Author Topic: US School Shootings  (Read 25669 times)

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5696
  • Location: Avalon
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #100 on: February 16, 2018, 02:03:54 AM »
To the people saying that the solution is more security at schools: it's not that easy.  There are hundreds or thousands of people, teachers, students and admin, needing to get in and out of a school in very short periods of time, both in vehicles and on foot.  There are more in and out through the day and into the night.  To make a school secure against a shooter you need to be able to search each of those people, and their bags, each time they enter the premises.   That takes infrastructure at the entrances and large numbers of security people.   You need to consider whether the inevitable queues to get through security are themselves vulnerable to attack and provide a secure space for queuing.  You need to have fences around the school that deter all but the most well-equipped and determined: no point having entry searches if the fence around the premises can be climbed or cut through.  You need to check the premises regularly to ensure that there are no signs of an attack being prepared.  All of that security is expensive and unsightly and still ineffective against the most determined attacker.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #101 on: February 16, 2018, 05:48:37 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

Just curious if you're for legalizing murder?  See, I can ask you unrelated questions too!

Just to re-iterate, very few people want to ban all guns.  Some people might think that banning a certain type of guns is a good idea before they really do the research, but most people just want some common sense reform.  Maybe it would behoove those on the pro-gun side, who are supposedly more knowledgeable about guns, to propose some common sense restrictions that could actually be helpful instead of going around whining about how "everyone wants to take away all my guns!"

Edited to fix a minor exaggeration that people apparently can't help but focus on...
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 07:56:30 AM by shenlong55 »

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 380
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #102 on: February 16, 2018, 06:03:03 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

There is a big difference here. Driving drunk, although insanely fucking stupid, is usually done not out of malice in trying to kill people. Mass shootings usually target innocent people who are not able to defend themselves with equal or stronger force.  That's why you don't see many (any?) mass shootings at police stations.

A drunk driver can cause an accident that kills a family and that is horrible. My sister died from a car accident with a person who was legally high on heroin back in '03, she was 15yo. The guy, who to this day - 15 years later - I still hate with every fiber in my body, didn't get high that morning with the idea of killing my sister. He did it cause he had a substance abuse problem and went to work high. That's a big difference.

You are trying to cancel out a problem by showing how a similar one isn't dealt in the same manner. Not sure if you're just looking to get a rouse out of people but around here common sense usually wins. Your example doesn't make sense.
99.9% of Americans don't by guns with the intent to kill people. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out double standards and tired of people cherry picking tragedies to push political agendas. I'm not trying to cancel out any problem. I've yet to see any solution that is going to stop somebody who wants to shoot up a school. My solution is tighter security at schools similar to banks and government buildings. Cowards attack the vulnerable.

Oh FFS.

How about this... ban guns. No one needs them

Then, no bad guys will have them.
Thus, no need to have them for protection.
Plus, nothing to slaughter wildlife with anymore. (Nature will sort itself out without man's interference).
 
Less unnecessary deaths, less noise, less danger, less perpetuation of hate, less people in jail for violent crimes etc etc

There. Done.

(Cue the "...but muh guns is protec' us from the Guvmint" B.S.)





L2

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Ohio
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #103 on: February 16, 2018, 06:08:17 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

Just curious if you're for legalizing murder?  See, I can ask you unrelated questions too!

Just to re-iterate, nobody wants to ban all guns.  A few people might think that banning a certain type of guns is a good idea before they really do the research, but most people just want some common sense reform.  Maybe it would behoove those on the pro-gun side, who are supposedly more knowledgeable about guns, to propose some common sense restrictions that could actually be helpful instead of going around whining about how "everyone wants to take away all my guns!"
I suggest to read the post directly below yours. There are plenty of people whose solution is to simply "ban guns"

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #104 on: February 16, 2018, 06:23:38 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

Just curious if you're for legalizing murder?  See, I can ask you unrelated questions too!

Just to re-iterate, nobody wants to ban all guns.  A few people might think that banning a certain type of guns is a good idea before they really do the research, but most people just want some common sense reform.  Maybe it would behoove those on the pro-gun side, who are supposedly more knowledgeable about guns, to propose some common sense restrictions that could actually be helpful instead of going around whining about how "everyone wants to take away all my guns!"
I suggest to read the post directly below yours. There are plenty of people whose solution is to simply "ban guns"

Wow, that's kind of hilarious.  Obviously, nobody is a bit of an exaggeration.  In a nation with 323 million people, of course there will be a few that think banning all guns is the answer, but I hardly think that one person on an internet forum suggesting it shows that "plenty of people" think that.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 06:39:57 AM by shenlong55 »

Shenkt

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #105 on: February 16, 2018, 06:30:47 AM »

Oh FFS.

How about this... ban guns. No one needs them

Then, no bad guys will have them.
Thus, no need to have them for protection.
Plus, nothing to slaughter wildlife with anymore. (Nature will sort itself out without man's interference).
 
Less unnecessary deaths, less noise, less danger, less perpetuation of hate, less people in jail for violent crimes etc etc

There. Done.

(Cue the "...but muh guns is protec' us from the Guvmint" B.S.)

No bad guys will have them.... Just like there are no illegal drugs in the U.S. any more. 

I am a gun owner, and I am strongly for more stringent background checks and I am open to hearing other 'common sense' ideas, and would favor the addition of some type of mental health check if it were done right, but to think a straight ban on anything takes the banned item in question out of the hands of true criminals is a bit far fetched.

Also, I know it is unrelated, but I am of the mind that hunting (for food) is more humane than buying meat from the throngs of death-camps that are meat farms.

NeonPegasus

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
  • Location: Metro Atlanta, GA
    • Neon Pegasus
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #106 on: February 16, 2018, 06:38:25 AM »
I have one idea which maybe you all could let me know if it makes sense. How about a gun ownership law?

For example take me, if I want to sell my legally bought gun, I can go to a gun store, police station, DMV, title bureau etc and walk up to the "Gun Counter" where I meet the buyer and I sell him the gun in front of a witness with a quick background check done. We both get copies of the notarized seller/buyer agreement and we both go on our ways. No registry is done but we both have prove that the gun exchanged hands legally.

What's it for? It ends my ownership of the gun and passes it to the next person. That person is now responsible for the safety of that gun. If the gun is stolen from his home, he pays a fine and his ownership is then cleared. This now becomes a stolen gun and whomever is caught with it faces automatic 2 years jail time.

In that same tone, if a person is found to have a gun without proof of legal purchase as I mentioned above, the gun is confiscated, a fine is given and if the person has a criminal record, warrant or drug/alcohol addiction history, legal action is taken.

Also, if a gun owned legally by a person is used in a murder by another person, the owner of the gun faces criminal charges for negligence.

This, in my opinion, places a great amount of responsibility on the gun owners and forces them to give a shit about them.  It also automatically places illegal gun owners in jail and gets them off the streets. 

I'm not sure if this even makes sense but I'm baffled by how relaxed the gun laws are in this country.
All good thoughts that I'm not against. None of that would stop what happened yesterday though.

And THAT'S the argument that keeps us deadlocked. Never mind that the idea above might have helped in any of the past mass murders or that it may help gun violence in general. Whenever we talk about ideas after a shooting, the naysayers focus solely on whether the idea would have helped in the very last shooting.

The point of gun control isn't just to prevent the mass shootings - it's to prevent all shootings, including the small ones that happen every day.


I could get behind some of these ideas.  I don't like the idea of fining the victim of a crime (if gun is stolen from one's home) or criminal charges if one's gun is used by another in a crime (at least not without more of a nexus to the crime).  But otherwise, these seem pretty sensible to me.

The reason for a fine for a person who's gun is stolen is because it will stop people from selling a gun without going through the trouble of doing legally and then just saying it was stolen. It also, depending on the situation, will penalize people from not being careful with their guns and letting them get into the hands of a criminal without much care.

Now for example, if a house is broken into and the home owners are tied up, beaten and the gun stolen, yeah, no fine needed. But if a person has a gun on a nightstand and has a party and the gun goes missing, that idiot should be fined for his stupidity.

In regards to doing it a home, I think it will work for someone you know personally as long as you can get it notarized or have some way of making it legit. For selling or buying to/from a stranger, I think a formal location would be better for both parties involved.

These are just ideas I have had for a little while. I really haven't put too much effort into them, just spitballing here.

I agree with there being some sort of liability/penalty on gun owners who do not secure their weapons. I have read multiple times on Nextdoor about neighbors who have gun stolen out of their car (guns were in view in their car so someone did a smash and grab). One neighbor left their weapon unsecured in their house with a large dog door that a thief crawled through. That gun should have been in a locked safe while the owner was out of the house! The people who had their guns stolen didn't seem to think they had any responsibility in the matter. :(

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #107 on: February 16, 2018, 06:51:51 AM »
Every culture contains different things that can be owned, or activities that can be done legally which lead to deaths of others (even in larger numbers than school shootings).  Each country gets to determine which one of those threats it chooses to try to control.   

Why are guns legal? I don't trust most people with a cell phone, let alone a gun.

Why is alcohol a legal drug? Because it's culturally accepted, and making it illegal didn't work... despite the large amount of deaths by DUI, assaults, domestic abuse done by those who are intoxicated. Combine it with any other risky activity and you greatly multiply your chance of a fatality.

Why is driving a personal vehicle legal? Look at how many people get killed by vehicle accidents.

Why are samurai swords legal?  Does anyone really need a sword? 

Why are knives legal?  (excluding kitchen, or tool versions like box cutters, utility knives, swiss army knives, Gerbers, Leathermans, etc)?  What use do I have of a knife designed to kill people?

Why is sugar and terrible food not only legal and available, but legal to market to CHILDREN?  Holy shit that stuff is killing folks left and right.

Why is tobacco legal?

The sad thing is if you try to eliminate or regulate any of these harmful things you'll run right into a wall of people standing up for their rights.  You can't use my tax dollars on public transportation!  I have a right to drive my car!  Even if I like to text while driving, and maybe after drinking!  I am pretty cynical about people as a whole and don't really let myself get riled up about their stupidity anymore.  Just look at the way our energy consumption is going... we like to look for alternate forms of energy, but it would be political suicide to try to tell people that we should probably eliminate TVs, microwaves, toasters, air conditioning, clothes dryers, etc.  You can't take away my right to consume energy!  Even if it leads to destroying the earth's ability to support human life.  I have my rights!

I like guns.  I also wouldn't mind if the US decided to take all private firearms and destroy them.  I'll find another hobby. I like knives, and hatchets, and axes (not sure why), and sledgehammers, and Oreos, and scotch, air conditioning, clothes dryers, and a variety of vehicles.  But really, I don't need any of those and can live just fine without them.

Yeah I think this sums up the problems in this country perfectly, and right along the lines of what I have been trying to say. We collectively know a lot of things are bad for us, but want the freedom to do them if we want. I think smoking in all forms is stupid. My dad died from lung cancer so I've seen the effects first hand, yet people will state if they want to do this to themselves, its their choice. As a whole, our society is ok with the level of violence, because while its difficult to watch in the news, it just isn't directly happening to enough people to motivate them to march to Washington and demand change. Yes, some of you are very emotional about change in this topic, but there just isn't enough of you.

Interesting fact: In Japan guns are very very difficult to own. Crimes using guns bring really really hefty penalties. So the Yakuza bosses in Japan forbid the use of guns 99% of the time, as even being caught with an illegal one, let along using one in a crime, brings a godsmack. So these tatoo'ed up Yakuza primarily use hand weapons to commit crimes. Japan for the most part is a pretty safe place. Theft is even an uncommon thing (god forbid if you get caught and dishonor the family). But Japan has banished many weapons for a long time, so there just isn't a lot of them. So you could point to Japan as an example of what a gun-less society would look like in the US, but the problem is, all the weapons already in circulation. And man, if you were to tell peeps that 'We are making guns illegal by this date', there would be all sorts of stock-piling and violence between the ATF and militia groups. We are just too far along to make any overnight change. Its going to have to be really gradual if it happens at all, so expect more of these shootings in the meantime.

If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 07:13:46 AM by KTG »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5593
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #108 on: February 16, 2018, 06:53:05 AM »
Another day, another opportunity for Russian bots to exploit our stupidity for their own political ends.

https://www.axios.com/russian-twitter-bots-shooting-edb4d843-c323-40f9-834e-319ab7e47aec.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8886
  • Location: the woods
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #109 on: February 16, 2018, 07:04:21 AM »
I mean the people that implemented the war on drugs sure were trying to do the right thing

I wouldn't be so sure about that.


Quote
You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 447
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #110 on: February 16, 2018, 07:16:33 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

That's a great conversation for the "Should We Ban Alcohol?" thread. This one is about guns. If your argument is: "that bad thing also exists so this bad thing should as well", you don't really have an argument at all.

Also, isn't drinking and driving already banned?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #111 on: February 16, 2018, 07:20:32 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

Let me address the latter argument (cars are just like guns) first.  Owning and operating a vehicle is a heavily regulated activity.  A national database of vehicles/owners is kept, a license plate registration scheme is implemented, licencing (coupled with mandatory safety training) is required to drive a vehicle on the road, insurance to operate an automobile is required for liability.  The sole real use case for an automobile is public use, which requires all of this regulation, registration, training, and insurance . . . and the nature of the large vehicle/license plate makes it easy for a police officer to type in and do a quick check on any vehicle that happens to pass him by.  This is simply not comparable with guns, where no licensing is required, no insurance is required, it is legally mandated that ownership records are difficult for law enforcement to search, and no record of transfer of ownership is made if the gun isn't sold through a dealer.  I suspect that many people arguing for greater gun control would be perfectly happy with a similar level of regulation on guns as there are on cars.

Alcohol misuse can certainly be an issue, but on it's own it is primarily a danger to the person using it.  In combination with something else (cars, guns, boats) alcohol can certainly be a factor in a tragedy that kills others, and this is why there are typically laws and regulations regarding using these things while under the influence.  Again, this is very different from what is going on with guns.

ingrownstudentloans

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Age: 34
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #112 on: February 16, 2018, 07:29:03 AM »
Just to re-iterate, nobody wants to ban all guns.
How about this... ban guns. No one needs them

uhhhhhh

vivian

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #113 on: February 16, 2018, 07:35:46 AM »

99.9% of Americans don't by guns with the intent to kill people. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out double standards and tired of people cherry picking tragedies to push political agendas. I'm not trying to cancel out any problem. I've yet to see any solution that is going to stop somebody who wants to shoot up a school. My solution is tighter security at schools similar to banks and government buildings. Cowards attack the vulnerable.
[/quote]

I’m going to call BS on this statement. While I don’t doubt that 99.9% of people who buy guns think they one of the “good” guys who will stop the “bad” guys, the speed and frequency with which any discussion of gun control leads to something like “if we didn’t have guns, the government will oppress us” means that a substantial chunk of gun owners recognize that the intent to kill people (albeit scary government people) is at least a part of why they buy a gun. Particularly when we start discussing guns like the AR-15.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #114 on: February 16, 2018, 07:41:32 AM »
Also, to the international readers (if they are still reading this), it might help to understand how complicated the United States is. Everyone outside this country just thinks of it as America, but in reality its very similar to being 50 individual countries banded together under a higher form of government. We have state laws, and federal laws. Sometimes they battle it out over who's laws are more important and there are battles in courts all the time over this. But the important thing to remember is that the original 13 states CREATED the federal government, not the other way around. In many countries, the government might create territories to split up the country to make ruling it easier, but that isn't the way things started here. And the first attempt started with a weak Federal government and it didn't work out, so they revised it and its what we have today.

That state-hood rivalry with the federal government is alive and well. We even had a civil war over it. But the state-level animosity with the federal government still exists in many places and its not all in the South like you might think. Its present in the north, and especially the west. There are a lot of people who dislike what the Federal government does and the decisions it makes within their states. You might have heard of militia groups for example. I don't take these guys that seriously most of the time, but from time to time there are conflicts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Malheur_National_Wildlife_Refuge).

A lot of people were deeply affected by Waco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege) and before that Ruby Ridge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge). It was actually those two events that inspired Timothy McVay to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing). While no one supports what McVay did, the underlying anger towards the Federal government is more widespread than most people realize. And with each shooting or attack, and the discussion of gun control that follows, the more vulnerable these groups feel about Federal controls over their gun rights and whatever else they feel the Federal government oversteps on. In their mind, the ownership of their guns creates a line of defense from the Federal government becoming tyrannical. Sounds extreme I will admit it, but most governments who have absolute power, and are corrupted absolutely, do not allow the masses of their society to own firearms.

And this is just one part of our society. Not even addressing gang violence, home invasions, organized crime, etc etc. The vast majority of those guys do not get involved in politics nor are organized enough to bother.

Its a very, very complicated mess.

But for those who think the US is spiraling downward down the toilet, its not. I've been to 30 countries, the last two being India and China, and even lived in 3 of them when I was young, and there are very few places I would consider living in besides the US.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 07:50:50 AM by KTG »

Pigeon

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #115 on: February 16, 2018, 08:00:38 AM »

But for those who think the US is spiraling downward down the toilet, its not. I've been to 30 countries, the last two being India and China, and even lived in 3 of them when I was young, and there are very few places I would consider living in besides the US.
This is obviously very much YMMV.  Sure, there are many worse places to live.  But there are also many places that are much better, depending on what you value in life. 

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #116 on: February 16, 2018, 08:03:17 AM »
Just to re-iterate, nobody wants to ban all guns.
How about this... ban guns. No one needs them

uhhhhhh

I think this rhetorical game leads to words like nobody becoming meaningless, but I fixed it none the less.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 08:07:08 AM by shenlong55 »

alanB

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Age: 33
  • Location: PA, US
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #117 on: February 16, 2018, 09:10:42 AM »
Americans are fascinated by mass killings.  The crime du jour used to be serial killings, which have been in decline since peaking in the '80s.  Just look at the number of novels, films, TV shows, etc. on this topic.

Seems like mass shootings are now in vogue, with each new social pariah looking to one-up his predecessor.  Although these types of weapons existed in the US for a long time (as others mentioned), the gruesomeness of each incident has been steadily increasing.  There is an interesting theory on this topic, see: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence, which further argues that as shootings become more normal, more "normal" people will be willing to commit them.  I am hopeful (in the worst possible use of the word) that eventually there will be a plateau, at which point the appeal to would-be killers will diminish.  If you are only going to take out 4-5 people you will probably not even make the news.  Sadly, that seems more likely than any legislative action.

But for those who think the US is spiraling downward down the toilet, its not. I've been to 30 countries, the last two being India and China, and even lived in 3 of them when I was young, and there are very few places I would consider living in besides the US.

Yes, for all of the ex-US crowd, it is really not that bad.  Violent crime has generally trended down in recent decades.  Life expectancy has continued to rise (for the wealthy at least).  The political situation will get better.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #118 on: February 16, 2018, 09:10:57 AM »
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.

And this is where you lose people on the other side....

All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless.  That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #119 on: February 16, 2018, 09:19:12 AM »
Also relevant.

If you don't like the fact that "guns are to stop the guberment!!!1!" argument, then change the 2nd amendment.  We have a legal process for doing so.  But to simply try to bypass the 2nd amendment is (basically) always argued and really pretty disingenuous.

I here plenty of people saying the 2nd amendment was for citizen militia (despite the fact that the viewpoint has been legally dis-established in the SCOTUS), but I don't hear any recommendations for actually codifying the US militia (which, legally speaking, is every able bodied male).

If you want to have a conversation, codifying the militia by state is probably the best place to start.  But "guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 09:25:26 AM by TexasRunner »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #120 on: February 16, 2018, 09:28:44 AM »
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.

And this is where you lose people on the other side....

All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless.  That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:

I agree.  So why aren't those on the other side of the table (those with a greater understanding of guns) proposing some better solutions?  Hell, they have control of the entire federal government right now so it's not like anybody is stopping them.  They could propose whatever they wanted even including a rollback of some of the current restrictions that they don't think actually helps the problem.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #121 on: February 16, 2018, 09:31:18 AM »
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.

And this is where you lose people on the other side....

All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless.  That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:

I agree.  So why aren't those on the other side of the table (those with a greater understanding of guns) proposing some better solutions?  Hell, they have control of the entire federal government right now so it's not like anybody is stopping them.  They could propose whatever they wanted even including a rollback of some of the current restrictions that they don't think actually helps the problem.

You need to read this example from 2016.
Hopefully we can all consider newsweek generally unbiased.

http://www.newsweek.com/house-gop-gun-control-bill-slammed-democrats-477134

Edit to add:  (tldr) GOP approves and puts a control measure on the floor to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and create national watch lists (with a legal process for getting OFF the watch list) and it is blocked by Dems.  Somebody please explain this logic to me...
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 09:39:03 AM by TexasRunner »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5593
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #122 on: February 16, 2018, 09:43:35 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

There is a big difference here. Driving drunk, although insanely fucking stupid, is usually done not out of malice in trying to kill people. Mass shootings usually target innocent people who are not able to defend themselves with equal or stronger force.  That's why you don't see many (any?) mass shootings at police stations.

A drunk driver can cause an accident that kills a family and that is horrible. My sister died from a car accident with a person who was legally high on heroin back in '03, she was 15yo. The guy, who to this day - 15 years later - I still hate with every fiber in my body, didn't get high that morning with the idea of killing my sister. He did it cause he had a substance abuse problem and went to work high. That's a big difference.

You are trying to cancel out a problem by showing how a similar one isn't dealt in the same manner. Not sure if you're just looking to get a rouse out of people but around here common sense usually wins. Your example doesn't make sense.
99.9% of Americans don't by guns with the intent to kill people. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out double standards and tired of people cherry picking tragedies to push political agendas. I'm not trying to cancel out any problem. I've yet to see any solution that is going to stop somebody who wants to shoot up a school. My solution is tighter security at schools similar to banks and government buildings. Cowards attack the vulnerable.

Sure they do.

They just buy guns with the intent to kill people if necessary. But they still buy them to kill people.


KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #123 on: February 16, 2018, 09:45:44 AM »
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.

And this is where you lose people on the other side....

All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless.  That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:

I said "If congress banned any type of automatic weapons". Bump stock mods do make weapons automatic,, but bump stocks are legal. So I am saying ban those too.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #124 on: February 16, 2018, 09:56:19 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US?  Pretty low?

It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 10:17:37 AM by GuitarStv »

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #125 on: February 16, 2018, 09:59:36 AM »
If congress banned any type of automatic weapons (bump stocks or whatever else someone comes up with), as well as high capacity clips, it would help.

And this is where you lose people on the other side....

All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

When a large percentage of one side of the table understands extremely little about guns, thats when the conversation gets kinda pointless.  That is how you wind up with the following ridiculous laws:

I agree.  So why aren't those on the other side of the table (those with a greater understanding of guns) proposing some better solutions?  Hell, they have control of the entire federal government right now so it's not like anybody is stopping them.  They could propose whatever they wanted even including a rollback of some of the current restrictions that they don't think actually helps the problem.

You need to read this example from 2016.
Hopefully we can all consider newsweek generally unbiased.

http://www.newsweek.com/house-gop-gun-control-bill-slammed-democrats-477134

Edit to add:  (tldr) GOP approves and puts a control measure on the floor to close the so-called "gun show loophole" and create national watch lists (with a legal process for getting OFF the watch list) and it is blocked by Dems.  Somebody please explain this logic to me...

Small correction, according to the article the original bill did not close the "gun show loophole", a democratic amendment did.  The original bill gave "government authorities three days to convince a judge that someone on a terrorism watch list should not be allowed to obtain a firearm."  I'm not sure about this terrorist watch list though.  Does it have similar failings as the "no fly" list?

Also, democrats weren't the only ones blocking it, the far-right also seems to have had a hand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/gun-control-paul-ryan-congress.html

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3910
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #126 on: February 16, 2018, 10:09:09 AM »
To the people saying that the solution is more security at schools: it's not that easy.  There are hundreds or thousands of people, teachers, students and admin, needing to get in and out of a school in very short periods of time, both in vehicles and on foot.  There are more in and out through the day and into the night.  To make a school secure against a shooter you need to be able to search each of those people, and their bags, each time they enter the premises.   That takes infrastructure at the entrances and large numbers of security people.   You need to consider whether the inevitable queues to get through security are themselves vulnerable to attack and provide a secure space for queuing.  You need to have fences around the school that deter all but the most well-equipped and determined: no point having entry searches if the fence around the premises can be climbed or cut through.  You need to check the premises regularly to ensure that there are no signs of an attack being prepared.  All of that security is expensive and unsightly and still ineffective against the most determined attacker.

Our collective school system has at times struggled to provide teaching materials and office supplies. Where will the fiscal wherewithal come from for hiring a half dozen armed security personnel and installing metal detectors? 

How about we address the root causes of the violence rather than just spackling the cracks in the plaster?

The problem is that this will FORCE the GOP to be a party of action rather than a party of words for the first time in a long time (ever?). The root causes have to be addressed first and I don't know if our country is able to do that.

I'm back to thinking about homeschooling or leaving the country entirely. Neither are realistic solutions for my family.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #127 on: February 16, 2018, 10:17:15 AM »

Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here:  https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.

Sure it doesn't address end-of-day and beginning of day timelines, but its a pretty obvious start.

My highschool (still to this day) has all doors unlocked for the ful school hours.  "Security" is provided via a security booth at the road entrance, despite the fact that there is about 1 mile long stretch of wooden property line (with no real barrier).

School security is shit.  My office is better protected.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #128 on: February 16, 2018, 10:19:03 AM »
Small correction, according to the article the original bill did not close the "gun show loophole", a democratic amendment did.  The original bill gave "government authorities three days to convince a judge that someone on a terrorism watch list should not be allowed to obtain a firearm."  I'm not sure about this terrorist watch list though.  Does it have similar failings as the "no fly" list?

Also, democrats weren't the only ones blocking it, the far-right also seems to have had a hand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/gun-control-paul-ryan-congress.html

There will always be far-right and far-left who try to block literally anything.  Thats not the point.

Thank you for pointing out the amendment though.  Didn't catch that.

The fact remains that republicans offered something "common sense" and it was voted down.  We have a broken system.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #129 on: February 16, 2018, 10:19:58 AM »

Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here:  https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.

Sure it doesn't address end-of-day and beginning of day timelines, but its a pretty obvious start.

My highschool (still to this day) has all doors unlocked for the ful school hours.  "Security" is provided via a security booth at the road entrance, despite the fact that there is about 1 mile long stretch of wooden property line (with no real barrier).

School security is shit.  My office is better protected.

So the next time someone wants to shoot up a school he'll have to pull the fire alarm first and wait for everyone to come out?  I dunno, this doesn't seem significantly safer to me.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2615
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #130 on: February 16, 2018, 10:26:30 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

Let me address the latter argument (cars are just like guns) first.  Owning and operating a vehicle is a heavily regulated activity.  A national database of vehicles/owners is kept, a license plate registration scheme is implemented, licencing (coupled with mandatory safety training) is required to drive a vehicle on the road, insurance to operate an automobile is required for liability.  The sole real use case for an automobile is public use, which requires all of this regulation, registration, training, and insurance . . . and the nature of the large vehicle/license plate makes it easy for a police officer to type in and do a quick check on any vehicle that happens to pass him by.  This is simply not comparable with guns, where no licensing is required, no insurance is required, it is legally mandated that ownership records are difficult for law enforcement to search, and no record of transfer of ownership is made if the gun isn't sold through a dealer.  I suspect that many people arguing for greater gun control would be perfectly happy with a similar level of regulation on guns as there are on cars.

Alcohol misuse can certainly be an issue, but on it's own it is primarily a danger to the person using it.  In combination with something else (cars, guns, boats) alcohol can certainly be a factor in a tragedy that kills others, and this is why there are typically laws and regulations regarding using these things while under the influence.  Again, this is very different from what is going on with guns.

Yep. Perhaps we should take a look at Japan's strict gun regulations. They determined long ago that guns don't really play a part in civilian society and banned them outright. But they have since loosened that ban and folks are allowed to have certain types of guns after going through some extensive background checks, training (to include shooting range, written exams), mental health evaluations, etc. They average less than 10 gun deaths per year out of 127 million folks.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #131 on: February 16, 2018, 10:28:25 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US?  Pretty low?

It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.

Except there weren't vary many full-autos to begin with.  There are (and have been) hunderds of thousands and millions of legal 'regular' guns in the states for decades.

Its apples to oranges.

shenlong55

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #132 on: February 16, 2018, 10:28:59 AM »

Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here:  https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.

Sure it doesn't address end-of-day and beginning of day timelines, but its a pretty obvious start.

My highschool (still to this day) has all doors unlocked for the ful school hours.  "Security" is provided via a security booth at the road entrance, despite the fact that there is about 1 mile long stretch of wooden property line (with no real barrier).

School security is shit.  My office is better protected.

So the next time someone wants to shoot up a school he'll have to pull the fire alarm first and wait for everyone to come out?  I dunno, this doesn't seem significantly safer to me.

Actually I think my daughters' school has most of those already and I'd say they probably do make it at least somewhat safer.  It can be downright difficult to pick them up sometimes...

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #133 on: February 16, 2018, 10:31:46 AM »

Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here:  https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.

Sure it doesn't address end-of-day and beginning of day timelines, but its a pretty obvious start.

My highschool (still to this day) has all doors unlocked for the ful school hours.  "Security" is provided via a security booth at the road entrance, despite the fact that there is about 1 mile long stretch of wooden property line (with no real barrier).

School security is shit.  My office is better protected.

So the next time someone wants to shoot up a school he'll have to pull the fire alarm first and wait for everyone to come out?  I dunno, this doesn't seem significantly safer to me.

30-second delay with audible alarm at the fire-pull source.  Just like fire exits with timed delays.

Also prevents nuisance pulls by teenagers.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #134 on: February 16, 2018, 10:36:44 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US?  Pretty low?

It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.

Except there weren't vary many full-autos to begin with.  There are (and have been) hunderds of thousands and millions of legal 'regular' guns in the states for decades.

Its apples to oranges.

Bullshit.  The Tommy gun's popularity among criminals in the 20s and 30s was the whole reason that legislation was brought in to control fully automatic weapons.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 926
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #135 on: February 16, 2018, 10:42:54 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US?  Pretty low?

It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.

Except there weren't vary many full-autos to begin with.  There are (and have been) hunderds of thousands and millions of legal 'regular' guns in the states for decades.

Its apples to oranges.

Bullshit.  The Tommy gun's popularity among criminals in the 20s and 30s was the whole reason that legislation was brought in to control fully automatic weapons.

Data?  Your reasoning is anecdotal.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #136 on: February 16, 2018, 10:49:35 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

Let me address the latter argument (cars are just like guns) first.  Owning and operating a vehicle is a heavily regulated activity.  A national database of vehicles/owners is kept, a license plate registration scheme is implemented, licencing (coupled with mandatory safety training) is required to drive a vehicle on the road, insurance to operate an automobile is required for liability.  The sole real use case for an automobile is public use, which requires all of this regulation, registration, training, and insurance . . . and the nature of the large vehicle/license plate makes it easy for a police officer to type in and do a quick check on any vehicle that happens to pass him by.  This is simply not comparable with guns, where no licensing is required, no insurance is required, it is legally mandated that ownership records are difficult for law enforcement to search, and no record of transfer of ownership is made if the gun isn't sold through a dealer.  I suspect that many people arguing for greater gun control would be perfectly happy with a similar level of regulation on guns as there are on cars.

Alcohol misuse can certainly be an issue, but on it's own it is primarily a danger to the person using it.  In combination with something else (cars, guns, boats) alcohol can certainly be a factor in a tragedy that kills others, and this is why there are typically laws and regulations regarding using these things while under the influence.  Again, this is very different from what is going on with guns.

Yep. Perhaps we should take a look at Japan's strict gun regulations. They determined long ago that guns don't really play a part in civilian society and banned them outright. But they have since loosened that ban and folks are allowed to have certain types of guns after going through some extensive background checks, training (to include shooting range, written exams), mental health evaluations, etc. They average less than 10 gun deaths per year out of 127 million folks.
[Sarcasm]

That is irrelevant.  Their population is so much smaller the that in the US, you cannot compare them.  The US is far more vast and has more people... irrelevant, it will never work here

[/Sarcasm]

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #137 on: February 16, 2018, 10:50:34 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US?  Pretty low?

It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.

I refuted this bit of fail logic already in another thread. 

LEGALLY owned fully automatic firearms have been used in like 1 or two crimes since they 30s. However, the ILLEGALLY owned ones, of which there are many, have been used in crimes quite frequently.

So no, it proves that gun control does not precent crimes with those weapons, as illegally owned fully automatic firearms are still out there, and still used in crimes.

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #138 on: February 16, 2018, 11:07:13 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

Everyone stop misquoting me! I didn't say this! lol geez

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #139 on: February 16, 2018, 11:17:51 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US?  Pretty low?

It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.

I refuted this bit of fail logic already in another thread. 

LEGALLY owned fully automatic firearms have been used in like 1 or two crimes since they 30s. However, the ILLEGALLY owned ones, of which there are many, have been used in crimes quite frequently.

So no, it proves that gun control does not precent crimes with those weapons, as illegally owned fully automatic firearms are still out there, and still used in crimes.

I've been attempting to verify your unsupported claim that fully automatic weapons are used in crimes quite frequently.  What I have been able to find would suggest that they're almost never used in crimes:



*There were zero fully automatic weapons used in crimes in California in 2016
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/firearms-report-16.pdf


Quote
- Four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

- In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere.

- Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

  - http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

* In 2017  0.3 percent of all firearms recovered from crime scenes and traced were fully automatic (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2016)

* In 1995 only 0.1 percent of all traces for firearms used in crimes related to other fully automatic weapons or other.  (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF)

Jouer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 447
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #140 on: February 16, 2018, 11:23:02 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US?  Pretty low?

It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.

I refuted this bit of fail logic already in another thread. 

LEGALLY owned fully automatic firearms have been used in like 1 or two crimes since they 30s. However, the ILLEGALLY owned ones, of which there are many, have been used in crimes quite frequently.

So no, it proves that gun control does not precent crimes with those weapons, as illegally owned fully automatic firearms are still out there, and still used in crimes.

If you get rid of them altogether the yahoo shoot-em-ups won't have easy access to use them illegally. Sure, crime lords or whatever will have them....but they ain't coming for your gold, folks.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2137
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #141 on: February 16, 2018, 11:27:43 AM »
Or, you know, just do some of the basic stuff like penetration resistant glass doors (see here:  https://www.obrienglass.com.au/service/security-glass/ ) combined with 1 point-of-entry, key fobs at all other entries (for staff) and time-locking magnetic doors.

Minus the armored glass, most of this was in effect by the time I finished high school in 2004. I actually installed several of the mag locks and buzzer systems myself, because I worked for the district. I also vividly remember Columbine, and the introduction of lockdown drills. I don't know about the more rural districts, but it's pretty standard in the suburbs.

I'm about to send my son off to kindergarten, and it's really unsettling. In my head, I know that schools are statistically very safe, but he's our only child ....

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #142 on: February 16, 2018, 11:28:54 AM »
Here is my stance on this.

I beleive it to be fact that true political power comes from the threat of violence - implied or expressed. The implied threat in the US is that if you break a law, you will be locked in a cage for a certain amount of time. Ergo, when a population is disarmed, it no longer has liberty except to the extent that the ruling entities feel like granting it. Protests, etc can easily be stopped when they decide they don't want to hear it anymore. 

Practically speaking, I think the ruling groups these days realize that granting a convincing illusion of freedom and keeping people fed and comfortable makes it easier for them to rule, but I'd rather not rely on that.

So, to me, it is critical that a population offer a credible threat to the safety of the ruling classes body.  "But the military has tanks and planes and..."   Well, yes, but guerulla tactics can be quite effective.

I've decided to accept 33,000 deaths per year on the highways to support our freedom to move around, freedom to associate.
I've decided to accept 88,000 deaths per year due to alchohol per year, because banning that was worse yet.
I'll accept 112,000 deaths per year due to obesity, because the indignity of enforced diets and lack of agency in one's life is a worse fate.
I'll accept 13,000 homocides per year due to firearms for the security of liberty.

I am, however, a practical person who doesn't want to live in a warzone, so I'm game for some practical discussions on arms control.

Here is my concerns, so you can address them or not. Your decision to ridicule them makes you an asshole and part of the problem... a reasoned response is great.
-An all out ban is not acceptable... for reasons above. IF this is what you want, I hope you are eternally disappointed.
-Incrementalism.  This is a real thing...
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. "  We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
-Ignorance on the part of gun control advocates. Please don't participate if you don't know the difference between a semiautomatic and fully automatic firearm, until you've made an effort to at least understand what you're talking about.  (The misconceptions I see could be corrected with 15 minutes of research. seriously. make a goddamned effort.)

That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)

---
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry.  This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.

Anyway, I am trying to get used to a new ergo keyboard, and am over typing for now... I might follow up later.



DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #143 on: February 16, 2018, 11:37:41 AM »
The reason this still happens in the US is because we're fine with it.  We're fine with it.  When it happens, it's a bummer, but it's not our kids, it's somebody else's kids... it's just kids on TV.  We're fine with it. 

Just curious if you're for banning alcohol and/or cars? Some innocent person dies from a drunk driver? Bummer. Not my kid. Just another day.

Seems easy to me to argue there are much more uses for guns in this world than there is alcohol.

Cool whataboutism.

~10K people die every year from drunk driving related accidents.
~33K people die each year from a gunshot(s).

Laws were enacted to try to dissuade drunk driving and driving accidents - we mandated seat belts, cities set up DUI check points, there was a massive marketing campaign ("over the limit, under arrest"), etc. etc.  I would argue drunk driving laws need to be tougher.

Since MADD was founded in 1980, drunk driving related deaths have been cut in HALF.  Is it perfect (i.e. zero)?  No.  Did we collectively try to get better? Yes.  Are we seeing fewer unnecessary deaths?  Yes.

If your argument is, "Well we can't save all innocent people from gun deaths so let's not try to do anything" I vehemently disagree and think that's ****ed up.

Using your drunk driving example, we decided to try to make it harder and more punitive to drive drunk.  The number of deaths related to drunk driving has shrunk.  That's a positive.  Now let's do the same thing with guns.

ingrownstudentloans

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • Age: 34
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #144 on: February 16, 2018, 11:40:34 AM »
Here is my stance on this.

I beleive it to be fact that true political power comes from the threat of violence - implied or expressed. The implied threat in the US is that if you break a law, you will be locked in a cage for a certain amount of time. Ergo, when a population is disarmed, it no longer has liberty except to the extent that the ruling entities feel like granting it. Protests, etc can easily be stopped when they decide they don't want to hear it anymore. 

Practically speaking, I think the ruling groups these days realize that granting a convincing illusion of freedom and keeping people fed and comfortable makes it easier for them to rule, but I'd rather not rely on that.

So, to me, it is critical that a population offer a credible threat to the safety of the ruling classes body.  "But the military has tanks and planes and..."   Well, yes, but guerulla tactics can be quite effective.

I've decided to accept 33,000 deaths per year on the highways to support our freedom to move around, freedom to associate.
I've decided to accept 88,000 deaths per year due to alchohol per year, because banning that was worse yet.
I'll accept 112,000 deaths per year due to obesity, because the indignity of enforced diets and lack of agency in one's life is a worse fate.
I'll accept 13,000 homocides per year due to firearms for the security of liberty.

I am, however, a practical person who doesn't want to live in a warzone, so I'm game for some practical discussions on arms control.

Here is my concerns, so you can address them or not. Your decision to ridicule them makes you an asshole and part of the problem... a reasoned response is great.
-An all out ban is not acceptable... for reasons above. IF this is what you want, I hope you are eternally disappointed.
-Incrementalism.  This is a real thing...
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. "  We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.
-Ignorance on the part of gun control advocates. Please don't participate if you don't know the difference between a semiautomatic and fully automatic firearm, until you've made an effort to at least understand what you're talking about.  (The misconceptions I see could be corrected with 15 minutes of research. seriously. make a goddamned effort.)

That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)

---
I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry.  This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.

Anyway, I am trying to get used to a new ergo keyboard, and am over typing for now... I might follow up later.

+1 good suggestions

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #145 on: February 16, 2018, 11:45:27 AM »
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.

Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012).  I'll wait.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #146 on: February 16, 2018, 11:55:51 AM »
All fully-automatic weapons are already banned.  Have been for decades.  The only way to get one is if it was grandfathered-in, and you pass extremely stringent system of checks with the ATF.

What's the crime rate with fully automatic weapons in the US?  Pretty low?

It's almost as if reducing availability of guns and implementing stringent checks works really well to prevent crime with those weapons . . . contrary to many arguments you hear from gun advocates.

I refuted this bit of fail logic already in another thread. 

LEGALLY owned fully automatic firearms have been used in like 1 or two crimes since they 30s. However, the ILLEGALLY owned ones, of which there are many, have been used in crimes quite frequently.

So no, it proves that gun control does not precent crimes with those weapons, as illegally owned fully automatic firearms are still out there, and still used in crimes.

I've been attempting to verify your unsupported claim that fully automatic weapons are used in crimes quite frequently.  What I have been able to find would suggest that they're almost never used in crimes:



*There were zero fully automatic weapons used in crimes in California in 2016
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/publications/firearms-report-16.pdf


Quote
- Four police officers were killed in the line of duty by machine guns from 1983 to 1992. (713 law enforcement officers were killed during that period, 651 with guns.)

- In 1980, when Miami's homicide rate was at an all-time high, less than 1% of all homicides involved machine guns. (Miami was supposedly a "machine gun Mecca" and drug trafficking capital of the U.S.) Although there are no national figures to compare to, machine gun deaths were probably lower elsewhere.

- Of 2,200 guns recovered by Minneapolis police (1987-1989), not one was fully automatic.
A total of 420 weapons, including 375 guns, were seized during drug warrant executions and arrests by the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad (Will and Grundie counties in the Chicago metropolitan area, 1980-1989). None of the guns was a machine gun.
16 of 2,359 (0.7%) of the guns seized in the Detroit area (1991-1992) in connection with "the investigation of narcotics trafficking operations" were machine guns.

  - http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

* In 2017  0.3 percent of all firearms recovered from crime scenes and traced were fully automatic (https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/firearms-trace-data-2016)

* In 1995 only 0.1 percent of all traces for firearms used in crimes related to other fully automatic weapons or other.  (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF)

My assertion comes from reading a number of reports, which indicate that they were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban, and thier use is often reported/lumped with semiautomatic weapon usage.  They are used "frequently" when they're estimated availability is considered and compared to how often the LEGALLY owned ones are.

Also, from the  report you got your trace figures from: "Trace requests represent an unknown portion of all the guns used in crimes. ATF is not able to trace guns manufactured before 1968, most surplus military weapons, imported guns without the importer's name, stolen guns, and guns missing a legible serial number." Those exceptions would apply to most machine guns.

"Police agencies do not request traces on all firearms used in crimes. Not all firearms used in crimes are recovered so that a trace could be done and, in some States and localities, the police agencies may be able to establish ownership locally without going to the ATF."

The fact that fully automatic weapons were rare before the ban also makes them a poor example of what gun control will accomplish given how many guns are out there. Some states have tried banning individual types of guns and have been lucky to see 15% compliance rates.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #147 on: February 16, 2018, 12:07:39 PM »
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.

Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012).  I'll wait.

Don't be a jerk. No need for it.

-There's been some level of gun control for decades.
-Washington just passed a ban on bumpstocks.
-Oregon passed a poorly written mandatory background check law in 2015 I think
-Oregon also passed a law allowing confiscation of firearms from anyone accused of domestic violence.



DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #148 on: February 16, 2018, 12:11:47 PM »
"We have to do SOMETHING. ->More gun control -> shooting happens anyway -> OMG WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!11!! -> even more gun control -> ad nauseam. " We're already into this a few iterations, and I do not want to be in an endless cycle of "doing something" ineffectively. None of the gun control methods, will prevent all firearms tragedies. I think most people realize that. Someone more creative than me needs to come up with a way to break this cycle of some great compromise is reached.

Find me any legislation that has been enacted since Sandy Hook (2012).  I'll wait.

Don't be a jerk. No need for it.

-There's been some level of gun control for decades.
-Washington just passed a ban on bumpstocks.
-Oregon passed a poorly written mandatory background check law in 2015 I think
-Oregon also passed a law allowing confiscation of firearms from anyone accused of domestic violence.

These are not federal laws.  Two states have passed barely a bare minimum.

So about those 48 other states...

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16371
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #149 on: February 16, 2018, 12:11:54 PM »
My assertion comes from reading a number of reports, which indicate that they were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban, and thier use is often reported/lumped with semiautomatic weapon usage.

Could you provide these reports?




That said, these are the things I'd be game for.
-Universal background checks, with a default approval if the agency does not issue a decision within two weeks. Given that a federal background check can be done in minutes, electronically, this shouldn't be a problem.
-Those who have mental illness will not be able to pass a BG check.
-Those who have a history of domestic violence will not be able to pass a BG check.
-2 week waiting period on all handgun purchases.
-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.
-All guns shall be sold with a locking device included. (This may already be a law, every gun I've bought lately has had one.)

The problem with your plan of course, is that police will be unable to enforce it for any gun privately owned.  Without a registry to prove who owns what, how do you punish someone for selling a gun without a background check?


I would require though, 50 state mandatory reciprocity for concealed carry.  This can be managed at a federal level... but a universal training and live fire demonstration of proficiency would be part of it. It will be SHALL issue, not 'May issue.' The background check shall be rigorous. Those who pass can concealed carry everywhere... work, schools (actually already legal in Oregon, beleive it or not... unless you are a teacher.) wherever. Those who have a concealed carry now will NOT be grandfathered in, except that the costs incurred for getting the CHL they have will be applied to the cost of getting the new one. Concealed weapons holders are less likely to commit a crime than police officers, so this shouldn't scare anyone who has the slightest bit of control over the lizard portion of thier brain.

Sure, provided that:
- Any accidental discharge of a concealed weapon  OR
- Any intentional discharge of a concealed weapon ruled to have been without just cause
results in the weapon holder involved being permanently banned for life from owning any type of firearm

If you choose to endanger people by being careless, you should never be allowed to do so again.