, I can't remember) lay into people who are arguing philosophically against universal healthcare, telling them, let's look at what practically works. Well, practically speaking, police in the known history of the earth (that I'm aware of) have never eliminated crime. It's just not practical. There will always be a risk of getting victimized. So to act like police is the argument to end any arguments that you might need to defend yourself is simply impractical. It would need to be a foolproof argument to totally dismiss the self defense argument like you seem to want to, and it's just not. There is risk of you or your family getting hurt. There always well be. A by definition less than perfect means of preventing it means that people are going to have rational arguments that they should be able to have the tools that can help to defend themselves.

Of course all crime will not be eliminated.  Nobody has argued that it will be.  There is always risk.  There's a risk of a previously unknown virus could wipe you out.  It it sensible then, to never leave your home without wearing a HAZMAT suit?  It's important to quantify these risks to make sensible decisions.




I think that you're overlooking a fact related to guns when comparing gun usage to alcohol.  Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently.  This is fundamentally different than alcohol.

Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat.


I'm not overlooking the fact of intent. I will give you that it's the only argument that remotely has merit since the statistics of more alcohol related deaths than guns is pretty clear, and I'm glad you aren't arguing it from a what's actually causing the most harm standpoint because one is certainly worse than the other.

I'll address your two points. First, the intent. The point of a gun is for the most part to shoot a bullet. Some guns now are designed with the fun of target shooting as the primary objective, so this is not a universal point like you keep trying to make. So yes, designed to shoot a bullet. Kill efficiently...no, otherwise they're pretty terrible at it because most gun shots don't end in death. Guns have a variety of aspects of them. One that is used a lot in gun circles is stopping power. This is highlighted because most people who have guns and want to use them in self defense wouldn't try to kill efficiently They would try to stop who was coming at them. Lethality wouldn't be the primary goal. I can hear the arguments now - you're being pedantic, or whatnot. This is important. You ascribe the intent of all guns to kill efficiently thereby ascribing the intent of people using guns to kill efficiently. This just isn't so in all instances as proven by my sports shooting example and example of what a rational person wants to do in defense, which is why it needs to be argued.

This is the most ridiculous Hollywood movie inspired bullshit answer I've ever heard on the topic of guns, and honestly it's surprising to hear coming from you.  I had thought that you were experienced with and had knowledge of firearms.

A gun is absolutely designed to kill.  Why do police always shoot with lethal intent?  Because it's not really possible to shoot to wound.  (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/ (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/))  Yes, I do believe that anyone who points a gun at another person and fires intends to kill them.  That's how the law sees it as well.

I don't ascribe any intent to guns.  Guns are a tool.  They don't have an intent.  They do have a design purpose though, and that has always been to enable someone to kill something more efficiently via lethal projectile*.  I would never have got my gun permit if owning a gun didn't make it an awful lot easier to kill moose than with my pocket knife.  A gun that doesn't make it a lot easier to kill someone else is not going to be effective for personal defense.

I do ascribe intent to kill to any person who points a gun at someone else and pulls the trigger.  Again, the law is in agreement with me 100% on this.  If someone shoots at you, they are attempting murder.


*If a gun is designed to make killing things inefficient . . . say, it fires bean bags then I doubt there would be much call to regulate it.  Certainly, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you about it.




Let's set all this aside (of course you can argue against it if you'd like). Let's just say the intent of guns is violence to keep it simple. This is another reason why the alcohol argument is also so applicable. Alcohol has an intent too! The intent of alcohol is to inebriate, plain and simple. You can call it loosening up or whatever you'd like, but alcohol works by loosening inhibitions, period. In a world where, as you just stated, violence is a part of human society, loosening up inhibitions includes loosening up restrictions people place on themselves to stop violent tendencies. When it happens, a very much non-zero percentage of the population ends up violent (or making any other number of poor life choices), and you get what we have with society and alcohol. Alcohol doesn't have some angelic intent. So yes, let's talk about intent, because it's just another aspect that ties guns to alcohol.

Sure, I guess you could argue that the intent of alcohol is to inebriate.  Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?



Now the "Violence is a part of human society, agreed.  Some gun deaths would likely be replaced with deaths by other means were gun controls to be enacted.  If you're going to argue that the numbers would be equal however, you're effectively saying that guns provide no utility over a knife or a baseball bat."

Gun deaths being replaced by other deaths means there's no utility of guns. There's tons of examples why this isn't a good 1:1 argument. First of all, I didn't say gun deaths compared to other deaths. I commented about crime. Gun deaths could go down but rapes, assaults, etc. could skyrocket. Then would the utility of guns which prevented those not outweigh the deaths that reduce? I don't know, we'd have to look at the whole picture. If guns were banned and shootings went down but deaths went up, why would that mean guns provide no utility over a baseball bat? People who rob or assault or rape could be more physically imposing and be able to exert their will over people who could only have defended themselves with a gun. There's a million permutations of what could happen that make that argument not a straightforward proposition.

Fortunately we don't have to guess or hypothesize.  Rapes, assaults, etc. haven't skyrocketed in countries like Canada or Australia that have enacted gun control legislation.  Your fears on that front therefore are unfounded.  If American police are unable to keep reasonable order in the country, then again, that is a valid problem . . . but it is a problem of law enforcement.  Not a call for free access to firearms.

Guns are designed to make it easier to kill.  It's likely that people would turn to knives and bats when they can't get a hold of guns . . . but given that these weapons are not designed to kill, I think it's reasonable to expect the death toll, severity of damage, and number of wounded in such incidents to go down.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 16, 2019, 03:47:41 PM

The problem is you're making a logical argument and it'll never work.  That's because the real reason behind wanting a gun 'for protection' is intensely emotional.  The desire to protect "me and mine" runs very deep in a large percentage of people.  To remove guns from their ownership makes them feel incredibly vulnerable. 

Thus you see that when presented with certain facts (ie, guns are death machines, or that other countries manage just fine without them, etc...) they just double down.  You'll never change their minds because this touches on an area that's very primal and simply isn't open to reason. 

Unfortunately it seems that this is biologically programmed in some people more strongly than others.  In the US we just happen to have a lot of them.  The only real way to change things is not via discussion, but simply outvote them.

I have never once accused someone of this on this on this board, but seriously, dude, are you trolling? You blanket ignore a discussion being had in good faith and claim that the only possible reason someone arguing against gun control could be emotional? I reiterate....seriously?

On an argument where, as I mentioned before, CNN anchors are reading intentionally tear-jerk letters about one specific person who had a tragedy to bring out the emotion. On an argument where gun control proponents highlight school shootings as if you should be afraid every waking moment your kids are in school for their lives? On a thread that was freaking revived for an article that highlighted every death of a child by shootings, which in isolation is, of course, there to make us feel emotional about an issue (not saying this is an unfair play of emotion, just that it's certainly emotional). I've had discussions with you before, and you tend to not actually respond to my comments, as I remember, so I doubt you'll respond to this. If you do though, please by all means explain why the gun control side has the moral high ground on not being emotional. I can't wait.

I'm not trolling at all.  I'm from Texas, my parents still live there, on a farm in the middle of nowhere, that they inherited from their parents, who in turn inherited from their parents, etc... I have deeeeep roots in the conservative, gun toting, bible thumping part of this nation.  I am speaking from long, personal, direct experience with lots of people with your mindset. 

Here, let me show you what I mean.  You point out that policing is not perfect.  That there is a chance that because of that, someone in your family "might" get hurt if you didn't have guns.  That's a true statement.  It's possible.  But when other people point out that other people's kids are definitely getting hurt by the presence of guns, which is an actuality, not a "possibility".  Then the fingers go in the ears and blah blah blah. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 16, 2019, 05:40:06 PM

If there's no real fear of being victimized by criminals, then there's no real need to walk around armed all the time.


C'mon, GuitarStv, you're better than this argument. I'm not really afraid of a house fire, and yet I have insurance. Preparation for a situation does not require fear.


Of course all crime will not be eliminated.  Nobody has argued that it will be.  There is always risk.  There's a risk of a previously unknown virus could wipe you out.  It it sensible then, to never leave your home without wearing a HAZMAT suit?  It's important to quantify these risks to make sensible decisions.


You are essentially arguing that it will be for all intents and purposes. You're decrying the need for a tool for self defense not by arguing about guns and risks vs. rewards but by arguing police should make the need for guns to protect you obsolete. The only way that need is obsolete in a completely, open and closed case situation is if they could prevent crime period. Otherwise, people will want to defend themselves, and you can't say, well, the police will protect them. They might not. You admit it. The chances of them getting hurt are slim, but as I mention every every every time, the chances this random joe blow who wants to have a gun to protect him/herself and their family will use it to hurt someone is also very small.




This is the most ridiculous Hollywood movie inspired bullshit answer I've ever heard on the topic of guns, and honestly it's surprising to hear coming from you.  I had thought that you were experienced with and had knowledge of firearms.

A gun is absolutely designed to kill.  Why do police always shoot with lethal intent?  Because it's not really possible to shoot to wound.  (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/ (https://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/2071009-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically/))  Yes, I do believe that anyone who points a gun at another person and fires intends to kill them.  That's how the law sees it as well.

I don't ascribe any intent to guns.  Guns are a tool.  They don't have an intent.  They do have a design purpose though, and that has always been to enable someone to kill something more efficiently via lethal projectile*.  I would never have got my gun permit if owning a gun didn't make it an awful lot easier to kill moose than with my pocket knife.  A gun that doesn't make it a lot easier to kill someone else is not going to be effective for personal defense.

I do ascribe intent to kill to any person who points a gun at someone else and pulls the trigger.  Again, the law is in agreement with me 100% on this.  If someone shoots at you, they are attempting murder.


*If a gun is designed to make killing things inefficient . . . say, it fires bean bags then I doubt there would be much call to regulate it.  Certainly, I wouldn't be having this conversation with you about it.


Sorry to disappoint, you lol, and sorry you have to incorrectly assign the argument as "Hollywood movie inspired bullshit". I'd say that's more in line with what many gun control advocates think (silencers make guns silenced...yea...).  I do understand guns at least somewhat. I don't declare myself an expert. What I am frustrated with is your continued penchant so far in this topic of ascribing blanket statements, black and white, etc. I have attempted multiple times to simply combat blanket statements from anyone and keep saying, this is why there's trade-offs. You say police do or should completely render self defense arguments unnecessary. That's a ridiculous blanket statement. You say that the comparison to alcohol and guns is nonsensical when there are in fact tons of parallels (both are optional, public health crisis ( alcohol actually more so because it actually does affect your health by its very use), tied to many deaths, etc.).

You then made the statement "Whether for hunting or personal offence, guns are tools designed for a single purpose . . . to kill efficiently." If you had said harm I would probably have left it alone, even though, as I mentioned, there are guns designed for all kinds of purposes. My sport shooting rifle example alone shows that your statement isn't true. I would never declare that shooting someone shooting someone shouldn't be assumed with intent to kill, because there's no way to know intent. Police of course always shoot with lethal intent. The first article you mentioned talks about how shooting to wing is a bad idea because it's hard or in the legs it's still dangerous and could leave someone open to shooting. I don't disagree with any of that and would never council someone to try to shoot them in the leg to whatever to avoid killing them. That's not what I'm saying. I just don't like blanket statements. Some guns are made with the ultimate goal of killing. There's ways to tweak and optimize guns and ammo to make them more likely to kill. If all guns designed with "the single purpose to kill efficiently" then there would be no need for a .22 pistol among others. Of course guns aren't designed to make killing inefficient. It still doesn't mean that's the sole purpose or even primary purpose of every gun's design. That's why I argued the point and really the overall reason why I've wanted to continue this discussion - I don't like the blanket statements that tend to come out of gun control arguments from gun control advocates.




Sure, I guess you could argue that the intent of alcohol is to inebriate.  Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?


I don't guess I could argue that the intent of alcohol is to inebriate. It is. If it was to be tasty you would make things tasty without them being alcoholic. You're arguing hypotheticals of it making it more difficult for you to do things. I'm arguing from reality and statistical standpoint that people who are drunk do bad things - kill people when driving, beat spouses, etc.


Fortunately we don't have to guess or hypothesize.  Rapes, assaults, etc. haven't skyrocketed in countries like Canada or Australia that have enacted gun control legislation.  Your fears on that front therefore are unfounded.  If American police are unable to keep reasonable order in the country, then again, that is a valid problem . . . but it is a problem of law enforcement.  Not a call for free access to firearms.

Guns are designed to make it easier to kill.  It's likely that people would turn to knives and bats when they can't get a hold of guns . . . but given that these weapons are not designed to kill, I think it's reasonable to expect the death toll, severity of damage, and number of wounded in such incidents to go down.

That's the beauty of statistics in gun control debates, there's statistics to prove or disprove any point. I could just as easily say, fortunately, we don't have to hypothesize or even use other countries which have different situations/gang violence/drugs/whatever. Gun numbers have increased dramatically over the past couple of decades and crime has gone down.

Guns are (mostly) designed to cause harm. In the hands of people who would defend themselves, they can prevent crimes. Gun owners will take the risk of random gun violence for the knowledge of having something more than hands or a baseball bat for defense of family. It's not like most of the people I know that have guns have ever used them in a crime. In fact, none have (admittedly that I'm aware of). Some, however, have used them to prevent injuries or theft from themselves and *shocker* they didn't even have to shoot anyone to do it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 16, 2019, 07:00:43 PM

I'm not trolling at all.  I'm from Texas, my parents still live there, on a farm in the middle of nowhere, that they inherited from their parents, who in turn inherited from their parents, etc... I have deeeeep roots in the conservative, gun toting, bible thumping part of this nation.  I am speaking from long, personal, direct experience with lots of people with your mindset. 

Here, let me show you what I mean.  You point out that policing is not perfect.  That there is a chance that because of that, someone in your family "might" get hurt if you didn't have guns.  That's a true statement.  It's possible.  But when other people point out that other people's kids are definitely getting hurt by the presence of guns, which is an actuality, not a "possibility".  Then the fingers go in the ears and blah blah blah.

Glad you're not trolling. You're still pretty condescending, though, saying you know my mindset. You're familiar with people who support guns and assume that I think the same way. I might. I might not.

I'll be glad to discuss your statement if you'll continue the conversation.

You're analogy could be used for any number of situation where one's rights are being taken away. Rights are almost always removed because there's something bad that could happen, and they're usually removed when an example of that bad thing has happened recently. It doesn't make it an open and shut case that the right should be taken away. There are literally tens of millions of gun owners that taking guns away if done in full force would deprive of a tool they could use to help protect themselves or their families without them actually doing anything wrong with the gun. This is an actuality - depriving of a right without the person doing anything criminal first. It has a societal cost, and to pretend it doesn't just because someone, somewhere will misuse a gun this or month or whatever is not intellectually honest.

Arguing against your point is not sticking my fingers in my ears and saying blah blah. It's a discussion that despite how gun control people simplify the story(and how gun rights people do to, to be honest), it's a complex and nuanced issue. It's quite frustrating for you to act like gun control advocates are perfectly logical, and I'm being totally dictated by emotions when I'm using rational arguments that you're not (at least as of yet) defeating. I mentioned from the beginning that I intentionally look at the human cost of things. It saddens me when guns are used to hurt innocent people. I just understand that rarely in political discussions is there a simple fix without repercussions and without someone having a legitimate argument that their rights are being infringed. Please by all means continue the discussion.

Again, I don't know if you'll continue this conversation, because it seems you've assigned motivation to me due to assumptions based on past experiences, and it's hard to overcome preconceived notions. That being said, I welcome you to prove based off of my arguments (not what you heard from John Smith in Texas, so you know how I think) how I'm being emotionally driven but gun control advocates aren't.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 16, 2019, 07:05:37 PM
If there's no real fear of being victimized by criminals, then there's no real need to walk around armed all the time.

C'mon, GuitarStv, you're better than this argument. I'm not really afraid of a house fire, and yet I have insurance. Preparation for a situation does not require fear.

A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.




Of course all crime will not be eliminated.  Nobody has argued that it will be.  There is always risk.  There's a risk of a previously unknown virus could wipe you out.  It it sensible then, to never leave your home without wearing a HAZMAT suit?  It's important to quantify these risks to make sensible decisions.


You are essentially arguing that it will be for all intents and purposes. You're decrying the need for a tool for self defense not by arguing about guns and risks vs. rewards but by arguing police should make the need for guns to protect you obsolete. The only way that need is obsolete in a completely, open and closed case situation is if they could prevent crime period. Otherwise, people will want to defend themselves, and you can't say, well, the police will protect them. They might not. You admit it. The chances of them getting hurt are slim, but as I mention every every every time, the chances this random joe blow who wants to have a gun to protect him/herself and their family will use it to hurt someone is also very small.

No, I'm not arguing that all crime will be eliminated.  (You can tell by the fact that it has been explicitly stated in my comments three times now.)  My argument is that in a country where the police do an effective job, the risk of being victimized in a way the requires you to carry a gun around for "protection" is negligible.

So, given that you yourself are not concerned about being a victim of crime, and the chances of someone getting hurt in a crime are "slim", I'm asking what exactly is the burning need for a firearm for self defense*?  Why does this need exist in America, but not in Canada?

(A side note about defense - a gun isn't the only way one can defend ones self.  Implementing gun control does not suddenly make every person in a country defenseless.)



I would never declare that shooting someone shooting someone shouldn't be assumed with intent to kill, because there's no way to know intent. Police of course always shoot with lethal intent.

It's not possible to know what's in someone else's mind.  Firing a gun at someone is legally assumed to be with lethal intent because a firearm is a lethal weapon.  Note that this is different than using a non-lethal weapon such as a taser, or mace.  These weapons are not designed to kill, so lethal intent is not assumed.

That gets to the crux of my whole point.  A gun is designed to kill, not to harm.  A taser or mace will harm without killing.



If all guns designed with "the single purpose to kill efficiently" then there would be no need for a .22 pistol among others.

The most important factor in killing with a gun is hitting your target.  The caliber and "stopping power" is irrelevant if you don't hit what you were aiming for.  If you do hit your target, a .22 will kill quite efficiently.  That's why one of the first things you're told when you do a gun safety course is that you don't point the gun at anything you don't want dead.



Guns are (mostly) designed to cause harm. In the hands of people who would defend themselves, they can prevent crimes. Gun owners will take the risk of random gun violence for the knowledge of having something more than hands or a baseball bat for defense of family.

I agree.  The thing is, the risk of random gun violence is not just to them.  It's to everyone in the country.



It's not like most of the people I know that have guns have ever used them in a crime. In fact, none have (admittedly that I'm aware of). Some, however, have used them to prevent injuries or theft from themselves and *shocker* they didn't even have to shoot anyone to do it.

Can you think of a reason why someone might be more inclined to discuss using their gun to prevent a crime rather than commit one?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 16, 2019, 07:40:33 PM

A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.


Fair enough, insurance is not the same as a gun. I shouldn't have brought it up. The house fire analogy is still not completely off base. I take steps to prevent it not because it's likely or because I'm scared but because it's something I can do to try to prevent a possibility. Buying insurance is one step. Fire extinguisher, alarm system with smoke detectors, etc. are other steps. The point is, you made the statement that if there's no fear, why do you want to do something. My point is, I do something on plenty of things I'm not living in fear of to work towards prevention of a bad outcome. There's usually at least cost based analysis if not always risk basked analysis in the decisions to do this one. Your comment of no fear = why do it is disproven by tons of decisions we all make. That's my point.


No, I'm not arguing that all crime will be eliminated.  (You can tell by the fact that it has been explicitly stated in my comments three times now.)  My argument is that in a country where the police do an effective job, the risk of being victimized in a way the requires you to carry a gun around for "protection" is negligible.

So, given that you yourself are not concerned about being a victim of crime, and the chances of someone getting hurt in a crime are "slim", I'm asking what exactly is the burning need for a firearm for self defense*?  Why does this need exist in America, but not in Canada?


Fine, you have explicitly stated that you don't think all crime would go away, great. I acknowledge that. Your definition of negligible is the problem. It just doesn't align with everyone else. That's all well and good for general things. However, if you want to argue people should just be quiet about self defense, you need a more robust argument than you consider it negligible. People consider the risks of not vaccinating negligible, doesn't mean they're right. For you to have an argument that would truly eliminate the self-defense option, it would need to be all crime eliminated. Otherwise, there's a rational argument against it. That's why I keep going back to all crime not being eliminated.


It's not possible to know what's in someone else's mind.  Firing a gun at someone is legally assumed to be with lethal intent because a firearm is a lethal weapon.  Note that this is different than using a non-lethal weapon such as a taser, or mace.  These weapons are not designed to kill, so lethal intent is not assumed.

That gets to the crux of my whole point.  A gun is designed to kill, not to harm.  A taser or mace will harm without killing.

The most important factor in killing with a gun is hitting your target.  The caliber and "stopping power" is irrelevant if you don't hit what you were aiming for.  If you do hit your target, a .22 will kill quite efficiently.  That's why one of the first things you're told when you do a gun safety course is that you don't point the gun at anything you don't want dead.


We agree on intent, that's what I said - we can never know, so of course it's always assumed intent to kill. I'm very familiar with gun safety and not to point a gun at someone else because of the risk.

I guess I have to state it again, because you are talking over it. You stated guns are designed "for a single purpose...to kill efficiently." A .22 pistol is not designed to kill efficiently. It would be freaking hard to kill someone with a .22 pistol. It's not this magical most efficient killing machine. A higher caliber - .38, .44, .45, whatever could in the same size gun be a lot more efficient in killing. This just illustrates my point. All guns are not designed with killing as the primary focus. Some are designed to learn how to shoot on, some to fit more compactly and be able to deter (i.e. a small .22 pistol that would probably hurt if you hit someone but very likely not kill them), etc. Just because some weapons are totally non-lethal (i.e. mace) doesn't by definition mean that all guns are, again, designed for a single purpose...to kill efficiently.


I agree.  The thing is, the risk of random gun violence is not just to them.  It's to everyone in the country.


Of which, these people are part of the country. You act like they're making these decision for America while living on the moon. They're making the decisions and taking the risks. You don't like their decisions, that's fine. Don't act like gun owners don't send their children to schools, though. They're right there in it with you and have just analyzed the situation differently than you have.


Can you think of a reason why someone might be more inclined to discuss using their gun to prevent a crime rather than commit one?

Of course they're more likely to talk about preventing a crime than committing one. What I do know is I'm in a small town area. I would know from news and a variety of things if someone I knew was arrested for committing a crime with a gun. It hasn't happened. Anecdotal, sure, but it is what it is.

Finally, you still have not answered my alcohol analogy, and I believe the reason why is the answer doesn't paint gun control people in a good light. The fact of the matter is, people are always more willing to restrict rights for things they don't care about. You seem to not care about self-defense with a gun, so you don't care to restrict it. Too many people like to drink, and they don't care that alcohol causes more deaths than guns. They're more than happy to regulate guns because they don't care about them but wouldn't even think to organize a march to restrict alcohol in the same way they want to restrict guns. Alcohol is an optional thing that could be restricted in the same way as people want to for guns, and yet from the Democrats.....crickets. Let's end the hypocrisy and make it part of the Democrat platform if they're really concerned with holistically saving innocent lives. Or is it easier to pick on the bogey man that a good portion of America is terrified of where the ones rabidly supporting gun control know very little about them and would never use them. The second one is easier and obviously the route chosen by people who are more than willing to restrict gun rights without addressing alcohol.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 16, 2019, 09:23:28 PM

I'm not trolling at all.  I'm from Texas, my parents still live there, on a farm in the middle of nowhere, that they inherited from their parents, who in turn inherited from their parents, etc... I have deeeeep roots in the conservative, gun toting, bible thumping part of this nation.  I am speaking from long, personal, direct experience with lots of people with your mindset. 

Here, let me show you what I mean.  You point out that policing is not perfect.  That there is a chance that because of that, someone in your family "might" get hurt if you didn't have guns.  That's a true statement.  It's possible.  But when other people point out that other people's kids are definitely getting hurt by the presence of guns, which is an actuality, not a "possibility".  Then the fingers go in the ears and blah blah blah.

Glad you're not trolling. You're still pretty condescending, though, saying you know my mindset. You're familiar with people who support guns and assume that I think the same way. I might. I might not.

I'll be glad to discuss your statement if you'll continue the conversation.

You're analogy could be used for any number of situation where one's rights are being taken away. Rights are almost always removed because there's something bad that could happen, and they're usually removed when an example of that bad thing has happened recently. It doesn't make it an open and shut case that the right should be taken away. There are literally tens of millions of gun owners that taking guns away if done in full force would deprive of a tool they could use to help protect themselves or their families without them actually doing anything wrong with the gun. This is an actuality - depriving of a right without the person doing anything criminal first. It has a societal cost, and to pretend it doesn't just because someone, somewhere will misuse a gun this or month or whatever is not intellectually honest.

Arguing against your point is not sticking my fingers in my ears and saying blah blah. It's a discussion that despite how gun control people simplify the story(and how gun rights people do to, to be honest), it's a complex and nuanced issue. It's quite frustrating for you to act like gun control advocates are perfectly logical, and I'm being totally dictated by emotions when I'm using rational arguments that you're not (at least as of yet) defeating. I mentioned from the beginning that I intentionally look at the human cost of things. It saddens me when guns are used to hurt innocent people. I just understand that rarely in political discussions is there a simple fix without repercussions and without someone having a legitimate argument that their rights are being infringed. Please by all means continue the discussion.

Again, I don't know if you'll continue this conversation, because it seems you've assigned motivation to me due to assumptions based on past experiences, and it's hard to overcome preconceived notions. That being said, I welcome you to prove based off of my arguments (not what you heard from John Smith in Texas, so you know how I think) how I'm being emotionally driven but gun control advocates aren't.

Sure, I'll continue the discussion.  My point is not really about gun control per se, but rather that people make have these views based on deeply personal, highly emotional reasons.  And those are impervious to logic. 

I'll prove it to you.  If your beliefs were based on logic/reason, then there would be an argument, piece of data, or some logic that I could present that would make you change your mind.  But in truth, I know there is nothing I can say on this matter that would make you change your mind.  And that's fine, that just makes you exactly like most of the rest of the people in the world (both pro gun and anti gun). 

Now, if you're going to retort that "of course I'm open to changing my opinion", then my next response will be "Prove it.  What in the world could possibly ever convince you to give up your guns"? 

If nothing can convince you, if nothing can change your mind, then your opinion is not based on logic or evidence.  It's based on emotion, which is impervious to facts or logic. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 17, 2019, 02:11:31 AM
Pretty much every other country than the US opens its newspaper without reading about the latest shooting and hoping it is not their town.  I never even think about shootings here in France, but I do worry about my family back in Houston.  There are plenty of problems in the world, but an individual shooting other people located close to them is just sick.

The gun problem is uniquely American.   
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 17, 2019, 04:13:01 AM
US total homicide rate = 4.9 per 100,000
US firearms homicide rate = 3.2
US non-firearms homicide rate = 1.7

Australia total homicide rate = 0.94
NZ total homicide rate = 0.99
Germany total homicide rate = 1.18
France total homicide rate = 1.35
Greece total homicide rate = 0.75
Israel total homicide rate = 1.35
Norway total homicide rate = 0.51
Portugal total homicide rate = 0.64
United Kingdom total homicide rate = 1.2
etc

Even if you waved a magic wand and all America's bangsticks disappeared, and if none of those now killing with firearms killed with something else, the US would still have 50-100% more homicides than other Western countries. Even without firearms, the US is at the level of Malawi, Kosovo or Cambodia - poor countries with a history of civil conflict and genocide.

The US also has 10.9 road traffic fatalities per 100,000 people, compared to Australia with 5.4, France with 5.1, New Zealand with 8.5, and so on. The US is on par with the Philippines, Uzbekistan or Jamaica.


And despite being a First World country, there are places where the people cannot get (https://newrepublic.com/article/147011/rural-americas-drinking-water-crisis) clean, unpolluted drinking and washing water.

It's not the firearms. Americans are quite simply a more jumpy, aggressive and careless people than most of the Western world. Your firearms laws are a complete mess, of course, with so many different jurisdictions and so on; but it's culture. If you want less dead people then you must change your culture.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on February 17, 2019, 05:49:36 AM
And you didn't even mention the statistics on US siblings -  that shot their brother or sister in the home.  Not well documented, anecdotal stories, but it seems to happen quite a lot....  IMHO just one is too many for any modern country that is not fighting off some natural predator...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 17, 2019, 06:29:32 AM
Hey Kyle  - could you post your source for the homicide rates?  Not that I dispute them, but one source I found had an even higher number for the US.  And  you didn't list Canada.  It's not that I feel left out, it is that  I think in these comparisons it is always important to list us, because we are right next door to the US and get more of their cultural exports than anyplace else.  So we often end up with numbers between the US and everyone else.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 17, 2019, 08:12:07 AM

A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.


Fair enough, insurance is not the same as a gun. I shouldn't have brought it up. The house fire analogy is still not completely off base. I take steps to prevent it not because it's likely or because I'm scared but because it's something I can do to try to prevent a possibility. Buying insurance is one step. Fire extinguisher, alarm system with smoke detectors, etc. are other steps. The point is, you made the statement that if there's no fear, why do you want to do something. My point is, I do something on plenty of things I'm not living in fear of to work towards prevention of a bad outcome. There's usually at least cost based analysis if not always risk basked analysis in the decisions to do this one. Your comment of no fear = why do it is disproven by tons of decisions we all make. That's my point.

Carrying a gun all the time provides possible mitigation of a bad outcome in the case of violent crime while also increasing the chance of a bad outcome (related to the fact that you're now carrying a gun, and accident/theft/mis-fire/missed shots are all now possible).  That again makes it quite different than a fire alarm, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, etc. where there is mitigation with no increased chance of bad outcome.  A gun is not insurance, nor is it like a safety device.



No, I'm not arguing that all crime will be eliminated.  (You can tell by the fact that it has been explicitly stated in my comments three times now.)  My argument is that in a country where the police do an effective job, the risk of being victimized in a way the requires you to carry a gun around for "protection" is negligible.

So, given that you yourself are not concerned about being a victim of crime, and the chances of someone getting hurt in a crime are "slim", I'm asking what exactly is the burning need for a firearm for self defense*?  Why does this need exist in America, but not in Canada?

Fine, you have explicitly stated that you don't think all crime would go away, great. I acknowledge that. Your definition of negligible is the problem. It just doesn't align with everyone else. That's all well and good for general things. However, if you want to argue people should just be quiet about self defense, you need a more robust argument than you consider it negligible. People consider the risks of not vaccinating negligible, doesn't mean they're right. For you to have an argument that would truly eliminate the self-defense option, it would need to be all crime eliminated. Otherwise, there's a rational argument against it. That's why I keep going back to all crime not being eliminated.

I don't agree.  There is a chance of being struck by lightning every time you walk outdoors, yet you probably don't carry a lighting rod with you all the time.  (I've been known to step outdoors without a lightning rod even when it's raining.)  Why?  Because the chance is negligible.  It still exists of course (just as crime will always exist for the foreseeable future), but you don't need to eliminate lightning to step outdoors without a lightning rod.



It's not possible to know what's in someone else's mind.  Firing a gun at someone is legally assumed to be with lethal intent because a firearm is a lethal weapon.  Note that this is different than using a non-lethal weapon such as a taser, or mace.  These weapons are not designed to kill, so lethal intent is not assumed.

That gets to the crux of my whole point.  A gun is designed to kill, not to harm.  A taser or mace will harm without killing.

The most important factor in killing with a gun is hitting your target.  The caliber and "stopping power" is irrelevant if you don't hit what you were aiming for.  If you do hit your target, a .22 will kill quite efficiently.  That's why one of the first things you're told when you do a gun safety course is that you don't point the gun at anything you don't want dead.

We agree on intent, that's what I said - we can never know, so of course it's always assumed intent to kill. I'm very familiar with gun safety and not to point a gun at someone else because of the risk.

I guess I have to state it again, because you are talking over it. You stated guns are designed "for a single purpose...to kill efficiently." A .22 pistol is not designed to kill efficiently. It would be freaking hard to kill someone with a .22 pistol. It's not this magical most efficient killing machine. A higher caliber - .38, .44, .45, whatever could in the same size gun be a lot more efficient in killing. This just illustrates my point. All guns are not designed with killing as the primary focus. Some are designed to learn how to shoot on, some to fit more compactly and be able to deter (i.e. a small .22 pistol that would probably hurt if you hit someone but very likely not kill them), etc. Just because some weapons are totally non-lethal (i.e. mace) doesn't by definition mean that all guns are, again, designed for a single purpose...to kill efficiently.

There is absolutely a difference in the penetrating power and damage done by different rounds - I'm not arguing this.  That's why I hunted partridge with a .22 and moose with a 30-06.

I will reiterate though, because we appear to be getting stuck here and this is probably my fault for not being clear enough.  Hand guns are designed to kill other people efficiently.  That's their only utility as a tool.  A .22 hand gun is designed to kill.  A 9 mm hand gun is designed to kill.  A .45 hand gun is designed to kill.  Now, all of them are less efficient at killing at range than a rifle.  That doesn't mean that they weren't designed to kill efficiently by other metrics!  They are designed to kill efficiently by being concealable, by minimizing recoil, by being light weight, etc.

If you want to debate the best possible caliber of hand gun to kill another human being given a particular situation, feel free to do so.  While I will not join in that discussion I tend to think that President Kennedy might disagree with your analysis of the .22, given that he was assassinated by a .22 caliber revolver.  You can cerfainly argue that some guns are more efficient at killing in particular scenarios than others . . . but don't argue that a gun is not designed to be efficient at killing.  That is their raison d'κtre.



I agree.  The thing is, the risk of random gun violence is not just to them.  It's to everyone in the country.

Of which, these people are part of the country. You act like they're making these decision for America while living on the moon. They're making the decisions and taking the risks. You don't like their decisions, that's fine. Don't act like gun owners don't send their children to schools, though. They're right there in it with you and have just analyzed the situation differently than you have.

Agreed that they are making decisions.  But the risk that they're taking is not only to themselves as you imply with your use of 'the' prior to 'risks' above.  The risk extends to others.  This is why we're having this discussion at all, if there was no risk to anyone else from the choice then there would be no reason to restrict it.

An analogy . . . driving a tank down the highway would make my family safer.  We would have inches of heavy armor between us and the vehicles around us, and several tons of mass would mean that other vehicles would just bounce off were there to be a collision.  This reduces risk for me and my family.  Tanks don't have very good visibility though.  This increases risks to every other person on the road.

In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased.  There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft.  It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home.  There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake.  There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.



Can you think of a reason why someone might be more inclined to discuss using their gun to prevent a crime rather than commit one?

Of course they're more likely to talk about preventing a crime than committing one. What I do know is I'm in a small town area. I would know from news and a variety of things if someone I knew was arrested for committing a crime with a gun. It hasn't happened. Anecdotal, sure, but it is what it is.

Is it possible to commit a crime without being both caught and then reported on in the local news?



Finally, you still have not answered my alcohol analogy, and I believe the reason why is the answer doesn't paint gun control people in a good light. The fact of the matter is, people are always more willing to restrict rights for things they don't care about. You seem to not care about self-defense with a gun, so you don't care to restrict it. Too many people like to drink, and they don't care that alcohol causes more deaths than guns. They're more than happy to regulate guns because they don't care about them but wouldn't even think to organize a march to restrict alcohol in the same way they want to restrict guns. Alcohol is an optional thing that could be restricted in the same way as people want to for guns, and yet from the Democrats.....crickets. Let's end the hypocrisy and make it part of the Democrat platform if they're really concerned with holistically saving innocent lives. Or is it easier to pick on the bogey man that a good portion of America is terrified of where the ones rabidly supporting gun control know very little about them and would never use them. The second one is easier and obviously the route chosen by people who are more than willing to restrict gun rights without addressing alcohol.

I figured the discussion about alcohol was over when you refused to answer my question:
Quote
Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?

But yes, we can keep discussing it if you think it's important.

With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death.  With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths.  Alchohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause.  Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 17, 2019, 01:24:58 PM
Pretty much every other country than the US opens its newspaper without reading about the latest shooting and hoping it is not their town.  I never even think about shootings here in France, but I do worry about my family back in Houston.  There are plenty of problems in the world, but an individual shooting other people located close to them is just sick.

The gun problem is uniquely American.
That's a rather broad brush you're painting with.  There are plenty of countries with stricter gun laws than the US that somehow have a higher murder rate, and a number of countries that have similar gun ownership rates and yet have very low crime rates.  Any comparison along these lines is pointless, however, because as Wolfpack Mustachian has stated (and nobody is acknowledging), it's not a simple "Number of guns vs murder" graph, as much as the gun control or the more-guns-less-crime crowd would like to claim.

And you didn't even mention the statistics on US siblings -  that shot their brother or sister in the home.  Not well documented, anecdotal stories, but it seems to happen quite a lot....  IMHO just one is too many for any modern country that is not fighting off some natural predator...
Two problems with this:
1) we have a media that on the whole is quite strongly biased against gun ownership, and thus take any opportunity to highlight bad things that can happen because of guns.  So such tragedies get publicized far more than, say, a child dying from a disease.
2) it's true that we really don't have to worry much about natural predators.  Some people do :)  Most people in the US who own guns for self-defense are more concerned about...ah, bipedal predators.


A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.


Carrying a gun all the time provides possible mitigation of a bad outcome in the case of violent crime while also increasing the chance of a bad outcome (related to the fact that you're now carrying a gun, and accident/theft/mis-fire/missed shots are all now possible).  That again makes it quite different than a fire alarm, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, etc. where there is mitigation with no increased chance of bad outcome.  A gun is not insurance, nor is it like a safety device.
You are correct that carrying a gun increases a particular type of risk, but invoking that argument without quantifying it is mere speculation.  There are plenty of statistics about crimes thwarted by armed citizens.  The estimates vary widely, because such incidents tend to be severely underreported, but they range from about 500,000 to 3,000,000 per year (often correlated with the position of the group making the estimate).  The number of incidents where an armed citizen made things worse?  Something several orders of magnitude less.
Quote
In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased.  There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft.  It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home.  There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake.  There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.
You're stating an absolute there, without considering the whole picture.  You could make that same argument about lots and lots of other things, but we don't because we recognize the positive effects (or mitigation of negative effects) these things have.  I would expect you to do the same here.  Yes, if private firearm ownership were eliminated (ignoring the impracticality thereof), we would eliminate a lot of suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, etc.  But such a move would eliminate all the bad things that are prevented by private gun ownership.

Quote
With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death.  With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths.  Alcohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause.  Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?
You're drawing a distinction without a difference here.  It's also worth pointing out that how something is reported does not make for a logical argument.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 17, 2019, 05:06:36 PM

Sure, I'll continue the discussion.  My point is not really about gun control per se, but rather that people make have these views based on deeply personal, highly emotional reasons.  And those are impervious to logic. 

I'll prove it to you.  If your beliefs were based on logic/reason, then there would be an argument, piece of data, or some logic that I could present that would make you change your mind.  But in truth, I know there is nothing I can say on this matter that would make you change your mind.  And that's fine, that just makes you exactly like most of the rest of the people in the world (both pro gun and anti gun). 

Now, if you're going to retort that "of course I'm open to changing my opinion", then my next response will be "Prove it.  What in the world could possibly ever convince you to give up your guns"? 

If nothing can convince you, if nothing can change your mind, then your opinion is not based on logic or evidence.  It's based on emotion, which is impervious to facts or logic.

Thanks for the excellent question/thought experiment! This is why I really enjoy these conversations overall, for nuggets like this that help me to clarify what I really think and believe about things. I thought about it and came up with the following:

I believe that self-defense is a right. It would be really hard to sway me from this, and it's a philosophical point of something that's right or wrong. You can say that it's emotional because the core principle wouldn't likely change with argument, but if you do, I'd say the same reasoning would then indict beliefs of rape is always wrong or whatnot as emotional.

I believe that self-defense is a right with tools that make it easier but can actually be effectively used as such. The whole thing about you can't have nuclear weapons thing that comes up - nuclear weapons can't be used effectively as self-defense. A pistol can. This is, of course, where the argument becomes more subjective about what I feel is an effective tool for self-defense and you might not, but that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.

Now, finally, to your point. What could actually change my viewpoint. Holding with my philosophical view of self-defense, if self-defense was truly not required, then I would be OK with guns going away. This would probably not be agreed upon by hunters, but I feel that hunting is not in the same level of necessity as self-defense. Same for shooting for fun. So, yes, if crime was completely eliminated (or it could somehow be proven that making guns disappear would mean crime was totally eliminated - since we're in a thought experiment), then I would cede the argument. That's of course not going to happen, which is why I keep describing it as a trade-off where I emphasize my philosophical stance of self-defense and others emphasize their philosophical stance that one person getting killed by a gun is too many (or whatever the case may be per person). For me, though, it's always going to hinge on the ability for someone to defend themselves against the possibility of getting hurt by people doing bad things. If there was no possibility, that would be different. So as I see your challenge, I believe I meet it. That situation would change my viewpoint on the need for guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on February 17, 2019, 06:56:24 PM

Sure, I'll continue the discussion.  My point is not really about gun control per se, but rather that people make have these views based on deeply personal, highly emotional reasons.  And those are impervious to logic. 

I'll prove it to you.  If your beliefs were based on logic/reason, then there would be an argument, piece of data, or some logic that I could present that would make you change your mind.  But in truth, I know there is nothing I can say on this matter that would make you change your mind.  And that's fine, that just makes you exactly like most of the rest of the people in the world (both pro gun and anti gun). 

Now, if you're going to retort that "of course I'm open to changing my opinion", then my next response will be "Prove it.  What in the world could possibly ever convince you to give up your guns"? 

If nothing can convince you, if nothing can change your mind, then your opinion is not based on logic or evidence.  It's based on emotion, which is impervious to facts or logic.

Thanks for the excellent question/thought experiment! This is why I really enjoy these conversations overall, for nuggets like this that help me to clarify what I really think and believe about things. I thought about it and came up with the following:

I believe that self-defense is a right. It would be really hard to sway me from this, and it's a philosophical point of something that's right or wrong. You can say that it's emotional because the core principle wouldn't likely change with argument, but if you do, I'd say the same reasoning would then indict beliefs of rape is always wrong or whatnot as emotional.

I believe that self-defense is a right with tools that make it easier but can actually be effectively used as such. The whole thing about you can't have nuclear weapons thing that comes up - nuclear weapons can't be used effectively as self-defense. A pistol can. This is, of course, where the argument becomes more subjective about what I feel is an effective tool for self-defense and you might not, but that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.

Now, finally, to your point. What could actually change my viewpoint. Holding with my philosophical view of self-defense, if self-defense was truly not required, then I would be OK with guns going away. This would probably not be agreed upon by hunters, but I feel that hunting is not in the same level of necessity as self-defense. Same for shooting for fun. So, yes, if crime was completely eliminated (or it could somehow be proven that making guns disappear would mean crime was totally eliminated - since we're in a thought experiment), then I would cede the argument. That's of course not going to happen, which is why I keep describing it as a trade-off where I emphasize my philosophical stance of self-defense and others emphasize their philosophical stance that one person getting killed by a gun is too many (or whatever the case may be per person). For me, though, it's always going to hinge on the ability for someone to defend themselves against the possibility of getting hurt by people doing bad things. If there was no possibility, that would be different. So as I see your challenge, I believe I meet it. That situation would change my viewpoint on the need for guns.

I find it interesting that you see the need for a gun for self defense.  Would a society that doesn't lead to violence also suffice?  I am sugnificantly more likely to die in a car accident, or from a medical mistake than from violence in Austalia.  Do I need a gun for self defense in your opinion then?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 17, 2019, 07:53:03 PM

Sure, I'll continue the discussion.  My point is not really about gun control per se, but rather that people make have these views based on deeply personal, highly emotional reasons.  And those are impervious to logic. 

I'll prove it to you.  If your beliefs were based on logic/reason, then there would be an argument, piece of data, or some logic that I could present that would make you change your mind.  But in truth, I know there is nothing I can say on this matter that would make you change your mind.  And that's fine, that just makes you exactly like most of the rest of the people in the world (both pro gun and anti gun). 

Now, if you're going to retort that "of course I'm open to changing my opinion", then my next response will be "Prove it.  What in the world could possibly ever convince you to give up your guns"? 

If nothing can convince you, if nothing can change your mind, then your opinion is not based on logic or evidence.  It's based on emotion, which is impervious to facts or logic.

Thanks for the excellent question/thought experiment! This is why I really enjoy these conversations overall, for nuggets like this that help me to clarify what I really think and believe about things. I thought about it and came up with the following:

I believe that self-defense is a right. It would be really hard to sway me from this, and it's a philosophical point of something that's right or wrong. You can say that it's emotional because the core principle wouldn't likely change with argument, but if you do, I'd say the same reasoning would then indict beliefs of rape is always wrong or whatnot as emotional.

I believe that self-defense is a right with tools that make it easier but can actually be effectively used as such. The whole thing about you can't have nuclear weapons thing that comes up - nuclear weapons can't be used effectively as self-defense. A pistol can. This is, of course, where the argument becomes more subjective about what I feel is an effective tool for self-defense and you might not, but that doesn't mean it's an emotional argument.

Now, finally, to your point. What could actually change my viewpoint. Holding with my philosophical view of self-defense, if self-defense was truly not required, then I would be OK with guns going away. This would probably not be agreed upon by hunters, but I feel that hunting is not in the same level of necessity as self-defense. Same for shooting for fun. So, yes, if crime was completely eliminated (or it could somehow be proven that making guns disappear would mean crime was totally eliminated - since we're in a thought experiment), then I would cede the argument. That's of course not going to happen, which is why I keep describing it as a trade-off where I emphasize my philosophical stance of self-defense and others emphasize their philosophical stance that one person getting killed by a gun is too many (or whatever the case may be per person). For me, though, it's always going to hinge on the ability for someone to defend themselves against the possibility of getting hurt by people doing bad things. If there was no possibility, that would be different. So as I see your challenge, I believe I meet it. That situation would change my viewpoint on the need for guns.

Thanks man, I'm glad we can have a good discussion about this without heading into heated arguments. 

OK, so your response was pretty much as I expected.  In your view, owning a gun is a right and it's needed because there are bad people in the world.  And it also seems that a reduction of violence or even violence being statistically unlikely is not enough to change your mind.  As you say, the only thing that might change your mind is if violence (and the potential for violence) is eliminated.   

And, since we both know that will never happen, then my original assertion, that there is nothing I could say, and there is no evidence I could present, that would change your mind on this topic, is correct.

So, to talk about "nuance" and "arguments and counter arguments" etc etc etc is disingenuous because there's no real chance for your opinion to be changed via dialog.  [I'm sort of singling you out here, but in fact this is true of most people on BOTH sides of this issue.]  In fact, IME this type of intransigent belief in certain ideas is pretty much baked into our DNA.  It's how we function. 

Now, with this additional context, I'll restate my original (intentionally provocative) thesis - that there's nothing the gun control people can say or do that will ever convince the gun rights people to change their opinions on this topic.  So if there's going to be change, it will only happen if/when the GC people can simply out-vote the GRA people.  Till then, we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 17, 2019, 08:31:31 PM

Carrying a gun all the time provides possible mitigation of a bad outcome in the case of violent crime while also increasing the chance of a bad outcome (related to the fact that you're now carrying a gun, and accident/theft/mis-fire/missed shots are all now possible).  That again makes it quite different than a fire alarm, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, etc. where there is mitigation with no increased chance of bad outcome.  A gun is not insurance, nor is it like a safety device.


At this point on this topic, we're delving quite down the rabbit hole here. I don't disagree with your points of comparison that a gun is different from those things. The house fire analogy was meant to show one point, I do things to prevent things that I'm not afraid of in a fear standpoint but see as a possible outcome. Just because there's legitimate differences between fire alarms and guns doesn't mean that my point of the analogy is not proven. We all do things with the goal of improving a situation or preventing something bad without fear being the actual motivation. None of your arguments against my analogy refute this point.


I don't agree.  There is a chance of being struck by lightning every time you walk outdoors, yet you probably don't carry a lighting rod with you all the time.  (I've been known to step outdoors without a lightning rod even when it's raining.)  Why?  Because the chance is negligible.  It still exists of course (just as crime will always exist for the foreseeable future), but you don't need to eliminate lightning to step outdoors without a lightning rod.


I doubt we'll find any common ground on this one. Again, it goes back to your determination of something being negligible. There's an extremely small chance that I'll get attacked when I go outside, so you could say that's negligible. There's an extremely small chance anything bad would happen walking out in public with a gun on you (especially if you're a concealed carry holder, one of the lowest percentages of people committing crimes of most any demographic). You say the chance you'll get attacked is negligible, so why do it. I say the chance anything bad will happen because you're carrying a gun is negligible, so what's the big deal against carrying one. Negligiblity is in the eye of the beholder :).


There is absolutely a difference in the penetrating power and damage done by different rounds - I'm not arguing this.  That's why I hunted partridge with a .22 and moose with a 30-06.

I will reiterate though, because we appear to be getting stuck here and this is probably my fault for not being clear enough.  Hand guns are designed to kill other people efficiently.  That's their only utility as a tool.  A .22 hand gun is designed to kill.  A 9 mm hand gun is designed to kill.  A .45 hand gun is designed to kill.  Now, all of them are less efficient at killing at range than a rifle.  That doesn't mean that they weren't designed to kill efficiently by other metrics!  They are designed to kill efficiently by being concealable, by minimizing recoil, by being light weight, etc.

If you want to debate the best possible caliber of hand gun to kill another human being given a particular situation, feel free to do so.  While I will not join in that discussion I tend to think that President Kennedy might disagree with your analysis of the .22, given that he was assassinated by a .22 caliber revolver.  You can cerfainly argue that some guns are more efficient at killing in particular scenarios than others . . . but don't argue that a gun is not designed to be efficient at killing.  That is their raison d'κtre.


We're not going to agree on this either, and that's fine. My whole point is that you seem to imply that all guns were designed with only the intent to kill in mind and nothing else. My point is, if that were the case, then there's a crap-ton more of designed guns out there than necessary. I believe there are other intents in the design, and those can be more prevalent in the design intent of a gun than this blanket "every gun is designed to kill in the most efficient possible way period" view. At this point, though, even I can recognize I'm being a bit pedantic :), and this is not advancing the conversation, so I'm dropping this. Feel free to have the last word on this part if you'd like.



Agreed that they are making decisions.  But the risk that they're taking is not only to themselves as you imply with your use of 'the' prior to 'risks' above.  The risk extends to others.  This is why we're having this discussion at all, if there was no risk to anyone else from the choice then there would be no reason to restrict it.

An analogy . . . driving a tank down the highway would make my family safer.  We would have inches of heavy armor between us and the vehicles around us, and several tons of mass would mean that other vehicles would just bounce off were there to be a collision.  This reduces risk for me and my family.  Tanks don't have very good visibility though.  This increases risks to every other person on the road.

In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased.  There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft.  It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home.  There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake.  There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.


I re-read your statement, and I read context into it that wasn't there. I will only say that yes, gun owners must rationalize living in a world where the risk of guns is increased because of guns. However, they live with the same risks themselves, so they are, so to speak, putting their money where their mouth is.


Is it possible to commit a crime without being both caught and then reported on in the local news?


It's certainly possible. I could have missed someone. Statistically speaking, the point remains. Literally millions of people have guns without actually using their gun in a crime. The anecdote is not really helpful anyways, so I'll stick with that.



I figured the discussion about alcohol was over when you refused to answer my question:
Quote
Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?


You thought your anecdotal very hypothetical question refuted the entire point...seriously? I'll address your question directly instead of peripherally (which I did by commenting on practicality versus your anecdotal question - the point is moot because there are thousands of alcohol related deaths regardless of the answer). I don't know. We'd have to do a study on it to really know. Does it make it more difficult? Does it do it by only a tiny fraction (say 5%) in some people whereas it makes them 95% more likely to attack someone? It certainly does make it easier to kill someone on a highway if you don't have intent to hurt someone (like 99.999999999999% of people who drive) as seen by drunk driving statistics.


But yes, we can keep discussing it if you think it's important.

With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death.  With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths.  Alchohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause.  Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?


Great, let's keep discussing it. I think it's very important because it illustrates the hypocrisy.

First, now who's being pedantic. It's the automobile that causes the death....um, ok, sure, and if the person wasn't driving it drunk, it wouldn't happen.

Second, glad you put in the caveat of causing the deaths of other people. I hate to put words in your mouth, but an extremely high proportion of gun control advocates lump in suicides with all other gun deaths to make it look higher. Glad I can avoid using those numbers in future conversations with you :). Also on this topic, again, I want to point out that it's kind of interesting to me that people keep calling guns a "public health crisis" when they are a peripheral injury thing whereas alcohol is a clearer public health crisis because it's ingesting something that slowly deteriorates the body's functions. Just more evidence that people give alcohol a free pass.

Ok, so I should have posted this to begin with. My bad:

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Statistics - 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year 2006-2010
32,000 gun deaths in 2013 per - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
of which 21,175 were suicides, so 10,825 non-suicide related deaths due to guns. (Sorry for the wiki, it's hard to find older years of gun deaths, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if a direct date to date comparison changes it dramatically, but I doubt it will).

Gun deaths are less than half of the overall 88,000 alcohol related deaths when you look at whole deaths on both sides.

Of this, drunk drivers alone were 9,967, almost equivalent to all non-suicide related gun deaths by themselves - https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

The WHO attributes 8% of alcohol related deaths to violence, so that's another approximate 7,000 deaths. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdf

Now we're already at 60% more alcohol deaths other than the person drinking compared to guns (non-suicide), and again, of course, when you factor in all deaths caused by alcohol, it's over twice as much as well.

What we have is a clear cut case of alcohol causing at least as much and in reality more societal problems than guns. Yet the issues I listed above remain. The problem is there, and it's clear. Yet it's not addressed. Because it's easier to take away rights for something you don't care at all about or think of as other. That's the problem I'm addressing.

 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: yakamashii on February 17, 2019, 08:41:54 PM

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Let's hear it. I'm in the middle on this issue (I don't like guns and feel like society would be safer overall without them, and believe that the status quo is problematic, but recognize that their utility and the existing right to have them makes arguing for a total ban a real swing for the fences), so my mind changes incrementally all the time when these arguments and ideas are thrown about.

Can't be any worse than my idea: Restrict gun use (and storage) to shooting ranges and designated hunting areas, so if you want to shoot or even hold a gun, you have to go to a controlled area to do it.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 17, 2019, 08:47:13 PM

Thanks man, I'm glad we can have a good discussion about this without heading into heated arguments. 

OK, so your response was pretty much as I expected.  In your view, owning a gun is a right and it's needed because there are bad people in the world.  And it also seems that a reduction of violence or even violence being statistically unlikely is not enough to change your mind.  As you say, the only thing that might change your mind is if violence (and the potential for violence) is eliminated.   

And, since we both know that will never happen, then my original assertion, that there is nothing I could say, and there is no evidence I could present, that would change your mind on this topic, is correct.

So, to talk about "nuance" and "arguments and counter arguments" etc etc etc is disingenuous because there's no real chance for your opinion to be changed via dialog.  [I'm sort of singling you out here, but in fact this is true of most people on BOTH sides of this issue.]  In fact, IME this type of intransigent belief in certain ideas is pretty much baked into our DNA.  It's how we function. 

Now, with this additional context, I'll restate my original (intentionally provocative) thesis - that there's nothing the gun control people can say or do that will ever convince the gun rights people to change their opinions on this topic.  So if there's going to be change, it will only happen if/when the GC people can simply out-vote the GRA people.  Till then, we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Indeed, this is a really interesting conversation, and I, too, am glad it's not getting heated.

I feel like you're changing things slightly from how I read your  original statement/experiment. I feel like I've justified that it's not a truly emotional response but one dictated by a logical chain based on a core belief not everyone  shares (since I did point out something that could change my opinion even if it's an impractical thing to happen). Since you didn't specifically call out emotions, I'm guessing you agree with this?

Now to your response, I have to disagree as well. Well, let me say, you are right that opinions on this subject rarely change, but it is not disingenuous for me to talk nuance and arguments for one significant reason, my opinions have changed. Not the core ones. No one is ever going to convince me full gun confiscation is the best bet. However, arguments  that discuss how self defense can be preserved with new gun legislation actually have changed my opinion. I've mellowed out some and went from, no more gun legislation, period, to actually being able to discuss the issues and think about how I would or wouldn't support an aspect of a law for gun control (better back ground checks as a quick example). Before discussions, I would have argued against it on principle of don't give an inch. Now, I'm actually open to something. So, you have a case in point of someone who has actually had opinion changed via dialogue :).

You've definitely piqued my interest about something that would make GC and GRA people both mad equally! For some reason I thought you had previously said full gun confiscation was your position, so my bad on that. Please elaborate if you don't mind on your idea!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 17, 2019, 08:52:58 PM

I find it interesting that you see the need for a gun for self defense.  Would a society that doesn't lead to violence also suffice?  I am sugnificantly more likely to die in a car accident, or from a medical mistake than from violence in Austalia.  Do I need a gun for self defense in your opinion then?

If by a society that doesn't lead to violence, you mean a society that doesn't have violence, then yes, I would agree. That would fit under my "no reason for self defense".

Do you need a gun for self defense? I would say no, you don't need one. It's not a primary need, and yes, you are much more likely to die from a car accident than from violence. Even in America where everyone abroad is apparently scared for their relatives dying in gun violence because the media reports on it, slanted, ad nauseam, you're also very unlikely to get hurt by gun violence. It's all minuscule possibilities, including the risk you have to yourself by having a gun. That's why it seems to me to be a very personal choice of weighing risks, all of which are very insignificant. Gun owners don't need guns for self defense, but if they're well trained, the guns could help them if they get in a dangerous situation.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 17, 2019, 09:04:17 PM

Thanks man, I'm glad we can have a good discussion about this without heading into heated arguments. 

OK, so your response was pretty much as I expected.  In your view, owning a gun is a right and it's needed because there are bad people in the world.  And it also seems that a reduction of violence or even violence being statistically unlikely is not enough to change your mind.  As you say, the only thing that might change your mind is if violence (and the potential for violence) is eliminated.   

And, since we both know that will never happen, then my original assertion, that there is nothing I could say, and there is no evidence I could present, that would change your mind on this topic, is correct.

So, to talk about "nuance" and "arguments and counter arguments" etc etc etc is disingenuous because there's no real chance for your opinion to be changed via dialog.  [I'm sort of singling you out here, but in fact this is true of most people on BOTH sides of this issue.]  In fact, IME this type of intransigent belief in certain ideas is pretty much baked into our DNA.  It's how we function. 

Now, with this additional context, I'll restate my original (intentionally provocative) thesis - that there's nothing the gun control people can say or do that will ever convince the gun rights people to change their opinions on this topic.  So if there's going to be change, it will only happen if/when the GC people can simply out-vote the GRA people.  Till then, we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Indeed, this is a really interesting conversation, and I, too, am glad it's not getting heated.

I feel like you're changing things slightly from how I read your  original statement/experiment. I feel like I've justified that it's not a truly emotional response but one dictated by a logical chain based on a core belief not everyone  shares (since I did point out something that could change my opinion even if it's an impractical thing to happen). Since you didn't specifically call out emotions, I'm guessing you agree with this?

Now to your response, I have to disagree as well. Well, let me say, you are right that opinions on this subject rarely change, but it is not disingenuous for me to talk nuance and arguments for one significant reason, my opinions have changed. Not the core ones. No one is ever going to convince me full gun confiscation is the best bet. However, arguments  that discuss how self defense can be preserved with new gun legislation actually have changed my opinion. I've mellowed out some and went from, no more gun legislation, period, to actually being able to discuss the issues and think about how I would or wouldn't support an aspect of a law for gun control (better back ground checks as a quick example). Before discussions, I would have argued against it on principle of don't give an inch. Now, I'm actually open to something. So, you have a case in point of someone who has actually had opinion changed via dialogue :).

You've definitely piqued my interest about something that would make GC and GRA people both mad equally! For some reason I thought you had previously said full gun confiscation was your position, so my bad on that. Please elaborate if you don't mind on your idea!

You're right, changing opinions via dialogue is pretty rare so kudos for that.  Then maybe we keep talking :) 

OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: RetiredAt63 on February 18, 2019, 07:24:37 AM


1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

I've stayed out of this because these discussions always seem to go downhill, but . . . . . . .

1.  This is Canada - handguns are illegal, since handguns are designed to shoot people, not game.  Also easily concealed, therefore good for crime.  Therefore banned.  Works just fine.  No arguments from me.

2.  I live in the boonies (is that the equivalent of BFE?) and don't have a long gun.  But lots of people around here do have long guns, for coyotes and other predators on livestock.  And hunting.  Anyone owning a long gun has taken a gun course and passed a basic security check.  Doesn't solve all the problems but sure helps.  Not sure about your city point, there must be hunters living in cities?

3.  Depends on which drugs.  Pot, sure.  We are seeing enough addiction issues with legal prescription drugs being misused that  I am not sure (from the health side, not the crime side) if we should be giving a social carte blanche to drugs in general.  If a lot of drugs that are presently illegal are legalized, what does that do to having equally dangerous medically indicated drugs only available by prescription?  I know too many people whose children are addicts and it is tragic.  To me, if a drug is dangerous enough that if it would be a prescription drug if it had medical use, it should not be freely available.   Historically, laudanum, a commonly used sedative, created a lot of heroin addicts in the Victorian period.  https://19thct.com/2008/03/02/laudanum/
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: johnmcafee on February 18, 2019, 08:21:55 AM
It's been almost a year since this picture was posted in this thread. Unfortunately, the situation with shootings has not improved. Maybe it gets even worse. I think that many people support the right to own a gun. If not, this right would have been banned if not across all the US, but in some states.

(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*5_0eyjsa9L80xyOg.png)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 18, 2019, 03:44:44 PM
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.
...
1.  Make Handguns Illegal... 
2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities... 
3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  ... 
(I've abbreviated your quote above in a (probably vain) attempt at brevity...)

Wolfpack and tyort1 are covering the philosophical side of the discussion pretty well, so I'll tackle the practical side, and (attempt to respectfully) explain why I at least two of those three proposals are a bad idea.  This, of course, ignores any constitutional questions, and only looks at the practical side of it.

As a preamble, I think it's critical to point out what specific problem you're trying to solve, whether it be murder, suicide, accidents, overall crime, etc.  Without a specific goal, it's impossible to judge whether a particular policy proposal has been or will be effective.

1) Something like 2/3 of gun deaths are due to suicide, and I'm sure such a law would have a measurable impact here (although it would be limited to the number of gun owners who are suicidal but not suicidal enough to use another method).  But for the 75-80% of gun murders that are associated with gang violence, this won't have any effect.  Banning handguns is the easy part.  Removing them all from circulation is impossible, and the ones you remove from circulation will be from law-abiding citizens who aren't the ones you're worried about in the first place.  As for "aren't really needed," the statistics  would tend to disagree--depending on who's talking, there are somewhere between 500k to 3M defensive handgun uses per year.

2) I don't understand what problem is being addressed here.  Long guns are *very* seldom involved in crime or suicide or accidents, even though they get disproportionate media coverage when they *are* involved.  In addition, the "you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed" applies just as well to someone in an urban or suburban situation as it does to someone in the country.

3) My concern here is that there's three parts to this problem: 1) the customers, 2) the drug traffickers, and 3) the violence that accompanies the drug trade.  If all these drugs are readily available on the open market, then yes, it takes away a great deal of profit from the illicit drug industry.  I wonder, however, how much that would impact gang-related murders.  In other words, yes, the drug trade is closely correlated to gang activity, but is not inseparable.  How much would the (hypothetical) elimination of the illegal drug trade impact gang violence?  How many of those murders are tied to the drug trade vs other motivation? 

My concern is that reduced barriers to access will lead to more widespread use and therefore abuse.  As with anything that can be abused, there has to be *some* level of barrier, otherwise we have preteens buying drugs at the candy store.  Given the addictive nature of so many of the drugs, a line must be drawn somewhere.  Do we make it prescription-only?  The opioid crisis shows that barrier to be imperfect. A Cannabis card, a la Colorado?  It's a joke.  Given the rates of drunk driving deaths (>10,000 per year), I'm concerned with the real-world impact of making mind-altering drugs more freely available.  And, just to pile on, a lot of burglaries and violent crimes are committed by people who are trying to get enough cash for their next hit, and legalizing a lot of drugs doesn't address that.  So would it reduce the murder rate?  Probably, but we don't know by how much.  And that only solves one problem by creating (or exacerbating) another.



As an aside, I find it somewhat amusing to see an argument advocating for legalizing drugs in the hopes of reducing drug-related crime, while ignoring the same effect in the case of guns. :)  Australia and the UK both have a thriving black market in arms.

(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/0*5_0eyjsa9L80xyOg.png)
There are plenty of states that are trying, in spite of the Macdonald and Heller rulings.

There is so much wrong with that comic, I don't know where to start.  Let's start from the beginning:
Panel 1) Nobody carries like this.  Under-the-shirt Armpit Carry isn't a thing.  Shoulder holsters go across the back, not the chest, and the barrel is pointed to the rear in a shoulder holster.  And yes, there are lots of cases where armed civilians have stopped mass shootings. Those stories never get much publicity, though.
Panel 2) There are plenty of reasons not to Open Carry, which is why very few people do it outside of law enforcement.  Deterrent is only a secondary effect of carrying.  And what sort of brain-dead holster is that!?
Panel 3) Reductio ad absurdum.  (That panel violates at least three of the four main points of gun safety.)
Panel 4) ...um...yeah...ok, I've run out of energy to care on this one...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on February 18, 2019, 06:07:27 PM

Thanks man, I'm glad we can have a good discussion about this without heading into heated arguments. 

OK, so your response was pretty much as I expected.  In your view, owning a gun is a right and it's needed because there are bad people in the world.  And it also seems that a reduction of violence or even violence being statistically unlikely is not enough to change your mind.  As you say, the only thing that might change your mind is if violence (and the potential for violence) is eliminated.   

And, since we both know that will never happen, then my original assertion, that there is nothing I could say, and there is no evidence I could present, that would change your mind on this topic, is correct.

So, to talk about "nuance" and "arguments and counter arguments" etc etc etc is disingenuous because there's no real chance for your opinion to be changed via dialog.  [I'm sort of singling you out here, but in fact this is true of most people on BOTH sides of this issue.]  In fact, IME this type of intransigent belief in certain ideas is pretty much baked into our DNA.  It's how we function. 

Now, with this additional context, I'll restate my original (intentionally provocative) thesis - that there's nothing the gun control people can say or do that will ever convince the gun rights people to change their opinions on this topic.  So if there's going to be change, it will only happen if/when the GC people can simply out-vote the GRA people.  Till then, we'll just keep going round and round in circles.

Of course I have my own solution, but no one wants to hear it because whenever I bring it up it seems to piss off the GC people and the GRA people equally.  Hahaha.

Indeed, this is a really interesting conversation, and I, too, am glad it's not getting heated.

I feel like you're changing things slightly from how I read your  original statement/experiment. I feel like I've justified that it's not a truly emotional response but one dictated by a logical chain based on a core belief not everyone  shares (since I did point out something that could change my opinion even if it's an impractical thing to happen). Since you didn't specifically call out emotions, I'm guessing you agree with this?

Now to your response, I have to disagree as well. Well, let me say, you are right that opinions on this subject rarely change, but it is not disingenuous for me to talk nuance and arguments for one significant reason, my opinions have changed. Not the core ones. No one is ever going to convince me full gun confiscation is the best bet. However, arguments  that discuss how self defense can be preserved with new gun legislation actually have changed my opinion. I've mellowed out some and went from, no more gun legislation, period, to actually being able to discuss the issues and think about how I would or wouldn't support an aspect of a law for gun control (better back ground checks as a quick example). Before discussions, I would have argued against it on principle of don't give an inch. Now, I'm actually open to something. So, you have a case in point of someone who has actually had opinion changed via dialogue :).

You've definitely piqued my interest about something that would make GC and GRA people both mad equally! For some reason I thought you had previously said full gun confiscation was your position, so my bad on that. Please elaborate if you don't mind on your idea!

You're right, changing opinions via dialogue is pretty rare so kudos for that.  Then maybe we keep talking :) 

OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

I'm fundamentally on the same page as you on these points.  I have a few minor extra considerations, but mostly agree.

For reference, I'm from Australia.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - in Australia they are.  They are also uncommon.  Very uncommon.  But removing them from society isn't as hard as others make out.  Everytime someone is pulled over, their car searched, their self searched or their house searched, the gun found gets removed.  Some will hide them, sure, but a hidden gun is not being actively used, either for crime or suicide.

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities. - In Australia you have no "right" to own a gun.  You need to show a need to own a gun.  As a person who owns a farm, I can purchase a gun for vermin control.  However, there are types of guns that are restricted to me.  We cannot own semi-automatics in any form, and higher powered guns require a higher need.

3. Legalize most illicit drugs. - yes.  Legalise, regulate and tax. 

To my mind, drug policy has been a total failure over many generations.  I am a user of alcohol, occasionally for recreational purposes (I like to get drunk occasionally).  Would I try other drugs if they were legal and regulated?  Yes.  I would try ecstasy, and maybe marijuana (but not smoked).

Another factor raised in one of the earlier posts was about gang culture.  If drugs are legalised, gangs will need to find other sources of funds.  They will morph into stand over protection rackets, stealing or other slightly more problematic methods of raising funds.  They will continue.  But a Police force that is not checking every third person for recreational drug use would have more resources to fight these type of crimes.

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kyle Schuant on February 18, 2019, 08:24:41 PM
Hey Kyle  - could you post your source for the homicide rates? 
Easily discoverable by google:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

and I came across a spreadsheet from UNODC with countries and their firearms homicides as a total of all their homicides going up to 2010; this forum does not allow attachments, but simply email my name @gmail and I'll send you it.

Generally a country's homicide rate doesn't change much year to year. Apart from countries with ongoing civil conflicts where some of the civil war deaths are counted as homicides, so that a new conflict or peace agreement might change things drastically, he exception is smaller countries, where a few criminals locked up or a mob war might mean 10-30 saved or killed. For example, in Australia from 1995 to 1996 there was a 70% rise in firearms homicides - from 58 to 99, and 35 of those were perpetrated by one man in one day, take that out and you get a 10% rise. From 2005 to 2006 firearms homicides doubled - from 23 to 46; about 10 of those, from memory, were part of one mob war in Melbourne. Alarmist media will of course talk about the percentages rather than the raw numbers, unless the raw numbers are declining, then they'll change it to say "one person every week!" or something.

Since Australia always comes up in US discussions of firearms control: After the 1996 mass shooting we changed firearms laws. More than 20 years on now the numbers have been looked at, and essentially the firearms restrictions did nothing either way for homicide, armed robbery and the like; the violent crime rate overall dropped because of the mining boom and our lengthy foreign wars gave stupid young blokes something to do, and stupid young blokes commit most of the violent crimes in society. We have also had more than 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth, enabling both more employment and continued social welfare nets.

What restricting firearms did do was lower male suicide rates; these too were declining already, but they declined much much faster. Other means of suicide require a bit more planning and take longer to take effect, and are less deadly so that the person has a better change of being found and saved before their death.

I have however never seen a discussion on firearms control which had male suicide as its first concern, though this claims many more victims than homicide by any means.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 19, 2019, 09:40:23 AM

A gun isn't insurance.  It doesn't replace anything if you're mugged.  It offers no guarantee.  Maybe it gives you a chance to fight back in a crime scenario, maybe it doesn't.  What we know for sure is that it does increase the risk of accidental discharge to non-zero.  It also increases the risk of theft of that gun (or of having the gun taken and used against you to non-zero.

It adds certain (although small) risks to your life, for a potential risk mitigation.  This is quite unlike insurance which adds certain risk mitigation without increasing risk.


Carrying a gun all the time provides possible mitigation of a bad outcome in the case of violent crime while also increasing the chance of a bad outcome (related to the fact that you're now carrying a gun, and accident/theft/mis-fire/missed shots are all now possible).  That again makes it quite different than a fire alarm, fire extinguisher, smoke detector, etc. where there is mitigation with no increased chance of bad outcome.  A gun is not insurance, nor is it like a safety device.
You are correct that carrying a gun increases a particular type of risk, but invoking that argument without quantifying it is mere speculation.  There are plenty of statistics about crimes thwarted by armed citizens.  The estimates vary widely, because such incidents tend to be severely underreported, but they range from about 500,000 to 3,000,000 per year (often correlated with the position of the group making the estimate).  The number of incidents where an armed citizen made things worse?  Something several orders of magnitude less.
Quote
In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased.  There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft.  It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home.  There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake.  There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.
You're stating an absolute there, without considering the whole picture.  You could make that same argument about lots and lots of other things, but we don't because we recognize the positive effects (or mitigation of negative effects) these things have.  I would expect you to do the same here.  Yes, if private firearm ownership were eliminated (ignoring the impracticality thereof), we would eliminate a lot of suicide, accidents, crimes of passion, etc.  But such a move would eliminate all the bad things that are prevented by private gun ownership.

Quote
With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death.  With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths.  Alcohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause.  Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?
You're drawing a distinction without a difference here.  It's also worth pointing out that how something is reported does not make for a logical argument.

I think there is a difference.  As mentioned, the intent of the sale of alchohol is to enable someone to become inebriated (a debatable point in itself, as moderate alcohol use doesn't inebriate and has been shown to be beneficial to health).  The intent of the sale of a gun is to enable someone to kill.

Does inebriation sometimes lead to tragedy?  Yes, absolutely.  But while it may be involved, it's not inebriation that causes the death of innocent people.  This is different from a gun.  The gun causes the death of innocent people.




Agreed that they are making decisions.  But the risk that they're taking is not only to themselves as you imply with your use of 'the' prior to 'risks' above.  The risk extends to others.  This is why we're having this discussion at all, if there was no risk to anyone else from the choice then there would be no reason to restrict it.

An analogy . . . driving a tank down the highway would make my family safer.  We would have inches of heavy armor between us and the vehicles around us, and several tons of mass would mean that other vehicles would just bounce off were there to be a collision.  This reduces risk for me and my family.  Tanks don't have very good visibility though.  This increases risks to every other person on the road.

In a similar way, when guns are freely available to all the risk to everyone in a country is increased.  There is greater risk of criminals or terrorists getting weapons either by buying them in a private sale, from straw purchasers, or by theft.  It also becomes easier for someone who is mentally unstable to get a hold of weapons, and more likely for an elderly person who is developing dementia to already have weapons in the home.  There is greater risk of a gun "accident" - children getting a hold of guns and killing themselves or others, misuse of the firearm by the owner through negligence or mistake.  There is heightened risk when dealing with police forces, as officers are much more likely to assume that every person encountered is armed and a threat to their own person.

I re-read your statement, and I read context into it that wasn't there. I will only say that yes, gun owners must rationalize living in a world where the risk of guns is increased because of guns. However, they live with the same risks themselves, so they are, so to speak, putting their money where their mouth is.

I agree, gun owners are putting their money where their mouth is.  The thing is, their choice puts the money of every person in the country where their mouth is.  As mentioned, it's a decision that impacts and effects many more people than those making the decision.



I figured the discussion about alcohol was over when you refused to answer my question:
Quote
Is it easier or more difficult to perform any given task while inebriated?  My experience has been that it is more difficult.  You have reduced motor functions, reduced reaction time, dizziness, are prone to blacking out and vomiting.  Would you say that this makes it easier or harder to kill someone?


You thought your anecdotal very hypothetical question refuted the entire point...seriously? I'll address your question directly instead of peripherally (which I did by commenting on practicality versus your anecdotal question - the point is moot because there are thousands of alcohol related deaths regardless of the answer). I don't know. We'd have to do a study on it to really know. Does it make it more difficult? Does it do it by only a tiny fraction (say 5%) in some people whereas it makes them 95% more likely to attack someone? It certainly does make it easier to kill someone on a highway if you don't have intent to hurt someone (like 99.999999999999% of people who drive) as seen by drunk driving statistics.

I don't think it refuted the entire point, but it shows a clear difference between alcohol and guns.  There are thousands of deaths where alcohol is involved every year . . . but the problem is not the alcohol, it's when someone chooses to drink too much then gets in a car, starts up a boat, or picks up a knife or gun.

(As a side note, if you are drunk and get into a vehicle I'd argue that may not have intent to kill someone, but are choosing to risk another's death by your own negligence.  Nobody in this day and age is unaware of the risks of drunk driving.  That's a personal choice.)




But yes, we can keep discussing it if you think it's important.

With drunk driving, it's usually the automobile that causes the death.  With violence it's usually guns, fists, knives, and blunt weapons that cause deaths.  Alchohol might be involved in some of these, but I don't ever recall seeing it reported as the cause.  Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?


Great, let's keep discussing it. I think it's very important because it illustrates the hypocrisy.

First, now who's being pedantic. It's the automobile that causes the death....um, ok, sure, and if the person wasn't driving it drunk, it wouldn't happen.

Second, glad you put in the caveat of causing the deaths of other people. I hate to put words in your mouth, but an extremely high proportion of gun control advocates lump in suicides with all other gun deaths to make it look higher. Glad I can avoid using those numbers in future conversations with you :). Also on this topic, again, I want to point out that it's kind of interesting to me that people keep calling guns a "public health crisis" when they are a peripheral injury thing whereas alcohol is a clearer public health crisis because it's ingesting something that slowly deteriorates the body's functions. Just more evidence that people give alcohol a free pass.

Ok, so I should have posted this to begin with. My bad:

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

Statistics - 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year 2006-2010
32,000 gun deaths in 2013 per - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
of which 21,175 were suicides, so 10,825 non-suicide related deaths due to guns. (Sorry for the wiki, it's hard to find older years of gun deaths, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if a direct date to date comparison changes it dramatically, but I doubt it will).

Gun deaths are less than half of the overall 88,000 alcohol related deaths when you look at whole deaths on both sides.

Of this, drunk drivers alone were 9,967, almost equivalent to all non-suicide related gun deaths by themselves - https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

The WHO attributes 8% of alcohol related deaths to violence, so that's another approximate 7,000 deaths. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_alcohol_report/msbgsruprofiles.pdf

Now we're already at 60% more alcohol deaths other than the person drinking compared to guns (non-suicide), and again, of course, when you factor in all deaths caused by alcohol, it's over twice as much as well.

What we have is a clear cut case of alcohol causing at least as much and in reality more societal problems than guns. Yet the issues I listed above remain. The problem is there, and it's clear. Yet it's not addressed. Because it's easier to take away rights for something you don't care at all about or think of as other. That's the problem I'm addressing.


Were you able to find a single instance where alchohol caused the deaths you're referring to, rather than simply was present?  Every gun related death is caused by the gun.  Yes, sometimes when people are drunk they kill other people . . . but people drink all the time.  Just because alchohol was present doesn't mean it caused the death which is what you're assuming here.  You can certainly argue that alcohol causes societal problems.  I'm not sure that you can argue it causes deaths though, at least not at all in the same way that a gun causes death (by design).  There are some parallels, but they're fundamentally different.

As far as alchohol being "a clearer public health crisis because it's ingesting something that slowly deteriorates the body's functions" . . . there's a large body of research indicating that people who drink occasionally are healthier in several measures (and live longer) than those who abstain (http://time.com/5166514/moderate-drinking-live-longer-study/ (http://time.com/5166514/moderate-drinking-live-longer-study/)).  While excess alcohol consumption is deleterious to health, those who drink in moderation actually live longer.  Owning a gun however, increases your risk of dying early (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gun-suicide/gun-access-tied-to-greater-suicide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gun-suicide/gun-access-tied-to-greater-suicide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120)).

Why are we discounting suicide deaths by gun?  Presence of guns unequivocally increases suicide risk (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-availability-suicide.html (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-availability-suicide.html)).  Study after study has shown that people who feel suicidal tend to only feel suicidal for short periods of time.  Having a gun present makes it much more likely that they will kill themselves http://pnhp.org/news/guns-and-suicide/ (http://pnhp.org/news/guns-and-suicide/) at least party because so much less planning is required with a ready lethal device sitting aroundhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223849/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223849/).  Most suicidal feelings are an impulse that will pass given time https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/).  Stricter gun laws reduce the number of suicides https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W).  Although the suicides are a problem that is only suffered by gun owners (and their family members), I think that their lives are worth saving and their deaths are as meaningful in the discussion of gun control as a murder is.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 19, 2019, 09:53:47 AM
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

1.  Sure.

2.  This seems overly restrictive and unfair.  I don't see why rifle or shotgun ownership can't own a long gun.  Many people who live in cities leave the city occasionally to go hunting, or for target shooting.

3.  I'm mostly on board with this . . . but have some reservations.  Bath salts and crystal meth (probably other drugs too) are extremely addictive, to the point that I'm not sure there exists a safe use threshold.  One or two uses can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.  To me, it makes sense regulating these drugs.  If it's never safe to use, I'm OK with it being an illegal drug.  Caffeine, marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, alcohol, ecstasy, steroids, human growth hormone, etc. aren't particularly addictive so I tend to feel that the decision about taking them should be left up to the individual.  Some of the drugs between are questionable to me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 19, 2019, 10:27:51 AM
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

1.  Sure.

2.  This seems overly restrictive and unfair.  I don't see why rifle or shotgun ownership can't own a long gun.  Many people who live in cities leave the city occasionally to go hunting, or for target shooting.

3.  I'm mostly on board with this . . . but have some reservations.  Bath salts and crystal meth (probably other drugs too) are extremely addictive, to the point that I'm not sure there exists a safe use threshold.  One or two uses can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.  To me, it makes sense regulating these drugs.  If it's never safe to use, I'm OK with it being an illegal drug.  Caffeine, marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, alcohol, ecstasy, steroids, human growth hormone, etc. aren't particularly addictive so I tend to feel that the decision about taking them should be left up to the individual.  Some of the drugs between are questionable to me.

Cities are (by far) where most of the gun violence occurs.  So they should be gun-free zones.  Your desire to hunt should not impinge on my right to not get shot.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 19, 2019, 10:57:26 AM
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

1.  Sure.

2.  This seems overly restrictive and unfair.  I don't see why rifle or shotgun ownership can't own a long gun.  Many people who live in cities leave the city occasionally to go hunting, or for target shooting.

3.  I'm mostly on board with this . . . but have some reservations.  Bath salts and crystal meth (probably other drugs too) are extremely addictive, to the point that I'm not sure there exists a safe use threshold.  One or two uses can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.  To me, it makes sense regulating these drugs.  If it's never safe to use, I'm OK with it being an illegal drug.  Caffeine, marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, alcohol, ecstasy, steroids, human growth hormone, etc. aren't particularly addictive so I tend to feel that the decision about taking them should be left up to the individual.  Some of the drugs between are questionable to me.

Cities are (by far) where most of the gun violence occurs.  So they should be gun-free zones.  Your desire to hunt should not impinge on my right to not get shot.

I'd be interested to see what the stats on that start to look like after a handgun ban.  Here in Canada there's no ban on owning rifles/shotguns in cities and gun violence with those guns in cities is not particularly rampant.

Logistically though, it seems like there would be a lot of challenging questions here.  What are you going to define as a city?  What if a small town gains population and becomes a city, do you go door to door and confiscate the guns?  What if a city loses enough population that it becomes a town?  What proximity from a city is considered OK to own a firearm (like if I have a farm on the outskirts of New York, can I get a long gun)?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 19, 2019, 11:36:07 AM
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

1.  Sure.

2.  This seems overly restrictive and unfair.  I don't see why rifle or shotgun ownership can't own a long gun.  Many people who live in cities leave the city occasionally to go hunting, or for target shooting.

3.  I'm mostly on board with this . . . but have some reservations.  Bath salts and crystal meth (probably other drugs too) are extremely addictive, to the point that I'm not sure there exists a safe use threshold.  One or two uses can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.  To me, it makes sense regulating these drugs.  If it's never safe to use, I'm OK with it being an illegal drug.  Caffeine, marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, alcohol, ecstasy, steroids, human growth hormone, etc. aren't particularly addictive so I tend to feel that the decision about taking them should be left up to the individual.  Some of the drugs between are questionable to me.

Cities are (by far) where most of the gun violence occurs.  So they should be gun-free zones.  Your desire to hunt should not impinge on my right to not get shot.

I'd be interested to see what the stats on that start to look like after a handgun ban.  Here in Canada there's no ban on owning rifles/shotguns in cities and gun violence with those guns in cities is not particularly rampant.

Logistically though, it seems like there would be a lot of challenging questions here.  What are you going to define as a city?  What if a small town gains population and becomes a city, do you go door to door and confiscate the guns?  What if a city loses enough population that it becomes a town?  What proximity from a city is considered OK to own a firearm (like if I have a farm on the outskirts of New York, can I get a long gun)?

I might actually soften my stance on the point to be something along the lines of:  Anyone can own a rifle/shotgun if they obtain a hunting license. 

This type of change (get rid of handguns, let rifles/shotguns be used for hunting and home defense) would also reduce the number of suicides, since it's physically much more difficult to kill yourself with a long barrel rifle than it is a short barrel handgun.  It won't eliminate it because some people will be clever and rig a way, but it'll make a big dent in the largest cause of gun deaths - suicide. 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 19, 2019, 02:37:39 PM

I might actually soften my stance on the point to be something along the lines of:  Anyone can own a rifle/shotgun if they obtain a hunting license. 

This type of change (get rid of handguns, let rifles/shotguns be used for hunting and home defense) would also reduce the number of suicides, since it's physically much more difficult to kill yourself with a long barrel rifle than it is a short barrel handgun.  It won't eliminate it because some people will be clever and rig a way, but it'll make a big dent in the largest cause of gun deaths - suicide.

My uncle had no difficulty killing himself with a rifle.  No rigging or cleverness was apparent at the scene.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: iris lily on February 19, 2019, 03:57:08 PM
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

1.  Sure.

2.  This seems overly restrictive and unfair.  I don't see why rifle or shotgun ownership can't own a long gun.  Many people who live in cities leave the city occasionally to go hunting, or for target shooting.

3.  I'm mostly on board with this . . . but have some reservations.  Bath salts and crystal meth (probably other drugs too) are extremely addictive, to the point that I'm not sure there exists a safe use threshold.  One or two uses can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.  To me, it makes sense regulating these drugs.  If it's never safe to use, I'm OK with it being an illegal drug.  Caffeine, marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, alcohol, ecstasy, steroids, human growth hormone, etc. aren't particularly addictive so I tend to feel that the decision about taking them should be left up to the individual.  Some of the drugs between are questionable to me.

Cities are (by far) where most of the gun violence occurs.  So they should be gun-free zones.  Your desire to hunt should not impinge on my right to not get shot.

People. Really, get a grip on reality.

There are already all kinds of laws (“bans” if you will) on handguns and ammo and equipment. While we are at it, same for many kinds of drugs.

Does that remove them from the urban population? No it does not.

DH spent 3 months on the grand jury here in murder city and the great majority of his cases were guns and drugs.

Iris, St Louis urban core
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on February 19, 2019, 06:24:00 PM
I find it interesting that the same people proposing we legalize drugs are suggesting we ban guns. I'm a responsible citizen. If I can be responsible with one, why not the other?

On the subject of drugs, people will drive under the influence of these substances and will probably result in more deaths than gun deaths each year. I'm in full support of legalizing marijuana, shrooms, ect. but I am also a realist and recognize some people will still drive.

I do think we have a problem and we need solutions. I just don't see banning weapons as being the solution. Legal gun owners are very rarely the problem, and there are enough weapons in circulation that collecting them would be extremely difficult. Plus a lot of citizens, law enforcement, and politicians would likely be killed in the process of mass confiscation.

I think we should mandate universal background checks, and the waiting period should be increased to a week since background checks are often taking longer than 3 days*. I also think there should be more training and education, especially if someone is going to carry a pistol on their person.

*I saw an article in the WSJ today about how several of the recent mass shootings were committed by people who would have failed a background check, but the background checks weren't complete until after the weapons were purchased.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 19, 2019, 08:01:54 PM

Were you able to find a single instance where alchohol caused the deaths you're referring to, rather than simply was present?  Every gun related death is caused by the gun.  Yes, sometimes when people are drunk they kill other people . . . but people drink all the time.  Just because alchohol was present doesn't mean it caused the death which is what you're assuming here.  You can certainly argue that alcohol causes societal problems.  I'm not sure that you can argue it causes deaths though, at least not at all in the same way that a gun causes death (by design).  There are some parallels, but they're fundamentally different.


I'm sorry, but this is quite hilarious, because you're arguing the pro-gun people's arguments for alcohol while trying to differentiate between the two at multiple points in your argument, and that's great, because it only further illustrates how similar the two points are!

First, you're being pedantic by saying the alcohol "caused" it. You're anthropomorphizing the alcohol and the guns. Neither causes it. The people using them cause it in both cases (until we have Terminator coming into town), but the alcohol and guns have an impact on the situation beyond just what the person does. That's why we have to argue what happens because the alcohol or gun is present versus them actual things doing something, because short of AI, they aren't doing anything on their own.

Now, you say "Yes, sometimes when people are drunk they kill other people . . . but people drink all the time.  Just because alchohol was present doesn't mean it caused the death which is what you're assuming here." This is the best example of what I said above. Gun people say (rightly so) all the time that, people own guns all the time and yet people don't get hurt almost all of the time with gun owners (just like alcohol). Just because guns are present doesn't mean they cause deaths, just like alcohol. We can't know what would have happened with a gun, without a gun, could the same person have been killed by other means, would they have been able to defend themselves with a gun but weren't because they didn't have it with them? We know they affect the scope of things (i.e. making it easier to kill someone when they might not have been able or making it possible to kill more). We just don't know, whether alcohol made it worse or not (except drunk driving deaths, which are pretty clear cut that the alcohol made it worse). We do know both affect the scope of things because of alcohol related deaths and gun deaths.


As far as alchohol being "a clearer public health crisis because it's ingesting something that slowly deteriorates the body's functions" . . . there's a large body of research indicating that people who drink occasionally are healthier in several measures (and live longer) than those who abstain (http://time.com/5166514/moderate-drinking-live-longer-study/ (http://time.com/5166514/moderate-drinking-live-longer-study/)).  While excess alcohol consumption is deleterious to health, those who drink in moderation actually live longer.  Owning a gun however, increases your risk of dying early (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gun-suicide/gun-access-tied-to-greater-suicide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gun-suicide/gun-access-tied-to-greater-suicide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120)).


Again, a great pro-gun like argument here! Alcohol certainly has benefits in moderation. Guns certainly have benefits too, which pro-gun people like myself are glad to highlight. You can hunt with them. They're fun to shoot - hobby, entertainment. They can and do protect people in situations where they are in danger quite a bit, so why all the focus on the negatives of guns *cough* alcohol *cough*, right, right? Also, while there are good statistics on people drinking in moderation versus people who don't, that's a pretty clear cut thing. All of the studies for guns look at things differently. They look at (as best as I've been able to tell), was a gun in the home, discounting important parts such as were the gun owners responsible - did they keep them locked up from kids? Would they/did they remove them if someone in their family showed signs of mental illness, etc? Did the alcohol studies look at it as "was alcohol in the home (abusers and moderate drinkers alike), and if so, did the chances of something bad happening increase because it was there" because that would change things tremendously by including people that abuse alcohol like people that commit suicide or accidentally hurt themselves. The fact that no or at least fewer studies (anecdotal, admittedly, but I've never heard of any) take the tact of alcohol in every home (good and bad) where guns are always as far as I've seen look at guns in every home ask what happens (good and bad) is actually kind of evidence in and of itself of a slant in the way the studies are performed because they're not looked at it "holistically" as pro-gun control people might say :). 


Why are we discounting suicide deaths by gun?  Presence of guns unequivocally increases suicide risk (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-availability-suicide.html (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-availability-suicide.html)).  Study after study has shown that people who feel suicidal tend to only feel suicidal for short periods of time.  Having a gun present makes it much more likely that they will kill themselves http://pnhp.org/news/guns-and-suicide/ (http://pnhp.org/news/guns-and-suicide/) at least party because so much less planning is required with a ready lethal device sitting aroundhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223849/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223849/).  Most suicidal feelings are an impulse that will pass given time https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/).  Stricter gun laws reduce the number of suicides https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W).  Although the suicides are a problem that is only suffered by gun owners (and their family members), I think that their lives are worth saving and their deaths are as meaningful in the discussion of gun control as a murder is.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously here. Why are we discounting suicide deaths by guns? Because you stated "Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?" This is the premise of your argument. If you ask me to discount people hurting themselves with alcohol in your discussion, of course I'm going to discount people hurting themselves with guns in mine....I don't know much of what else to say here, except aren't, as you stated "their lives are worth saving and their deaths are as meaningful in the discussion of gun control *cough* alcohol? If you want to include people hurting themselves, that's fine, just brings alcohol back up to 88,000 deaths and more than twice the gun deaths.

So we're back to the main and in actuality the only point you have that differentiates alcohol and guns (at least if the ones you just gave me are all you have) - intent of design. The reason I proposed this question was to see if that was it, and apparently it is.

Intent is great for a court of law where someone's level of crime is being determined, not so much for public policy issues. Those are hopefully more about what's actually happening. And you don't even have intent. You have a nebulous "intent of design." Not good enough, not nearly good enough.

If this is the best anyone can come up with, for gun control proponents with this perspective on alcohol (which is apparently almost all of them given, again, the lack of people flooding the streets for changes in alcohol, for restricting people's ability to get alcohol even before they do anything wrong, etc., the lack of the topic of restricting alcohol on a public party platform, etc.), I declare them hypocrites willing to not even just passively say, OK, I guess we might need to do this but to rabidly say, take away their rights without doing the same for an equally and actually greater threat to the public health right now. Why? I can't help to keep coming back to this, even though it's admittedly speculation...because it's easier to take away someone's right to do something when it's something you don't are about. So they're all hypocrites, but hey, I'm a hypocrite on my own things to, so we're in the same boat :).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 19, 2019, 08:42:59 PM

You're right, changing opinions via dialogue is pretty rare so kudos for that.  Then maybe we keep talking :) 

OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

Interesting points. There have been multiple people address them, so I think I will only have one comment. Your distinction between city and not city, despite the issues it would cause is one of the biggest divides I see in the gun control debate. I grew up around guns as many/most rural people do. I hear a gun go off at my house on a Saturday afternoon and literally think nothing of it. I almost always don't even notice it. I know it's just someone target practicing or hunting. Someone in a city hears a gun go off, someone is much more likely to be hurt, and they might be at risk. It's a huge perspective shift and is the one I don't see changing anytime soon. It also reflects the city/rural divide in politics in general. So while I wouldn't be happy with it :), as you say, it's definitely interesting (and believe it or not, you're not the first person I've heard suggest it, so maybe it's picking up steam, lol).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 19, 2019, 09:31:49 PM

You're right, changing opinions via dialogue is pretty rare so kudos for that.  Then maybe we keep talking :) 

OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

Interesting points. There have been multiple people address them, so I think I will only have one comment. Your distinction between city and not city, despite the issues it would cause is one of the biggest divides I see in the gun control debate. I grew up around guns as many/most rural people do. I hear a gun go off at my house on a Saturday afternoon and literally think nothing of it. I almost always don't even notice it. I know it's just someone target practicing or hunting. Someone in a city hears a gun go off, someone is much more likely to be hurt, and they might be at risk. It's a huge perspective shift and is the one I don't see changing anytime soon. It also reflects the city/rural divide in politics in general. So while I wouldn't be happy with it :), as you say, it's definitely interesting (and believe it or not, you're not the first person I've heard suggest it, so maybe it's picking up steam, lol).

Yes, the city/rural divide, you put your finger on it.  It goes way beyond guns and really does explain a lot of our division in politics.  You know, I'm glad I posted in this thread, it's helped me to realize something:  I've changed.  The gun control thing is something I used to be pretty passionate about and I'm discovering that I just don't care all that much any more.  I think I'm slowly starting to learn to let political issues just not bother me like they used to. 

Anyway, it was nice conversing with you :)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 20, 2019, 11:30:36 AM

Were you able to find a single instance where alchohol caused the deaths you're referring to, rather than simply was present?  Every gun related death is caused by the gun.  Yes, sometimes when people are drunk they kill other people . . . but people drink all the time.  Just because alchohol was present doesn't mean it caused the death which is what you're assuming here.  You can certainly argue that alcohol causes societal problems.  I'm not sure that you can argue it causes deaths though, at least not at all in the same way that a gun causes death (by design).  There are some parallels, but they're fundamentally different.


I'm sorry, but this is quite hilarious, because you're arguing the pro-gun people's arguments for alcohol while trying to differentiate between the two at multiple points in your argument, and that's great, because it only further illustrates how similar the two points are!

First, you're being pedantic by saying the alcohol "caused" it. You're anthropomorphizing the alcohol and the guns. Neither causes it. The people using them cause it in both cases (until we have Terminator coming into town), but the alcohol and guns have an impact on the situation beyond just what the person does. That's why we have to argue what happens because the alcohol or gun is present versus them actual things doing something, because short of AI, they aren't doing anything on their own.

The purpose of a gun is to make it easier to kill.  When used as designed, a gun is lethal.

The purpose of alcohol is to inebriate.  When used as designed it's not lethal.

I think that what's happening here, is that you interpret both as being equal.  I don't.  I'm not sure that we'll meet eye to eye on this.

Putting landmines around your house would increase defense (particularly from burglars and would be rapists) significantly more than owning a gun.  If a child runs into your yard and kills him or herself, the landmine didn't kill the child.  Given that landmines aren't evil, and it's only the actions of people that cause death . . . why then are landmines illegal?

In your mind, guns are just like a an alcoholic drink because both might be involved in death.  In my mind guns are just like a dangerous weapon because they're designed to kill.  I can see and understand where the argument that you're making, but just fundamentally disagree with your classification.




As far as alchohol being "a clearer public health crisis because it's ingesting something that slowly deteriorates the body's functions" . . . there's a large body of research indicating that people who drink occasionally are healthier in several measures (and live longer) than those who abstain (http://time.com/5166514/moderate-drinking-live-longer-study/ (http://time.com/5166514/moderate-drinking-live-longer-study/)).  While excess alcohol consumption is deleterious to health, those who drink in moderation actually live longer.  Owning a gun however, increases your risk of dying early (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858 (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/160/10/929/140858), https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gun-suicide/gun-access-tied-to-greater-suicide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gun-suicide/gun-access-tied-to-greater-suicide-murder-risk-study-idUSBREA0J1G920140120)).


Again, a great pro-gun like argument here! Alcohol certainly has benefits in moderation. Guns certainly have benefits too, which pro-gun people like myself are glad to highlight. You can hunt with them. They're fun to shoot - hobby, entertainment. They can and do protect people in situations where they are in danger quite a bit, so why all the focus on the negatives of guns *cough* alcohol *cough*, right, right? Also, while there are good statistics on people drinking in moderation versus people who don't, that's a pretty clear cut thing. All of the studies for guns look at things differently. They look at (as best as I've been able to tell), was a gun in the home, discounting important parts such as were the gun owners responsible - did they keep them locked up from kids? Would they/did they remove them if someone in their family showed signs of mental illness, etc? Did the alcohol studies look at it as "was alcohol in the home (abusers and moderate drinkers alike), and if so, did the chances of something bad happening increase because it was there" because that would change things tremendously by including people that abuse alcohol like people that commit suicide or accidentally hurt themselves. The fact that no or at least fewer studies (anecdotal, admittedly, but I've never heard of any) take the tact of alcohol in every home (good and bad) where guns are always as far as I've seen look at guns in every home ask what happens (good and bad) is actually kind of evidence in and of itself of a slant in the way the studies are performed because they're not looked at it "holistically" as pro-gun control people might say :). 


The difference is that the 'certainty of benefit' is quite different between guns ownership and alcohol use in moderation.  The actual beneficial impact of moderate alcohol use is well studied and not controversial.  There are a great many conflicting studies regarding the beneficial impact of gun ownership.

As was already pointed out and referenced, at it's simplest . . . people who occasionally drink live will longer than average.  People who choose to own a gun in America will live shorter lives than average.




Why are we discounting suicide deaths by gun?  Presence of guns unequivocally increases suicide risk (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-availability-suicide.html (https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/firearm-availability-suicide.html)).  Study after study has shown that people who feel suicidal tend to only feel suicidal for short periods of time.  Having a gun present makes it much more likely that they will kill themselves http://pnhp.org/news/guns-and-suicide/ (http://pnhp.org/news/guns-and-suicide/) at least party because so much less planning is required with a ready lethal device sitting aroundhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223849/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223849/).  Most suicidal feelings are an impulse that will pass given time https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/).  Stricter gun laws reduce the number of suicides https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-firearms-suicides/strict-state-gun-laws-linked-to-fewer-suicides-and-murders-idUSKBN1GH39W).  Although the suicides are a problem that is only suffered by gun owners (and their family members), I think that their lives are worth saving and their deaths are as meaningful in the discussion of gun control as a murder is.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously here. Why are we discounting suicide deaths by guns? Because you stated "Can you please provide some news articles that show what you're talking about where alcohol itself caused the deaths of people (other than the person consuming the alcohol)?" This is the premise of your argument. If you ask me to discount people hurting themselves with alcohol in your discussion, of course I'm going to discount people hurting themselves with guns in mine....I don't know much of what else to say here, except aren't, as you stated "their lives are worth saving and their deaths are as meaningful in the discussion of gun control *cough* alcohol? If you want to include people hurting themselves, that's fine, just brings alcohol back up to 88,000 deaths and more than twice the gun deaths.

I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in my reasons.

Gun ownership increase suicide deaths for a variety of reasons.  Removing guns from the picture quite clearly reduces this number.  Even very right wing pro gun groups have admitted this.  The person committing the suicide though is often not the gun owner, but a family member, lover, or friend.  When you discount suicides you're discounting these deaths where gun ownership has directly caused the death of another.



So we're back to the main and in actuality the only point you have that differentiates alcohol and guns (at least if the ones you just gave me are all you have) - intent of design. The reason I proposed this question was to see if that was it, and apparently it is.

Intent is great for a court of law where someone's level of crime is being determined, not so much for public policy issues. Those are hopefully more about what's actually happening. And you don't even have intent. You have a nebulous "intent of design." Not good enough, not nearly good enough.

If this is the best anyone can come up with, for gun control proponents with this perspective on alcohol (which is apparently almost all of them given, again, the lack of people flooding the streets for changes in alcohol, for restricting people's ability to get alcohol even before they do anything wrong, etc., the lack of the topic of restricting alcohol on a public party platform, etc.), I declare them hypocrites willing to not even just passively say, OK, I guess we might need to do this but to rabidly say, take away their rights without doing the same for an equally and actually greater threat to the public health right now. Why? I can't help to keep coming back to this, even though it's admittedly speculation...because it's easier to take away someone's right to do something when it's something you don't are about. So they're all hypocrites, but hey, I'm a hypocrite on my own things to, so we're in the same boat :).

Intent of design is used all the time to prevent people from owning dangerous things.  I'm not allowed to buy landmines to ring my property . . . because they're dangerous.  I tend to see guns (specifically handguns) as similar.  Landmines are arguably more defensive than a gun (which can be used offensively, whereas a landmine just sits there waiting for a trespasser) but they're designed to kill or maim, so the right to own a landmine is severely restricted.  This isn't based on studies of the effect of legal landmines in the US.  They've been banned entirely because of intent of design.  Same thing goes for nukes.  Nukes have never been legal, so we really have no idea of their deterrent effect.  We've just taken away people's rights to own them because they are designed to kill large numbers of people . . . we should legalize them for a few decades for study were your reasoning here sound.

(FWIW, I am a teetotaler.  If we lost the right to drink tomorrow, it would mean that I don't have a beer or a gin and tonic every couple months.  No real appreciable difference to my life either way.  I don't currently own a gun, but spent an awful lot of my young life hunting with a rifle in the woods.  I've spent an awful lot more time shooting guns than drinking alcohol.  While it's true that I don't fetishize them to the extent that seems to be common in the US, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that I don't care about guns.)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: nnls on February 21, 2019, 01:59:53 AM
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

1.  Sure.

2.  This seems overly restrictive and unfair.  I don't see why rifle or shotgun ownership can't own a long gun.  Many people who live in cities leave the city occasionally to go hunting, or for target shooting.

3.  I'm mostly on board with this . . . but have some reservations.  Bath salts and crystal meth (probably other drugs too) are extremely addictive, to the point that I'm not sure there exists a safe use threshold.  One or two uses can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.  To me, it makes sense regulating these drugs.  If it's never safe to use, I'm OK with it being an illegal drug.  Caffeine, marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, alcohol, ecstasy, steroids, human growth hormone, etc. aren't particularly addictive so I tend to feel that the decision about taking them should be left up to the individual.  Some of the drugs between are questionable to me.

Cities are (by far) where most of the gun violence occurs.  So they should be gun-free zones.  Your desire to hunt should not impinge on my right to not get shot.

I'd be interested to see what the stats on that start to look like after a handgun ban.  Here in Canada there's no ban on owning rifles/shotguns in cities and gun violence with those guns in cities is not particularly rampant.

Logistically though, it seems like there would be a lot of challenging questions here.  What are you going to define as a city?  What if a small town gains population and becomes a city, do you go door to door and confiscate the guns?  What if a city loses enough population that it becomes a town?  What proximity from a city is considered OK to own a firearm (like if I have a farm on the outskirts of New York, can I get a long gun)?

I might actually soften my stance on the point to be something along the lines of:  Anyone can own a rifle/shotgun if they obtain a hunting license. 

This type of change (get rid of handguns, let rifles/shotguns be used for hunting and home defense) would also reduce the number of suicides, since it's physically much more difficult to kill yourself with a long barrel rifle than it is a short barrel handgun.  It won't eliminate it because some people will be clever and rig a way, but it'll make a big dent in the largest cause of gun deaths - suicide.

In Australia (well at least in Western Australia) you can get a gun licence if you live in a city and are a member of a hunting club. My uncle had a membership, the gun had to be stored at the hunting club, he was able to get it whenver he went hunting or to target practice.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: SharkStomper on February 21, 2019, 02:46:24 AM

I might actually soften my stance on the point to be something along the lines of:  Anyone can own a rifle/shotgun if they obtain a hunting license. 

This type of change (get rid of handguns, let rifles/shotguns be used for hunting and home defense) would also reduce the number of suicides, since it's physically much more difficult to kill yourself with a long barrel rifle than it is a short barrel handgun.  It won't eliminate it because some people will be clever and rig a way, but it'll make a big dent in the largest cause of gun deaths - suicide.

@tyort1 Maybe you missed this

My uncle had no difficulty killing himself with a rifle.  No rigging or cleverness was apparent at the scene.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 21, 2019, 09:04:50 AM

I might actually soften my stance on the point to be something along the lines of:  Anyone can own a rifle/shotgun if they obtain a hunting license. 

This type of change (get rid of handguns, let rifles/shotguns be used for hunting and home defense) would also reduce the number of suicides, since it's physically much more difficult to kill yourself with a long barrel rifle than it is a short barrel handgun.  It won't eliminate it because some people will be clever and rig a way, but it'll make a big dent in the largest cause of gun deaths - suicide.

@tyort1 Maybe you missed this

My uncle had no difficulty killing himself with a rifle.  No rigging or cleverness was apparent at the scene.

You're right, we should probably ban rifles too ;)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: middo on February 21, 2019, 02:54:30 PM
OK, so my solution that pisses everyone off equally.  It's really just focusing on where changes could do the most good without expecting human nature to change.  TLDR version, 3 main steps:  1. Make handguns illegal  2. Allow rifle ownership (as many as you want) but not in cities  3. Legalize pot, cocaine and hallucinogenics. 

See, it's going to make everyone mad!  It's not enough for the GC people and it's way too much for the GRA people.  But, I've put a lot of thought behind these specific ideas and I'll expand on them a bit if you don't mind.

1.  Make Handguns Illegal - purely based on statistics, handguns cause the most death.  So just eliminate them.  And they aren't really needed. 

2.  Allow rifle ownership in rural areas (and small towns) but make it illegal in cities.  Mostly because I've lived on a farm in BFE (that's bum-fuck-egypt for you non country folk) and when you're in the middle of nowhere, being isolated is a real problem.  If someone comes there to do you harm, you'd better have a weapon or you're screwed.  Rifles fill this function fine, and I find shotguns work particularly well with intruders. 

3. Legalize most illicit drugs.  As has been pointed out, a large percentage of the gun violence in this country is driven by the drug trade, ie gang related violence.  Don't try to fix it by removing the weapons (which will never work).  Fix it by removing the true cause, the black market and profit created by making drugs illegal in the first place.  Legalize it and watch the violence disappear overnight.  Actually, #3 works synergistically with #1.  When you combine them, we won't be throwing people in jail for having or dealing drugs.  We WILL be throwing them in jail for possessing firearms. 

There, I think those 3 points will manage to piss off just about everybody, LOL!

1.  Sure.

2.  This seems overly restrictive and unfair.  I don't see why rifle or shotgun ownership can't own a long gun.  Many people who live in cities leave the city occasionally to go hunting, or for target shooting.

3.  I'm mostly on board with this . . . but have some reservations.  Bath salts and crystal meth (probably other drugs too) are extremely addictive, to the point that I'm not sure there exists a safe use threshold.  One or two uses can cause physical withdrawal symptoms.  To me, it makes sense regulating these drugs.  If it's never safe to use, I'm OK with it being an illegal drug.  Caffeine, marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, alcohol, ecstasy, steroids, human growth hormone, etc. aren't particularly addictive so I tend to feel that the decision about taking them should be left up to the individual.  Some of the drugs between are questionable to me.

Cities are (by far) where most of the gun violence occurs.  So they should be gun-free zones.  Your desire to hunt should not impinge on my right to not get shot.

I'd be interested to see what the stats on that start to look like after a handgun ban.  Here in Canada there's no ban on owning rifles/shotguns in cities and gun violence with those guns in cities is not particularly rampant.

Logistically though, it seems like there would be a lot of challenging questions here.  What are you going to define as a city?  What if a small town gains population and becomes a city, do you go door to door and confiscate the guns?  What if a city loses enough population that it becomes a town?  What proximity from a city is considered OK to own a firearm (like if I have a farm on the outskirts of New York, can I get a long gun)?

I might actually soften my stance on the point to be something along the lines of:  Anyone can own a rifle/shotgun if they obtain a hunting license. 

This type of change (get rid of handguns, let rifles/shotguns be used for hunting and home defense) would also reduce the number of suicides, since it's physically much more difficult to kill yourself with a long barrel rifle than it is a short barrel handgun.  It won't eliminate it because some people will be clever and rig a way, but it'll make a big dent in the largest cause of gun deaths - suicide.

In Australia (well at least in Western Australia) you can get a gun licence if you live in a city and are a member of a hunting club. My uncle had a membership, the gun had to be stored at the hunting club, he was able to get it whenver he went hunting or to target practice.

The rules in Western Australia also require the hunter to have their paper licence on them when carrying the gun, and also a letter from the owner of the land they are hunting on, giving them permission to hunt on the land if the owner is not present.  As a land owner, I do not have this issue, but technically my son needed a letter from me to allow him to shoot rabbits and foxes on our land when I was not home.  He also needed a letter from me before he could purchase a gun himself, and he needed a gun safe installed in the home (which is allowed in rural areas) and have it inspected by police.  Ammunition must be kept locked separately from the gun.

These rules make it very clear that guns are not expected to be used for self defence in Western Australia, as the time required to unlock the gun safe, unlock the ammunition, load the gun and then point the gun at anyone would be too long to stop a home invasion.  Guns are available for the farming community as a tool for their intended use, destroying vermin, and livestock as necessary.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 21, 2019, 08:13:29 PM

The purpose of a gun is to make it easier to kill.  When used as designed, a gun is lethal.

The purpose of alcohol is to inebriate.  When used as designed it's not lethal.

I think that what's happening here, is that you interpret both as being equal.  I don't.  I'm not sure that we'll meet eye to eye on this.

Putting landmines around your house would increase defense (particularly from burglars and would be rapists) significantly more than owning a gun.  If a child runs into your yard and kills him or herself, the landmine didn't kill the child.  Given that landmines aren't evil, and it's only the actions of people that cause death . . . why then are landmines illegal?

In your mind, guns are just like a an alcoholic drink because both might be involved in death.  In my mind guns are just like a dangerous weapon because they're designed to kill.  I can see and understand where the argument that you're making, but just fundamentally disagree with your classification.


Landmines are not illegal because of intent. They're illegal because there's no safe way to use them without collateral damage. This is the same as nukes that you mention at the bottom. We don't need studies to determine that you can't put a landmine somewhere without severe risks. We don't need studies to know a nuke would damage a huge area. We don't need studies to know that you can shoot a deer with a gun and it's a good thing if you eat the meat. We don't need a study to know that good people can and do use guns to stop bad things (we would need a study to know how many).

I certainly agree we have a fundamental difference (which I'll address at the end).


The difference is that the 'certainty of benefit' is quite different between guns ownership and alcohol use in moderation.  The actual beneficial impact of moderate alcohol use is well studied and not controversial.  There are a great many conflicting studies regarding the beneficial impact of gun ownership.

As was already pointed out and referenced, at it's simplest . . . people who occasionally drink live will longer than average.  People who choose to own a gun in America will live shorter lives than average.


The difference is explicit in your own statement. You say, "The difference is that the 'certainty of benefit' is quite different between guns ownership and alcohol use in moderation." Of course that's the case - you're defining the situation to benefit your point of view. You're comparing gun ownership as a whole with using alcohol in moderation. You're literally comparing a general statement of having guns with a specific statement of someone using alcohol correctly. That's the only reason you can declare "certainty of benefit," because you're literally defining it that way. I could say the same thing - let's compare the certainty of benefits of alcohol ownership with responsible gun usage as defined by (always assuming it's loaded, keeping it away from kids and mentally ill people, or shoot, let's cut to the chase, define it as only shooting animals to hunt or people committing criminal actions). Then, yea, responsible gun usage has an incredible certainty of benefit while alcohol ownership has much risk. Because, again, you're defining the situation. No study looks at alcohol ownership in households as a survey to see risk/benefit (please show me one if you can find it). Studies automatically define moderate drinking as the test to see if it's good or not. Studies automatically define ALL gun ownership and then say, oh, what could someone do bad with it. It's implicit that they're biased in different ways. You have to see this.




I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in my reasons.

Gun ownership increase suicide deaths for a variety of reasons.  Removing guns from the picture quite clearly reduces this number.  Even very right wing pro gun groups have admitted this.  The person committing the suicide though is often not the gun owner, but a family member, lover, or friend.  When you discount suicides you're discounting these deaths where gun ownership has directly caused the death of another.


I'm totally fine with this, if we keep our reasoning consistent for the comparison between alcohol and guns, which I believe is all we have left that we're discussing. You define self-harm as tied to guns. Then self-harm has to be tied to alcohol in the same way, in which case, literally 10's of thousands of more deaths per year are at the feet of alcohol.


Intent of design is used all the time to prevent people from owning dangerous things.  I'm not allowed to buy landmines to ring my property . . . because they're dangerous.  I tend to see guns (specifically handguns) as similar.  Landmines are arguably more defensive than a gun (which can be used offensively, whereas a landmine just sits there waiting for a trespasser) but they're designed to kill or maim, so the right to own a landmine is severely restricted.  This isn't based on studies of the effect of legal landmines in the US.  They've been banned entirely because of intent of design.  Same thing goes for nukes.  Nukes have never been legal, so we really have no idea of their deterrent effect.  We've just taken away people's rights to own them because they are designed to kill large numbers of people . . . we should legalize them for a few decades for study were your reasoning here sound.

(FWIW, I am a teetotaler.  If we lost the right to drink tomorrow, it would mean that I don't have a beer or a gin and tonic every couple months.  No real appreciable difference to my life either way.  I don't currently own a gun, but spent an awful lot of my young life hunting with a rifle in the woods.  I've spent an awful lot more time shooting guns than drinking alcohol.  While it's true that I don't fetishize them to the extent that seems to be common in the US, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that I don't care about guns.)

Intent of design is not used to ban things that I'm aware of. As I mentioned above, landmines and nuclear weapons are banned because they're frickin' dangerous and dangerous to tons of people at large and could not be used in a defensive application where there wasn't a huge risk of collateral damage. These are extreme differences from guns. You're comment "we should legalize them for a few decades for study were your reasoning here sound" is really silly, and I know that you know that. We don't have to legalize a nuclear weapon to know that it has a blast radius of however many miles, it's implicit in the science behind it. My reasoning would in no way require that we study nukes to ban them.

Look, I can't speculate on your motives. You say you're a teetotaler and you've used guns before, fine. I don't know you or your background. Here's what I do know:

I've admitted more than once when I was wrong or when I was being pedantic. You haven't admitted that you have very explicitly used pro-gun arguments to try to say the comparison to alcohol is poor. This is important not to say "na-na na-na boo boo I'm right and you're wrong" but to show you that the fact that this is a very effective comparison has been made multiple times in the argument. They're not these radically different things. There are tons of similarities. You are, for whatever reason, too entrenched to admit it though, it seems.

I will circle back again to your point. We do have a fundamental disagreement. You are biased against guns, plain and simple. I am biased for guns, of course. I'm not going to deny it. But that difference is keeping you from seeing that alcohol is statistically more dangerous than guns, which I don't believe you've once admitted even though it's true. Something can be dangerous even if it's not designed to be. In this case, alcohol is that thing. There's no getting around this. If something is statistically more dangerous than something else, you tackle it more not less and certainly do not ignore it completely, if you're not being hypocritical. It boils down to these points:

Alcohol kills more people than guns. I didn't make this up, the CDC says it's so. Argue with them if you disagree.

Alcohol and guns are both "optional" items. You don't need them to live. They're not necessary to support your family (unless you're in one of those industries). If both were banned and were able to be made to magically disappear, people could continue to go to work, have relationships with each other, etc. So in that very important sense they're very similar.

People are up in arms to restrict and often times ban guns. It's in the news. People are passionate enough about it to campaign on social media. To protest in the streets. To call people bad names if they don't fall in line. To declare that gun deaths are on their heads. To put it as one of the highlights of the platform of an entire political party.

These same people (by and large) are not addressing alcohol in the same way, even though it's tied to more deaths. They are literally willing to ignore something that puts more people in jeopardy, for what reason? Because guns are scary? Because you don't like them? Because you like to drink? Because you don't want to go against something a much higher percentage of society says is fine? Because it's easy to jump on a bandwagon against guns? Whatever...

I have a very legitimate right to be pissed off that people are willing to take away one right while ignoring another when there's no good statistical reason why to do it that way. These are very comparable situations. Yet, people ignore alcohol and are willing to remove rights from tens of millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong. I doubt many gun owners have thought of this argument. I doubt many would totally agree with everything I have to say. But if you want to know the sentiment behind gun proponents getting pissed off, it's this sentiment.

People are willing to take away someone else's rights because they just don't care about the right. It's not important to them, so they not only relinquish it freely to a government they would otherwise fight against for taking away rights they do care about. They don't just relinquish it; they crusade against it, and it's all because they just don't care about that right. How do I know that it's because they just don't care about it? Because they ignore another similar but more dangerous thing. But if the right that could get taken away is something these other people prefer/don't want to take away/think isn't as bad even though statistically it is/whatever they can't even be bothered to go after that other right and be consistent.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 21, 2019, 08:14:47 PM

Yes, the city/rural divide, you put your finger on it.  It goes way beyond guns and really does explain a lot of our division in politics.  You know, I'm glad I posted in this thread, it's helped me to realize something:  I've changed.  The gun control thing is something I used to be pretty passionate about and I'm discovering that I just don't care all that much any more.  I think I'm slowly starting to learn to let political issues just not bother me like they used to. 

Anyway, it was nice conversing with you :)

Thanks, tyort, it was nice conversing with you as well! I'm improving on not letting political issues bother me like they used to, but I still have a long way to go :).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 21, 2019, 08:22:47 PM
I find it interesting that the same people proposing we legalize drugs are suggesting we ban guns. I'm a responsible citizen. If I can be responsible with one, why not the other?

...

I think we should mandate universal background checks, and the waiting period should be increased to a week since background checks are often taking longer than 3 days*. I also think there should be more training and education, especially if someone is going to carry a pistol on their person.

*I saw an article in the WSJ today about how several of the recent mass shootings were committed by people who would have failed a background check, but the background checks weren't complete until after the weapons were purchased.
In my opinion, the concern with drugs is that they alter a person's state of mind, degrade that person's decision-making skills, and can be addictive, which leads to very poor decision.  Guns don't have that same effect.  Certainly they enable more poor decisions by people who are already inclined to play stupid games.

As for background checks, I think it's important that we make establish some basic facts about them.  You may already be familiar with them, but just to make sure
1) any gun purchase from a gun dealer (i.e. FFL) requires a background check
2) any gun purchase across state lines, even a private transaction, has to (legally) pass through an FFL and background check
3) the "gun show loophole" is a myth
4) in general, private sales between two people who are residents of the same state are *not* subject to background checks, although some states have instituted them

As for people who got the gun before the background check completed, I'll have to see a source for that.  Usually, background checks are done over the phone or via the internet--the FFL enters the buyer's info, the NICS runs it through their system, and you get a yea or nay either immediately or within a few minutes, and the sale cannot happen until the background check is finished.  If someone bought a gun before a background check completed, I'm guessing either A) the FFL did something very wrong (which new laws wouldn't prevent) or B) it's some other sort of state-level background check.

I know some states have a 1-week waiting period, and some states don't have any waiting period at all.  Are there any good statistics that show the impact (if any) of such "cooling off periods"?  I'm not saying that there's no effect, but so many gun laws are written to address scenarios that are dreamed up rather than real.  (For example, Illinois' concealed carry law that says you can't carry in 23 different types of locations, including hospitals, nursing homes, any educational institution at any level, etc.  Seriously, people who go through the effort and expense to get a CCW permit are NOT the ones you need to be worried about!)  Or other laws or policies that are pure fantasy, like sticking a "no guns" sign at the entrance to your business.  The people who will heed the sign are the law-abiding citizens who aren't going to cause trouble in the first place, and the Bad People coming to do harm aren't gonna care about  that little 4"x6" placard.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2019, 07:56:29 AM

The purpose of a gun is to make it easier to kill.  When used as designed, a gun is lethal.

The purpose of alcohol is to inebriate.  When used as designed it's not lethal.

I think that what's happening here, is that you interpret both as being equal.  I don't.  I'm not sure that we'll meet eye to eye on this.

Putting landmines around your house would increase defense (particularly from burglars and would be rapists) significantly more than owning a gun.  If a child runs into your yard and kills him or herself, the landmine didn't kill the child.  Given that landmines aren't evil, and it's only the actions of people that cause death . . . why then are landmines illegal?

In your mind, guns are just like a an alcoholic drink because both might be involved in death.  In my mind guns are just like a dangerous weapon because they're designed to kill.  I can see and understand where the argument that you're making, but just fundamentally disagree with your classification.


Landmines are not illegal because of intent. They're illegal because there's no safe way to use them without collateral damage. This is the same as nukes that you mention at the bottom. We don't need studies to determine that you can't put a landmine somewhere without severe risks. We don't need studies to know a nuke would damage a huge area. We don't need studies to know that you can shoot a deer with a gun and it's a good thing if you eat the meat. We don't need a study to know that good people can and do use guns to stop bad things (we would need a study to know how many).

I certainly agree we have a fundamental difference (which I'll address at the end).

It's certainly possible to use landmines without collateral damage.  If it wasn't, they would never have been used by the military.  But you can replace landmines with artillery if that makes you happier.  You say that you don't need studies to know that there are severe risks associated with placing landmines, OK, sure I can buy that.  You say that you don't need studies to know that you can shoot a deer with a gun for meat, OK, sure, I can buy that too.

We don't need a study to know that good people can and do use guns to stop bad things (we would need a study to know how many).  Sure, I can agree with this too.

By the same token we also don't need a study to know that easy access to hand guns is extremely dangerous, and that it leads to a great many bad things (we would need a study to determine how many).

Our fundamental difference is that you believe that the good outweighs the bad.  I disagree.  There are several studies available that demonstrate that the bad outweighs the good, and several studies that demonstrate that the good outweighs the bad.  I'm not sure where that leaves us.




The difference is that the 'certainty of benefit' is quite different between guns ownership and alcohol use in moderation.  The actual beneficial impact of moderate alcohol use is well studied and not controversial.  There are a great many conflicting studies regarding the beneficial impact of gun ownership.

As was already pointed out and referenced, at it's simplest . . . people who occasionally drink live will longer than average.  People who choose to own a gun in America will live shorter lives than average.


The difference is explicit in your own statement. You say, "The difference is that the 'certainty of benefit' is quite different between guns ownership and alcohol use in moderation." Of course that's the case - you're defining the situation to benefit your point of view. You're comparing gun ownership as a whole with using alcohol in moderation. You're literally comparing a general statement of having guns with a specific statement of someone using alcohol correctly. That's the only reason you can declare "certainty of benefit," because you're literally defining it that way. I could say the same thing - let's compare the certainty of benefits of alcohol ownership with responsible gun usage as defined by (always assuming it's loaded, keeping it away from kids and mentally ill people, or shoot, let's cut to the chase, define it as only shooting animals to hunt or people committing criminal actions). Then, yea, responsible gun usage has an incredible certainty of benefit while alcohol ownership has much risk. Because, again, you're defining the situation. No study looks at alcohol ownership in households as a survey to see risk/benefit (please show me one if you can find it). Studies automatically define moderate drinking as the test to see if it's good or not. Studies automatically define ALL gun ownership and then say, oh, what could someone do bad with it. It's implicit that they're biased in different ways. You have to see this.

I see your point, and agree somewhat.  The thing is, there's some difficulty in comparing apples to apples here.

I can define moderate alcohol use pretty easily, by setting a blood alchohol level or number of drinks in an hour for a particular body weight, etc. 

It's a bit more difficult to define an equivalent 'responsible gun usage' category.  More than half of gun owners in the US admit to failing to secure their gun safely (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm)).  Are most gun owners irresponsible?  Or is securing a gun not considered a responsible action to take?  How do we compare apples to apples?




I'm sorry that I wasn't clear in my reasons.

Gun ownership increase suicide deaths for a variety of reasons.  Removing guns from the picture quite clearly reduces this number.  Even very right wing pro gun groups have admitted this.  The person committing the suicide though is often not the gun owner, but a family member, lover, or friend.  When you discount suicides you're discounting these deaths where gun ownership has directly caused the death of another.


I'm totally fine with this, if we keep our reasoning consistent for the comparison between alcohol and guns, which I believe is all we have left that we're discussing. You define self-harm as tied to guns. Then self-harm has to be tied to alcohol in the same way, in which case, literally 10's of thousands of more deaths per year are at the feet of alcohol.


Intent of design is used all the time to prevent people from owning dangerous things.  I'm not allowed to buy landmines to ring my property . . . because they're dangerous.  I tend to see guns (specifically handguns) as similar.  Landmines are arguably more defensive than a gun (which can be used offensively, whereas a landmine just sits there waiting for a trespasser) but they're designed to kill or maim, so the right to own a landmine is severely restricted.  This isn't based on studies of the effect of legal landmines in the US.  They've been banned entirely because of intent of design.  Same thing goes for nukes.  Nukes have never been legal, so we really have no idea of their deterrent effect.  We've just taken away people's rights to own them because they are designed to kill large numbers of people . . . we should legalize them for a few decades for study were your reasoning here sound.

(FWIW, I am a teetotaler.  If we lost the right to drink tomorrow, it would mean that I don't have a beer or a gin and tonic every couple months.  No real appreciable difference to my life either way.  I don't currently own a gun, but spent an awful lot of my young life hunting with a rifle in the woods.  I've spent an awful lot more time shooting guns than drinking alcohol.  While it's true that I don't fetishize them to the extent that seems to be common in the US, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that I don't care about guns.)

Intent of design is not used to ban things that I'm aware of. As I mentioned above, landmines and nuclear weapons are banned because they're frickin' dangerous and dangerous to tons of people at large and could not be used in a defensive application where there wasn't a huge risk of collateral damage. These are extreme differences from guns. You're comment "we should legalize them for a few decades for study were your reasoning here sound" is really silly, and I know that you know that. We don't have to legalize a nuclear weapon to know that it has a blast radius of however many miles, it's implicit in the science behind it. My reasoning would in no way require that we study nukes to ban them.

Agreed, the point of mentioning it was to show how silly the whole argument that it is necessary to perform studies to prove that obviously dangerous things are dangerous.

Handguns of course, are also frickin' dangerous and dangerous to tons of people at large, and carry with them a huge risk of collateral damage.

The argument about defense makes no sense at all.  As mentioned, it's difficult to use a landmine in an offensive manner, they were designed as an (admittedly indiscriminate) defensive weapon.  It's very easy to use a gun in an offensive manner, they are designed as an (admittedly more discriminate) offensive weapon.  Now, if you want to say that the ability to discriminate between targets is most important, then I'd argue that there exists greater reason to restrict automatic and semi-automatic guns as they enable less discriminate firing.



I will circle back again to your point. We do have a fundamental disagreement. You are biased against guns, plain and simple. I am biased for guns, of course. I'm not going to deny it. But that difference is keeping you from seeing that alcohol is statistically more dangerous than guns, which I don't believe you've once admitted even though it's true. Something can be dangerous even if it's not designed to be. In this case, alcohol is that thing. There's no getting around this. If something is statistically more dangerous than something else, you tackle it more not less and certainly do not ignore it completely, if you're not being hypocritical. It boils down to these points:

Alcohol kills more people than guns. I didn't make this up, the CDC says it's so. Argue with them if you disagree.

So, you just complained that I was not comparing like for like . . . but deaths involving alcohol vs deaths caused by guns is not exactly apples to apples either, is it?  If I have a beer and an hour later walk outside, slip on some ice, crack my head and die, I have increased the number of alcohol related deaths.  Would you say that alcohol caused my death?  Is this the alcohol equivalent of being shot to death in your mind?

That's why the CDC does not say that alcohol kills more people than guns (as you keep repeating).  It does list a great number of deaths involving alcohol though.



Alcohol and guns are both "optional" items. You don't need them to live. They're not necessary to support your family (unless you're in one of those industries). If both were banned and were able to be made to magically disappear, people could continue to go to work, have relationships with each other, etc. So in that very important sense they're very similar.

People are up in arms to restrict and often times ban guns. It's in the news. People are passionate enough about it to campaign on social media. To protest in the streets. To call people bad names if they don't fall in line. To declare that gun deaths are on their heads. To put it as one of the highlights of the platform of an entire political party.

These same people (by and large) are not addressing alcohol in the same way, even though it's tied to more deaths. They are literally willing to ignore something that puts more people in jeopardy, for what reason? Because guns are scary? Because you don't like them? Because you like to drink? Because you don't want to go against something a much higher percentage of society says is fine? Because it's easy to jump on a bandwagon against guns? Whatever...

I have a very legitimate right to be pissed off that people are willing to take away one right while ignoring another when there's no good statistical reason why to do it that way. These are very comparable situations. Yet, people ignore alcohol and are willing to remove rights from tens of millions of Americans who have done nothing wrong. I doubt many gun owners have thought of this argument. I doubt many would totally agree with everything I have to say. But if you want to know the sentiment behind gun proponents getting pissed off, it's this sentiment.

People are willing to take away someone else's rights because they just don't care about the right. It's not important to them, so they not only relinquish it freely to a government they would otherwise fight against for taking away rights they do care about. They don't just relinquish it; they crusade against it, and it's all because they just don't care about that right. How do I know that it's because they just don't care about it? Because they ignore another similar but more dangerous thing. But if the right that could get taken away is something these other people prefer/don't want to take away/think isn't as bad even though statistically it is/whatever they can't even be bothered to go after that other right and be consistent.

OK, you've convinced me.  They're both dangerous.  Let's ban both.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on February 22, 2019, 08:47:43 AM
The rules in Western Australia also require the hunter to have their paper licence on them when carrying the gun, and also a letter from the owner of the land they are hunting on, giving them permission to hunt on the land if the owner is not present.  As a land owner, I do not have this issue, but technically my son needed a letter from me to allow him to shoot rabbits and foxes on our land when I was not home.  He also needed a letter from me before he could purchase a gun himself, and he needed a gun safe installed in the home (which is allowed in rural areas) and have it inspected by police.  Ammunition must be kept locked separately from the gun.

These rules make it very clear that guns are not expected to be used for self defence in Western Australia, as the time required to unlock the gun safe, unlock the ammunition, load the gun and then point the gun at anyone would be too long to stop a home invasion.  Guns are available for the farming community as a tool for their intended use, destroying vermin, and livestock as necessary.
I think this is very interesting.  I think this type of expectation would go a long way to satisfying the GC folks since the GRA folks many times are saying their purpose is not to kill/harm anyone.  It would be a way to make it clear to all that as a society we have decided that this purpose is not what the gun owner has the gun for, as you have done there in Western Australia.  It would also seem to be something that would be difficult to argue with from the rural/remote area gun owners we have here who indicate part of why they need one for defence is that response time would be too long.  I assume you would have the same issues of response duration, yet your society acknowledges that and determines that still does not change the fact that you are not to use the gun for defence.  I would assume that is based on the belief that the threat of attack is more overblown in the mind that in the reality.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: caracarn on February 22, 2019, 09:01:57 AM
They don't just relinquish it; they crusade against it, and it's all because they just don't care about that right. How do I know that it's because they just don't care about it? Because they ignore another similar but more dangerous thing. But if the right that could get taken away is something these other people prefer/don't want to take away/think isn't as bad even though statistically it is/whatever they can't even be bothered to go after that other right and be consistent.
I've been watching this discussion for a bit, but would like you to read the bolded parts as the one train of thought they are. 

I find it does occur often, if at all, that if someone does not care about something that they take the effort to crusade against it.  Crusading is not easy.  The Crusades took people hundreds of miles away from their homes and killed many of them.  Seems an unlikely action to take for something one does not care about, doesn't it?  Is it possible what you may not be seeing is that they do not care about the alcohol issue (which I would say they do not because they take no action, exactly what you would expect when someone does not care) because is it not possible that while alcohol cause more deaths that may be because more people use it more often, so the death rate per use is smaller?  I'd say about 95-98% of the people I have every met have used alcohol at least once.  The number of people that have ever used a gun is a much smaller percentage.  I know a lot of people who use alcohol daily, sometimes multiple times per day.  I do not know a single gun owner that I could say that of.  I have never seen a per use study, only a per capita statistic (I'd venture to guess because getting accurate numbers of how many times a person used alcohol would be prohibitively difficult and subject to gross error) of alcohol and deaths.  Just because something is not studied does not mean it could not in fact be accurate. 

So the crusader GC individual certainly cannot be legitimately accused of not caring about the status of that right.  It is too much effort to put forth for something one cares little or nothing about.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on February 22, 2019, 09:55:41 AM
^Wolfpack's point is that GC advocates *disregard* the right to bear arms. It's not that they don't care about guns (obviously they do), it's that they treat the second amendment as if it doesn't matter.

Alcohol is a funny thing. We *DID* try to ban it. Didn't work out. However there are very heavy regulations levied on it's consumption. There ARE people crusading for tighter restrictions and harsher punishments. Ever heard of MADD? I don't think there is a requirement that once you join a cause or movement you have to join every other cause and movement. Should people who donate after a hurricane some place be expected to donate to *every* natural disasters fund? We pick and choose what we fight for. Sometimes it's out of closer proximity to the problem, sometimes there's a passion behind the choice, sometimes we are attracted to an issue because of the news portrayals. Alcohol related deaths are tragic, and it's use is completely optional and unnecessary I agree, in fact I'd agree to BAN the crap as I've written in an essay once in school. I think the reasons for choosing which cause to fight or the fact that one chooses to fight for one but not the other is not a basis for disregarding the actual arguments of their cause.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2019, 10:18:45 AM
^Wolfpack's point is that GC advocates *disregard* the right to bear arms. It's not that they don't care about guns (obviously they do), it's that they treat the second amendment as if it doesn't matter.


Which is kind of BS. We have rights, but most people are able to acknowledge that there are limits to those rights. We have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But there are certainly limits to all of those things. We as a society have decided that the limit to our liberty is if we commit a crime and therefore go to jail for it. Many states have decided there's a limit to the right to life: if a person has murdered someone else, the state reserves the right to execute them. The limit of the pursuit of happiness is if that pursuit contravenes a law or harms someone else.

The right to bear arms is not absolute. And just because there is an amendment in the constitution (an amendment which is written in a fairly ambiguous manner) does not mean that it is. And saying that the right isn't absolute doesn't mean that one disregards the right.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2019, 10:26:40 AM
Any mention of the right of men to bear small arms as part of a militia to defend a country from the dastardly English, written in the time of sail-ships, legally owned slaves, and muskets has no place in the discussion of modern firearms in a country in 2019.  Logically, the 2nd amendment shouldn't matter at all to this discussion.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on February 22, 2019, 10:42:59 AM
I prefer the first 10 amendments remain untouched. If we go about changing things just because they were written in the time of sail boats and muskets, what's to stop them from effing with the first  amendment? And sadly, it appears one of our  justices is already working on that..
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2019, 10:52:37 AM
I prefer the first 10 amendments remain untouched. If we go about changing things just because they were written in the time of sail boats and muskets, what's to stop them from effing with the first  amendment? And sadly, it appears one of our  justices is already working on that..

Fortunately, the amendment doesn't have to be touched at all.  It only applies to land owning men within fighting age who are part of a well regulated militia, after all.

I'd say there's a lot of wiggle room for interpretation there . . . given that the currently legally accepted interpretation is already radically different than the amendment as written.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 22, 2019, 11:25:12 AM
I think the main issue is one side feels the world has it's fair share of nasty, dangerous people that you need a gun to defend against and the other side feels like guns in and of themselves are a public safety hazard and we'd ALL be better off if guns were removed from the equation. 

The problem is, both sides have a point.  There are nasty people in the world that commit violent crime.  Guns are a useful deterrent in those instances.  On the flip side, guns do raise the threat level for everyone.  Because often what you get is simply better armed and emboldened bad people. 

I'm glad you all are hashing out some good solutions ;)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2019, 11:47:10 AM
I think the main issue is one side feels the world has it's fair share of nasty, dangerous people that you need a gun to defend against and the other side feels like guns in and of themselves are a public safety hazard and we'd ALL be better off if guns were removed from the equation. 

The problem is, both sides have a point.  There are nasty people in the world that commit violent crime.  Guns are a useful deterrent in those instances.  On the flip side, guns do raise the threat level for everyone.  Because often what you get is simply better armed and emboldened bad people. 

I'm glad you all are hashing out some good solutions ;)

Sure. So, let's make sure that people can get a gun if they want to, as long as they follow some rules and show they have learned how to use one and how to safely store it, etc. And that people who have shown a history of violent dumbassery don't have legal access to them.

That seems very, very logical.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Tyson on February 22, 2019, 12:48:26 PM
I think the main issue is one side feels the world has it's fair share of nasty, dangerous people that you need a gun to defend against and the other side feels like guns in and of themselves are a public safety hazard and we'd ALL be better off if guns were removed from the equation. 

The problem is, both sides have a point.  There are nasty people in the world that commit violent crime.  Guns are a useful deterrent in those instances.  On the flip side, guns do raise the threat level for everyone.  Because often what you get is simply better armed and emboldened bad people. 

I'm glad you all are hashing out some good solutions ;)

Sure. So, let's make sure that people can get a gun if they want to, as long as they follow some rules and show they have learned how to use one and how to safely store it, etc. And that people who have shown a history of violent dumbassery don't have legal access to them.

That seems very, very logical.

You're being too reasonable! 
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 22, 2019, 12:56:48 PM
I think the main issue is one side feels the world has it's fair share of nasty, dangerous people that you need a gun to defend against and the other side feels like guns in and of themselves are a public safety hazard and we'd ALL be better off if guns were removed from the equation. 

The problem is, both sides have a point.  There are nasty people in the world that commit violent crime.  Guns are a useful deterrent in those instances.  On the flip side, guns do raise the threat level for everyone.  Because often what you get is simply better armed and emboldened bad people. 

I'm glad you all are hashing out some good solutions ;)

Sure. So, let's make sure that people can get a gun if they want to, as long as they follow some rules and show they have learned how to use one and how to safely store it, etc. And that people who have shown a history of violent dumbassery don't have legal access to them.

That seems very, very logical.

You're being too reasonable!

Sorry. I guess I just Hate Freedom(tm) and have complete disregard for the Second Amendment.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: golden1 on February 22, 2019, 01:15:12 PM
Quote
^Wolfpack's point is that GC advocates *disregard* the right to bear arms. It's not that they don't care about guns (obviously they do), it's that they treat the second amendment as if it doesn't matter.

Such bullshit.  Thanks for willfully misunderstanding and disregarding the motives of people who want restrictions on gun use.

These two sentences are true to many people:
1) The second amendment matters and should be respected.
2) We need to find solutions to the many problems our society related to guns.
(This is not a paradox.  People have different interpretations of many of the amendments, and "well regulated" is part of that amendment that you love.)

You saying that is like me saying that you obviously care more about guns than dead kids because otherwise you would work to find solutions for mass shootings instead of shooting down every option (pun intended).  Obviously not true, deliberately inflammatory, shuts down all reasonable debate.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Johnez on February 22, 2019, 04:26:17 PM
^You're welcome. Just for the record, I'm reiterating what I *think* WP's point is, I don't actually subscribe to it.

For point 1, I really wish GC advocates would make that a priority in their actions. Placing onerous restrictions such that owning a gun is completely pointless betrays their "respect" of the second amendment.

For point 2, I wish things like "mental health" could be seen as a national issue separate from GC. Along with building opportunity in the form of economic and education initiatives, some of gun violence will decrease. Does a CPA need a gun to sell drugs safely? No. Give every child the proper opportunity to not "need" a gun is the best gun control. When every child growing up has the greater opportunity to become a doctor, teacher, CPA, mechanic or software developer and NOT a gun toting gangbanger, we'll see a drop in more than gun crime.

And by the way some posters have written, there are actual proponents of entirely removing the second amendment. Not the entire or a large number of the GC advocates, but a noticeable enough amount.

Can we discuss this without getting....up in arms about it? ;+)
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 22, 2019, 05:01:56 PM
And by the way some posters have written, there are actual proponents of entirely removing the second amendment. Not the entire or a large number of the GC advocates, but a noticeable enough amount.

As written, the 2nd  amendment only applies to the land owning white men within fighting age who are part of a well regulated militia.  Modern interpretation of this has changed an awful lot from what was actually written.  There's no reason that it needs to be entirely removed, just change the interpretation from what it currently is (as it has already changed from what it originally was).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 22, 2019, 07:06:00 PM
They don't just relinquish it; they crusade against it, and it's all because they just don't care about that right. How do I know that it's because they just don't care about it? Because they ignore another similar but more dangerous thing. But if the right that could get taken away is something these other people prefer/don't want to take away/think isn't as bad even though statistically it is/whatever they can't even be bothered to go after that other right and be consistent.
I've been watching this discussion for a bit, but would like you to read the bolded parts as the one train of thought they are. 

I find it does occur often, if at all, that if someone does not care about something that they take the effort to crusade against it.  Crusading is not easy.  The Crusades took people hundreds of miles away from their homes and killed many of them.  Seems an unlikely action to take for something one does not care about, doesn't it?  Is it possible what you may not be seeing is that they do not care about the alcohol issue (which I would say they do not because they take no action, exactly what you would expect when someone does not care) because is it not possible that while alcohol cause more deaths that may be because more people use it more often, so the death rate per use is smaller?  I'd say about 95-98% of the people I have every met have used alcohol at least once.  The number of people that have ever used a gun is a much smaller percentage.  I know a lot of people who use alcohol daily, sometimes multiple times per day.  I do not know a single gun owner that I could say that of.  I have never seen a per use study, only a per capita statistic (I'd venture to guess because getting accurate numbers of how many times a person used alcohol would be prohibitively difficult and subject to gross error) of alcohol and deaths.  Just because something is not studied does not mean it could not in fact be accurate. 

So the crusader GC individual certainly cannot be legitimately accused of not caring about the status of that right.  It is too much effort to put forth for something one cares little or nothing about.

Fair enough. My wording could have been a bit clearer. These people don't care about defending someone else's rights. I guarantee they have rights of their own, though, that they'd desire to protect.

Also, a study of sorts could be easily performed for guns. You don't have to pick people out who use their guns daily to match alcohol or anything like that. Just do a study with houses with alcohol in them (or that have had them it in them in the past week or whatever, since it's a consumable), and compare it to houses that don't have any alcohol in them to compare different risks and danger factors that occur. It could easily be done, but people don't put the effort in to do studies with a similar bias against alcohol like they do against guns.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 22, 2019, 07:25:30 PM

It's certainly possible to use landmines without collateral damage.  If it wasn't, they would never have been used by the military.  But you can replace landmines with artillery if that makes you happier.  You say that you don't need studies to know that there are severe risks associated with placing landmines, OK, sure I can buy that.  You say that you don't need studies to know that you can shoot a deer with a gun for meat, OK, sure, I can buy that too.

We don't need a study to know that good people can and do use guns to stop bad things (we would need a study to know how many).  Sure, I can agree with this too.

By the same token we also don't need a study to know that easy access to hand guns is extremely dangerous, and that it leads to a great many bad things (we would need a study to determine how many).

Our fundamental difference is that you believe that the good outweighs the bad.  I disagree.  There are several studies available that demonstrate that the bad outweighs the good, and several studies that demonstrate that the good outweighs the bad.  I'm not sure where that leaves us.


Landmines and artillery both have collateral damage. Landmines aren't used in our military anymore because of the risks of collateral damage, etc., so if the military bans them, they agree they're worse than guns and not an apples to apples comparison. Artillery has collateral damage that is not just allowed but encouraged because you're trying to kill a bunch of people at a time. Guns, again, can be used properly to hit one person and therefore can be used as self defense.

I agree at our impasse for feeling which bad or good is outweighed and that statistics support both sides.
 




I see your point, and agree somewhat.  The thing is, there's some difficulty in comparing apples to apples here.

I can define moderate alcohol use pretty easily, by setting a blood alchohol level or number of drinks in an hour for a particular body weight, etc. 

It's a bit more difficult to define an equivalent 'responsible gun usage' category.  More than half of gun owners in the US admit to failing to secure their gun safely (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm)).  Are most gun owners irresponsible?  Or is securing a gun not considered a responsible action to take?  How do we compare apples to apples?


Again, I agree that apples to apples here is nearly impossible, but I just wanted to make sure the point that they weren't apples to apples when you defined drinking in moderation was understood.


Agreed, the point of mentioning it was to show how silly the whole argument that it is necessary to perform studies to prove that obviously dangerous things are dangerous.

Handguns of course, are also frickin' dangerous and dangerous to tons of people at large, and carry with them a huge risk of collateral damage.

The argument about defense makes no sense at all.  As mentioned, it's difficult to use a landmine in an offensive manner, they were designed as an (admittedly indiscriminate) defensive weapon.  It's very easy to use a gun in an offensive manner, they are designed as an (admittedly more discriminate) offensive weapon.  Now, if you want to say that the ability to discriminate between targets is most important, then I'd argue that there exists greater reason to restrict automatic and semi-automatic guns as they enable less discriminate firing.


As discussed above, landmines are not a suitable comparison even though the claim could be made that they're defensive. I do think the ability to discriminate between targets is most important. That's the defining point to me (along with the greater risk for less reward) between automatic (which I don't think many gun owners want to bring back to being more loosely restricted) and semi-automatic. Semi-automatic can just as easily discriminate in firing as a bolt action. It can be misused worse, but you can still target and aim very specifically with it.


So, you just complained that I was not comparing like for like . . . but deaths involving alcohol vs deaths caused by guns is not exactly apples to apples either, is it?  If I have a beer and an hour later walk outside, slip on some ice, crack my head and die, I have increased the number of alcohol related deaths.  Would you say that alcohol caused my death?  Is this the alcohol equivalent of being shot to death in your mind?

That's why the CDC does not say that alcohol kills more people than guns (as you keep repeating).  It does list a great number of deaths involving alcohol though.


I still think this is being pedantic. There are tens of thousands of deaths, call them alcohol related or otherwise, where you drink too much at once or over time and the alcohol literally kills you. If the ~10,000 people who kill in drunk driving accidents were eliminated because they weren't drunk, that alone would take care of almost all of the homicide deaths from guns. Alcohol causes deaths and in great quantities. More than guns, even if you eliminate ones that are a little less directly related. There's no reason to shy away from saying alcohol causes more deaths than guns.


OK, you've convinced me.  They're both dangerous.  Let's ban both.

Great! I'm glad you're finally consistent :).
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on February 22, 2019, 09:53:48 PM
As for people who got the gun before the background check completed, I'll have to see a source for that.

Here you go:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thousands-of-guns-are-mistakenly-sold-to-banned-buyers-its-the-atfs-job-to-get-them-back-11550591324

Dylann Roof, the kid who shot up the church in Charlestown, is the prime example in the story.

"It happened with Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who in 2015 fatally shot nine African-Americans during a prayer meeting at a church in Charleston, S.C. Roof was armed with a .45 caliber Glock 41. A past drug arrest should have kept him from buying the weapon, but his background check stretched past three days, allowing him to take it home."


That shouldn't happen, and it wasn't an isolated case.

"in 2017, 310,000 purchases were allowed to proceed after the three-day limit and before the checks were complete"

Luckily the overwhelming majority of those 310k cases ended up being legitimate.  In only about 6,000 cases did the background check fail, and in most of those cases the ATF was able to peacefully retrieve the weapon.



As written, the 2nd  amendment only applies to the land owning white men within fighting age who are part of a well regulated militia. 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1. No where does it say anything about land owning men. I get that is who was in charge back then, but using the 'white land owning men' argument would also imply that only white land owning men have a freedom of speech and religion. You can't have it both ways.
2. Age is never mentioned.
3. No where in there does it say that the guns are only for the militia. The "people" have to the right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia is a preposition in this sentence.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2019, 12:53:26 PM

As written, the 2nd  amendment only applies to the land owning white men within fighting age who are part of a well regulated militia. 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

1. No where does it say anything about land owning men. I get that is who was in charge back then, but using the 'white land owning men' argument would also imply that only white land owning men have a freedom of speech and religion. You can't have it both ways.
2. Age is never mentioned.
3. No where in there does it say that the guns are only for the militia. The "people" have to the right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia is a preposition in this sentence.

White land owning men were the folks who would have made up a well regulated militia at the time that the constitution was being written.

There have always been clear age limits for men serving in a militia.  In 1903 for example, the militia was legally defined as being an able bodied man from 17  - 45 (https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/militia/ (https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/militia/), https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/03/20/a-short-history-of-the-militia-in-the-united-states/ (https://angrystaffofficer.com/2017/03/20/a-short-history-of-the-militia-in-the-united-states/)).  As the elderly cannot be part of a militia, I think that a reasonable person could argue that the second amendment wouldn't have applied to them at the time it was written.

At the time the constitution was written, black folks weren't really considered 'people'.  They were bought and sold as slaves, and were given 3/4 the vote of a white person (mostly to placate their owners who wanted more political power).  The founders obviously didn't intend black people to have the right to own a weapon when they created the amendment, otherwise they would have been arming the very slaves that southerners were busy exploiting.  Sure, the 13th and 14th amendments were designed to reverse the founders intent to oppress black people, but if we're reading the 2nd amendment in context you can't argue that it was supposed to allow black people to own a gun.

Women were generally considered people, but again very much second class people.  Women were effectively property of a man for their whole life.  They didn't have freedom to own land, or to go against the wishes of the man who controlled them (be it their father or husband).  They were not a part of a militia, and therefore there would be no original intent to allow them to bear arms.  While they were given the right to vote by the 19th amendment, the constitution still doesn't define women as having equal rights to men (that's why there's a push for the ERA).

'The people' as written in the constitution would have meant white men between a certain age.  If you're talking about arming black folks, women, or elderly people, that's well beyond the scope of what was written in the second amendment.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: GuitarStv on February 23, 2019, 01:02:41 PM
So, you just complained that I was not comparing like for like . . . but deaths involving alcohol vs deaths caused by guns is not exactly apples to apples either, is it?  If I have a beer and an hour later walk outside, slip on some ice, crack my head and die, I have increased the number of alcohol related deaths.  Would you say that alcohol caused my death?  Is this the alcohol equivalent of being shot to death in your mind?

That's why the CDC does not say that alcohol kills more people than guns (as you keep repeating).  It does list a great number of deaths involving alcohol though.


I still think this is being pedantic. There are tens of thousands of deaths, call them alcohol related or otherwise, where you drink too much at once or over time and the alcohol literally kills you. If the ~10,000 people who kill in drunk driving accidents were eliminated because they weren't drunk, that alone would take care of almost all of the homicide deaths from guns. Alcohol causes deaths and in great quantities. More than guns, even if you eliminate ones that are a little less directly related. There's no reason to shy away from saying alcohol causes more deaths than guns.

I know you think that this is being pedantic . . . but it's also true.

Alcohol related deaths do not mean caused by alcohol.  I even provided an example to illustrate when an alcohol related death.  I agree that a (large) percentage of the deaths are likely caused by alcohol, but not the full number you're using.  You're comparing apples with oranges, much the same that you accused me of doing earlier.

Unless you have different information than currently provided, saying that alcohol causes more death than guns is not supported by the data you have . . . so I'll object every time you say it.  There are more alcohol related deaths than gun deaths though.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 23, 2019, 06:30:45 PM
Sure. So, let's make sure that people can get a gun if they want to, as long as they follow some rules and show they have learned how to use one and how to safely store it, etc. And that people who have shown a history of violent dumbassery don't have legal access to them.
It sounds great!  Except that a very high percentage of guns used in crimes are obtained in ways that wouldn't be touched by such regulations--either straw purchasers, stolen, etc.  For example, last week a guy who recently lost his job went to his old workplace and killed five people and injured several others.  He had a prior felony conviction, which disqualifies him from gun ownership.  There are plenty of gang members running around Chicago who are either underage or have previous convictions, and they don't seem to have any issues obtaining guns, despite the multiple laws put in place to prevent exactly that.

Quote
It's a bit more difficult to define an equivalent 'responsible gun usage' category.  More than half of gun owners in the US admit to failing to secure their gun safely (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm).  Are most gun owners irresponsible?  Or is securing a gun not considered a responsible action to take?  How do we compare apples to apples?
From that link, "The survey defined safe storage as all guns stored in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case, locked into a gun rack or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. This definition is based on research showing these practices reduce the risk of unauthorized access or use."

I take issue strongly with multiple things in your post:
1) If the gun owner is the only resident, how is it unsafe?  If everyone in the home is trained on how to properly handle firearms, how is it unsafe?
2) If a primary use of firearms is self-defense or defense of the home, locking them up sorta defeats the purpose.
3) You're setting up a false choice:  either your gun is locked up, or you're being irresponsible/unsafe/dangerous.  I'll take door 3, thankyouverymuch! :)

Any mention of the right of men to bear small arms as part of a militia to defend a country from the dastardly English, written in the time of sail-ships, legally owned slaves, and muskets has no place in the discussion of modern firearms in a country in 2019.  Logically, the 2nd amendment shouldn't matter at all to this discussion.
I'm not sure you want to make that argument, because if we apply the same logic to the 1st amendment, it means that Freedom of Speech is irrelevant when it comes to radio, TV, telephone, and the internet, and the government should be free to stifle any speech they want to as long as you're not on a soapbox or publishing a newspaper.

You're right that the constitution was written in a time of sailing ships and legal slave ownership.  That's why it has a mechanism for getting updated as the need arises.  That's why slave ownership is illegal today, women and people of all colors have the right to vote, and the President's cabinet can remove him from office if they find him unfit to serve.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 23, 2019, 06:46:35 PM
Sure. So, let's make sure that people can get a gun if they want to, as long as they follow some rules and show they have learned how to use one and how to safely store it, etc. And that people who have shown a history of violent dumbassery don't have legal access to them.
It sounds great!  Except that a very high percentage of guns used in crimes are obtained in ways that wouldn't be touched by such regulations--either straw purchasers, stolen, etc.  For example, last week a guy who recently lost his job went to his old workplace and killed five people and injured several others.  He had a prior felony conviction, which disqualifies him from gun ownership.  There are plenty of gang members running around Chicago who are either underage or have previous convictions, and they don't seem to have any issues obtaining guns, despite the multiple laws put in place to prevent exactly that.

Quote
It's a bit more difficult to define an equivalent 'responsible gun usage' category.  More than half of gun owners in the US admit to failing to secure their gun safely (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180225184123.htm).  Are most gun owners irresponsible?  Or is securing a gun not considered a responsible action to take?  How do we compare apples to apples?
From that link, "The survey defined safe storage as all guns stored in a locked gun safe, cabinet or case, locked into a gun rack or stored with a trigger lock or other lock. This definition is based on research showing these practices reduce the risk of unauthorized access or use."

I take issue strongly with multiple things in your post:
1) If the gun owner is the only resident, how is it unsafe?  If everyone in the home is trained on how to properly handle firearms, how is it unsafe?
2) If a primary use of firearms is self-defense or defense of the home, locking them up sorta defeats the purpose.
3) You're setting up a false choice:  either your gun is locked up, or you're being irresponsible/unsafe/dangerous.  I'll take door 3, thankyouverymuch! :)

Any mention of the right of men to bear small arms as part of a militia to defend a country from the dastardly English, written in the time of sail-ships, legally owned slaves, and muskets has no place in the discussion of modern firearms in a country in 2019.  Logically, the 2nd amendment shouldn't matter at all to this discussion.
I'm not sure you want to make that argument, because if we apply the same logic to the 1st amendment, it means that Freedom of Speech is irrelevant when it comes to radio, TV, telephone, and the internet, and the government should be free to stifle any speech they want to as long as you're not on a soapbox or publishing a newspaper.

You're right that the constitution was written in a time of sailing ships and legal slave ownership.  That's why it has a mechanism for getting updated as the need arises.  That's why slave ownership is illegal today, women and people of all colors have the right to vote, and the President's cabinet can remove him from office if they find him unfit to serve.

Right.

So the solution is to do nothing.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Perhaps we could just start here, knowing that it will probably prevent just a very, very small number of unnecessary gun deaths?

What do you say?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 23, 2019, 09:02:12 PM

I know you think that this is being pedantic . . . but it's also true.

Alcohol related deaths do not mean caused by alcohol.  I even provided an example to illustrate when an alcohol related death.  I agree that a (large) percentage of the deaths are likely caused by alcohol, but not the full number you're using.  You're comparing apples with oranges, much the same that you accused me of doing earlier.

Unless you have different information than currently provided, saying that alcohol causes more death than guns is not supported by the data you have . . . so I'll object every time you say it.  There are more alcohol related deaths than gun deaths though.

OK, so you've brought up a great point peripherally. I am using the word pedantic way too much :) and in this case, it's not applicable because it's more than that.

Let me rephrase.

By saying what you're saying, you are twisting the truth. Especially from a policy standpoint, I'll just go ahead and say it, your point is wrong.

Not to be too snarky, but dictionary definition of cause: make (something, especially something bad) happen.

You can take this in two ways. The first way, since you are being so particular is to literally be the one to make it happen. There is only one way you can make something happen. You have to be the active force behind it happening. A gun doesn't shoot itself. The person is the one pulling the trigger. The person is the one taking the drink and doing something very bad afterwards or simply killing themselves with the alcohol. So, if you're talking about it from this perspective, both are in the same boat, and you are not correct.

The second way is to realize they both facilitate deaths. Guns don't kill people. Alcohol doesn't kill people. However, when they are involved, people's deaths are facilitated. For drunk driving, just because it's alcohol and a car that both facilitate it doesn't mean everything is still just facilitating it. Try to go further than that in your logic about either "actually causing" the death, and you're back to the first point, neither actually kills anyone.

Furthermore, we're talking a bit abstract and philosophically, but we're obviously talking about public policy here as well. From a public policy standpoint, if you take something out that eliminates the bad thing that happens, that's pretty solidly equivalent and desired. I.e. if you take the alcohol out of the drunk driving fatalities, the fatalities disappear (unless you can find me some massive amount of people who drank so they could kill someone in a car so they could claim drunk driving instead of homicide). So, from that standpoint, you are not correct.

You act like your statement was some kind of proof for your point. You made up a random story about someone who fell. I have already linked you to statistics about alcohol. These deaths are attributable by the CDC to alcohol. Their methodology isn't the easiest to find, but they are linking the 88,000 deaths per year to alcohol. It doesn't have to mean that all 88,000 would immediately go away if alcohol disappeared, but they're the ones that linked them together. I trust their linkages better than your or my hypothesizing, so yes, alcohol causes (see above if you're still confused about cause) more deaths than guns because 88,000 is greater than 40,000.

You can continue to object every time I say it. You can continue to be wrong.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 23, 2019, 09:58:32 PM
I just want to say one thing outside of my responses to GuitarStv. I think it's very important that when arguing against guns in this subject that everyone remembers that this is talking about taking away someone's rights. We as a society take away rights all the time, but we do it for reason, with cause. The ultimate taking away of rights is putting people who commit crimes in jail, taking away their freedom. We take away privacy for wire taps when there's a reason to suspect that particular person did something wrong.

The difference in this and guns is, many/most of the gun control ideas are taking away rights before anyone does anything wrong. These people haven't committed a crime and are having their rights restricted for what they can use in defense.

Now this argument doesn't preclude background checks, and I am not against any reasonable background check (i.e. not doing what some areas do to restrict people from getting guns at all, indefinitely, using background checks as the reason). Background checks don't apply to this because they are there to make sure people who have done something wrong don't get the guns, going back to what we've all agreed upon in society is a reason to restrict rights - actually doing something wrong.

The biggest reason I argued about the alcohol thing is this. We can't even say that guns are this unicorn thing where, oh wow, well, it's so bad and things are so bad that we have to treat them differently than any other right. I've given an example, alcohol, that is extremely similar to guns and has as much or more of a negative impact than guns. Guns aren't this magical, singular issue.

Beyond that, it's preemptively restricting rights. I am not saying we shouldn't do this at all. I'm just saying, we should do it with deliberation, thoughtfully, balancing rights with safety. For example - should high capacity magazines be banned because they don't help defense that much vs. allow more people to get hurt? It's a worthwhile discussion. So, I'll go ahead and counter any arguments to the effect - this is not saying do nothing. It's just saying, we should take restricting rights before people do anything wrong seriously. People shouldn't be berated for not wanting to have their rights restricted, getting called names or declared being responsible for deaths they had nothing to do with. They aren't the bad guys causing problems. The bad guys are. They haven't committed a crime. That's kind of the point. So yes, have reasonable discussions. Do some things to help improve safety that don't restrict others' rights too much. But do it with serious deliberation, and do it realizing, everyone has their own rights that they like. Someday, someone may argue that your preferred right should be preemptively restricted because "safety." Maybe you won't agree then...
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 24, 2019, 07:15:42 AM
I just want to say one thing outside of my responses to GuitarStv. I think it's very important that when arguing against guns in this subject that everyone remembers that this is talking about taking away someone's rights. We as a society take away rights all the time, but we do it for reason, with cause. The ultimate taking away of rights is putting people who commit crimes in jail, taking away their freedom. We take away privacy for wire taps when there's a reason to suspect that particular person did something wrong.

The difference in this and guns is, many/most of the gun control ideas are taking away rights before anyone does anything wrong. These people haven't committed a crime and are having their rights restricted for what they can use in defense.

Now this argument doesn't preclude background checks, and I am not against any reasonable background check (i.e. not doing what some areas do to restrict people from getting guns at all, indefinitely, using background checks as the reason). Background checks don't apply to this because they are there to make sure people who have done something wrong don't get the guns, going back to what we've all agreed upon in society is a reason to restrict rights - actually doing something wrong.

The biggest reason I argued about the alcohol thing is this. We can't even say that guns are this unicorn thing where, oh wow, well, it's so bad and things are so bad that we have to treat them differently than any other right. I've given an example, alcohol, that is extremely similar to guns and has as much or more of a negative impact than guns. Guns aren't this magical, singular issue.

Beyond that, it's preemptively restricting rights. I am not saying we shouldn't do this at all. I'm just saying, we should do it with deliberation, thoughtfully, balancing rights with safety. For example - should high capacity magazines be banned because they don't help defense that much vs. allow more people to get hurt? It's a worthwhile discussion. So, I'll go ahead and counter any arguments to the effect - this is not saying do nothing. It's just saying, we should take restricting rights before people do anything wrong seriously. People shouldn't be berated for not wanting to have their rights restricted, getting called names or declared being responsible for deaths they had nothing to do with. They aren't the bad guys causing problems. The bad guys are. They haven't committed a crime. That's kind of the point. So yes, have reasonable discussions. Do some things to help improve safety that don't restrict others' rights too much. But do it with serious deliberation, and do it realizing, everyone has their own rights that they like. Someday, someone may argue that your preferred right should be preemptively restricted because "safety." Maybe you won't agree then...

WPM:

What about having people demonstrate that they know how to own and store a gun safely? Like a driving test before getting a license?
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on February 24, 2019, 03:31:58 PM

WPM:

What about having people demonstrate that they know how to own and store a gun safely? Like a driving test before getting a license?

I'm not opposed to this (of course if it's handled fairly), especially if it worked into a concealed carry license or that was kind of an extension of the basic training. Even if that wasn't the case, it still is not unreasonable. The CC license works fairly similarly although maybe not as much on gun storage safety. The person could get it with a background check like a CC and then be vetted for a smooth buying process with just the license.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Kris on February 24, 2019, 04:06:08 PM

WPM:

What about having people demonstrate that they know how to own and store a gun safely? Like a driving test before getting a license?

I'm not opposed to this (of course if it's handled fairly), especially if it worked into a concealed carry license or that was kind of an extension of the basic training. Even if that wasn't the case, it still is not unreasonable. The CC license works fairly similarly although maybe not as much on gun storage safety. The person could get it with a background check like a CC and then be vetted for a smooth buying process with just the license.

Well. I think you and I are more or less on the same page. For me, background checks and a basic "field" test plus written test about storage, e.g., would be enough for me.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: zolotiyeruki on February 24, 2019, 07:43:48 PM
Right.

So the solution is to do nothing.

Or am I misunderstanding?

Perhaps we could just start here, knowing that it will probably prevent just a very, very small number of unnecessary gun deaths?

What do you say?
Great questions!

Yes, you are misunderstanding.
No, we should not start with those three proposals, for the reasons I outlined earlier, plus the fact that you'd be depriving an enormous number of people of their right to self-defense.

I have seen gun rights vs gun control discussions this precise pattern a lot of times.  It's something like this:
Anti-gun person: Here's a proposal (or a series of proposals) for reducing gun deaths.
Pro-gun person: Here's why your proposals won't work, will have nasty side effects, or are impractical.
Anti-gun person: Then you don't care about fixing the problem.

Do I have proposals?  Well, sort of.  This problem is a really difficult one, because it is driven in large part by culture, and culture is difficult if not impossible to change by enacting laws.  I view the problem more as a gang problem in the case of murders, and as a mental health problem in the case of suicide.  To some extent, I see gangs as a problem of economics and marketing.  In areas with lots of gang activity, teens are often faced with two options: either work hard in school, get a job, work for a living, or join a gang, sell drugs, and make easy money.  The gang side has some pretty effective marketing--a lot of peers are doing it, their success is immediately visible, there's a real brotherhood of sorts.  Staying in school and getting a job are not glamorous, require lots of work, and don't come with a built-in social life.  Some of these kids come from families and homes where working a legitimate job to earn a living is either A) not enough (low wages, single mom can only work part time, etc), or B) not a priority or possible.  I realize I'm painting in very broad strokes here, and I don't wish to imply that such is the case for the majority, or even a large percentage of the people involved.  But it's a far more visible choice than, say, out in middle-class suburbs.

In some areas, the marketing problem, the culture problem, and public policy create a vicious circle.  For example, in some Chicago neighborhoods, the gangs are so brazen and powerful that candidates for city council will meet with them to try and get their support (https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/).  This has historically extended as far as ignoring gang activity or tipping them off to police activity.  Lack of enforcement leads to more gang activity, which further depresses the area, making gang involvement appear as the only choice, etc. Corruption in Chicago is rather widespread, even though it doesn't get much press.

So, from the perspective of economics, the goal is to make gang activity less attractive by removing incentives or adding penalties, and make legitimate work more attractive.  At this point, you'll have to forgive me if I slip a little into brainstorming mode, and not all of this might make sense let alone be a good idea. First of all, we need to recognize reality:  under the status quo, a lot of these kids aren't going to graduate high school, let alone go to college.  So teaching them skills and habits that will help them earn a living should be a priority.  As much as our country's culture prizes higher math and science and language skills, those things aren't going to benefit all students.  Vocational classes?  Bring 'em back.  Give kids the opportunity (or perhaps even assignment?) to work around the school and get paid for it.  Crack down on any and all gang activity in school.  Crack down on the drug trade to reduce the incentive to get involved.

On the mental health side, that's an even more difficult one.  I can understand the motivation behind various "red flag" laws that are currently en vogue, but such programs are vulnerable to mistakes abuse by both politicians and private citizens.  They also provide a strong disincentive for people to seek help, i.e. call suicide hotline -> police show up and confiscate your guns.  This one isn't hypothetical, either.  New York's "SAFE" Act has led to plenty of stories of people being deprived of their rights because, for example, they briefly had a prescription for an anti-anxiety medication.

There's a third type of gun death that gets a lot of press, and is used far more often as a reason to pass stricter gun laws, despite its statistically small contribution: mass shootings.  The thing is, you're not going to stop this type of thing by, say, stricter background checks.  The Vegas shooting was performed by a guy who would have passed any background check you can imagine.  Sandy Hook?  The guy murdered his mom and stole her guns.  The Parkland shooter should have been diagnosed as mentally ill and barred from owning a gun.  I could go on and on and on.

How would I approach such situations?  Well, first of all, by not giving them press.  Don't name the guy who did it.  Name the brave people who fought back.  Second, abandon the entire idea of "gun free zones."  The whole concept is so incredibly brain-dead that it boggles the mind.  As I stated this earlier in the thread, the people who pay attention to such rules aren't the people you're worried about, and the people you're worried about won't obey such rules.  In fact, a very high percentage of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.  The people who commit such crimes are often mentally ill, but not necessarily stupid.  They're not going to try to shoot up a police station or a gun store.  They choose soft targets, i.e. where they can inflict maximum casualties with minimum chance for resistance.  The guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, CO drove by three other movie theaters to the one that was "gun free."

Instead, I believe we should allow teachers and school staff to be armed, and be trained in how to respond to an attack.  Such programs are already officially in place in various states without incident, and I've heard that in states that don't allow it, some teachers do it anyway.  Is there a risk of an accident?  Absolutely.  Does it outweigh the risk of a school shooting? Well, we're comparing two very tiny risks, but my instinct says "yes," because if armed teachers were leading to injuries or deaths in schools, we would see it plastered across the news.
Title: Re: 11 School Shootings in 26 Days
Post by: Indexer on March 02, 2019, 02:49:16 PM

WPM:

What about having people demonstrate that they know how to own and store a gun safely? Like a driving test before getting a license?

I'm not opposed to this (of course if it's handled fairly), especially if it worked into a concealed carry license or that was kind of an extension of the basic training. Even if that wasn't the case, it still is not unreasonable. The CC license works fairly similarly although maybe not as much on gun storage safety. The person could get it with a background check like a CC and then be vetted for a smooth buying process with just the license.

Well. I think you and I are more or less on the same page. For me, background checks and a basic "field" test plus written test about storage, e.g., would be enough for me.


As a gun owner with a CC license, I am on the same page as the two of you. I'm not worried about my fellow gun owners who have their CC license. They tend to be very by the book, care about safety, and law abiding citizens. It's the people who obtained their weapons illegally or without a background check/training that are concerning.