Author Topic: US School Shootings  (Read 15944 times)

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #150 on: February 16, 2018, 12:15:27 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...

You didn't specify federal, and I don't think it's relevant anyway. You can look and see what the control measures in each state do or (more likely) don't do.

Dont move the goalposts, that's what jerks who debate in bad faith do.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #151 on: February 16, 2018, 12:24:39 PM »
Well, yes, but guerulla tactics can be quite effective.

Seriously dude!?!? Guerrilla warfare is in fact based on military style tactics. Your average non-veteran "deer hunter" or "gun collector" isn't going to have the slightest clue about guerrilla warfare. What are you going to do, abandon your homes and reserve yourself to the woods subsisting on bark and bugs with the rest of your family? You don't live in Red Dawn. The government isn't scared one bit about weather you have a gun or not. The rest of what you wrote was at least based in reality and seemed rational. This though, makes me laugh.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #152 on: February 16, 2018, 12:30:12 PM »
If I was an evil government I'd quietly drop some of my weaponized anthrax on the most annoying/resisting towns and villiages, wait a year for it to blow over, and then come back and move more compliant people into the houses all the dead folks clutching their small arms don't need any more.  :P
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 12:46:27 PM by GuitarStv »

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #153 on: February 16, 2018, 12:32:51 PM »
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.

But, was the common sense offer tied to something unpalatable to the Dems? That's often the case in politics.

EmFrugal

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 143
  • Age: 36
  • Location: DC Metro
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #154 on: February 16, 2018, 12:36:39 PM »
So for those of use who finally are outraged (I'm a mother of three small children... one of who is now in the public school system) and want to do something about this issue, what are the best steps to take?

1)What should I read to learn more about the issue at large?
2)What groups should I research?
3)Who should I talk to?

The biggest challenge I see from reading all of this seems to be working toward a solution that does not alienate law abiding gun owners and actually gets them on board toward positive change.

In addition to using your vote to elect politicians who support gun control, you can contribute to Everytown for Gun Safety. They are the largest group that opposes the NRA. Since the average donation to the NRA is $35, I contributed that much to them and challenged my FB friends to do so as well. Even my AR15 owning brother felt their agenda was based on common sense.

Thanks for that site. I've signed up on the Moms Demand Action end and am eager to get involved with my local chapter.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #155 on: February 16, 2018, 12:52:48 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?



Don't be a sea-lion. It's more a recurring thing where the table had "Semi and Automatic" weapons, and a minor point in what I said.

The point is this: There is a population of legal automatic weapons, which are rarely used in crimes... like twice in 80 years. They require extensive regulatory work to get, and are expensive. Then there is a population of ILLEGALLY owned automatic weapons, that are not common, but do exist and and are used in crimes. The fact that there are ANY illegally owned ones out there, despite the difficulty of attaining one legally, and the availability of other firearms, and how rare they were when banned, eliminates fully automatic weapons as an example of how well effectively confiscatory regulation would work when applied to more common guns.

Quote

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?

Given that registries have a quite thorough history of being abused, no. And, it appears to work well in states that have passed universal BG checks, even without a registry and with neighboring states who don't require it for private sales.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

Quote

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.

I'd settle on revoking thier concealed carry license for life, and only if it hurts someone. If you're practicing good muzzle control never pointing at anything but an intended targets or inanimate objects.    I can't find good stats on Licensed concealed carriers and accidental discharges, but I'd have to think it happens very, very infrequently. (unlicensed carriers? They're usually jabronies who probably are fondling the gun while walking around... don't lump them in with those of us who take it seriously enough to get trained and licensed!)

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #156 on: February 16, 2018, 01:00:10 PM »
I'm on board with any federal arms control measure you want to pass.  I support it 100%, as long as it comes with one restriction:

A sunset provision that, if the problem isn't substantially addressed within 5 years, I'm talking at minimum 50% reduction in mass school shootings, the legislation expires and possession is restored/financial compensation provided.

Because at this point, despite all the rational parts of my brain telling me that school shootings are actually quite rare (all abused statistics to the contrary), the horrific reality, the effect on a community, makes them so bad it would be worth trying something.

We banned alcohol for a bit to see if that would help, lets try a gun ban, and I mean a total confiscation, the type of legislation with punishments that cause people to hide them inside the drywall rather than risk getting caught with them, such that the kids don't even know its there.

But sunset it, no re-authorization process, it straight up loses all force and effect if it doesn't accomplish at least a 50% reduction by the same measures currently being used to claim the gun problem is out of hand, within 5 years.

Or even just have it expire after 5 years no matter what, a national experiment to see if this would make a difference, so we can have a real conversation.  Include provisions for free money for gun manufacturers to retool to produce whatever and gun store owners to repurpose to selling weed or whatever.  Identify everyone with a financial loss (except the lawyers and lobbyists) and just buy them off, and then also have a ban on bringing up voting records regarding gun ownership in elections for awhile.

Give everyone who's afraid of losing money or power coverage, make it temporary, and see how it goes.

Give law enforcement the same discretion they have now, so that otherwise law abiding people know they're fine keeping their guns as long as they don't flaunt them, but that they're in for a total shitstorm if their kid or relative uses it to kill somebody (makers of gun safes would rejoice as the ban passes, no guns get turned in, but safes are sold out for years).

I'm absolutely not convinced it would work.

But I am willing to experiment.

Because all of the arguments I can come up with in favor of guns, I can immediately come up with why that's also irrelevant:

The guns are already out there! > Most of these are done with recent purchases!

Gun ownership is already restricted! > Most of these are people flagrantly violating the restrictions!

Gun death is very rare! > Anything else killing a few hundred children a year, I mean, for fuck's sake someone brought up cars again, if seatbelts killed forty children over the weekend you'd be in your backseat with a pair of scissors and the rules be damned.  Someone, by mistake, mentioned once, that there was a correlation between vaccines and autism and we resurrected whooping cough as a thing.

What we're doing currently is not enough.  I haven't come up with any better ideas, although the insurance thing is interesting (the premiums would be so low though, because insurance companies look at actual data and would conclude that even though the cost per incident is high, the incidents are so infrequent relative to the number of policyholders, even $50.00 per year would make it the most profitable insurance product they ever sold).

Years ago I sort of thought to myself that if gun owners want to keep that right they need to be the ones to figure this shit out, and I think it's time to put up or shut up.  Stop this from happening or we're taking away the right, and personal responsibility includes admitting "I done fucked up, take this away from me."

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #157 on: February 16, 2018, 01:18:30 PM »
Because at this point, despite all the rational parts of my brain telling me that school shootings are actually quite rare (all abused statistics to the contrary), the horrific reality, the effect on a community, makes them so bad it would be worth trying something.

A. holy shit I agree with you on something

B. I think this articulates something a lot of people feel, but haven't said. Yes, schools are statistically safe, but holy shit when things go wrong ... they go so fucking wrong it's hard to even put it into words.

Say for a moment we remove the emotional component and only focus on lost productivity/social contributions from direct victims (humans who were shot). The cost of a school shooting is huge, we're talking about multiple lifetimes of lost activity even for a "small scale" incident.

Add in the increased costs (both in hard costs and lost productivity from secondary and tertiary victims) to the community.

Now add in the emotional costs to the community and the nation as a whole. Because the community where I live (thankfully) hasn't had a school shooting. When there's one homicide (murder or otherwise) it's big news for weeks. It's still something that gives me parental anxiety because it's more common than it should be, and we don't have the backbone to even talk about trying to do anything that might possibly, maybe reduce some of it.

Attacking the problem from other angles is great. Increased training for how to respond to violent situations, changes to police tactics (i.e. don't wait for SWAT) and changes to building design are great, but the idea that we can't also look at changing gun rules is fucking insane.

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2208
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #158 on: February 16, 2018, 01:20:40 PM »
If I was an evil government I'd quietly drop some of my weaponized anthrax on the most annoying/resisting towns and villiages, wait a year for it to blow over, and then come back and move more compliant people into the houses all the dead folks clutching their small arms don't need any more.  :P

Kind of what they've been doing in Syria...

I'll throw this here. Semi-auto vs bump stock which Google tells me are still legal.

I think the debate about machine guns / full auto are pointless as long as bump stocks are still legal. With a bumpstock you basically have a legal machine gun. 

I have no idea why these are legal in the USA. I'm ex-military, I was armed for part of my enlistment, I own guns. Still don't know why civilians need gear like this.

I understand WHY - they are fun and interesting. Its like buying all the licensed toys from your favorite sci-fi or action movie - and we love our action movies in the USA.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 01:29:17 PM by Just Joe »

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #159 on: February 16, 2018, 01:23:09 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...

You didn't specify federal, and I don't think it's relevant anyway. You can look and see what the control measures in each state do or (more likely) don't do.

Dont move the goalposts, that's what jerks who debate in bad faith do.

So, to be clear, two states have passed legislation - on bump stocks, background checks, and domestic violence abusers - and you think we're in an iteration of gun control that's gone too far.  That's your position?

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #160 on: February 16, 2018, 01:33:37 PM »
Because at this point, despite all the rational parts of my brain telling me that school shootings are actually quite rare (all abused statistics to the contrary), the horrific reality, the effect on a community, makes them so bad it would be worth trying something.

A. holy shit I agree with you on something

B. I think this articulates something a lot of people feel, but haven't said. Yes, schools are statistically safe, but holy shit when things go wrong ... they go so fucking wrong it's hard to even put it into words.

Say for a moment we remove the emotional component and only focus on lost productivity/social contributions from direct victims (humans who were shot). The cost of a school shooting is huge, we're talking about multiple lifetimes of lost activity even for a "small scale" incident.

Add in the increased costs (both in hard costs and lost productivity from secondary and tertiary victims) to the community.

Now add in the emotional costs to the community and the nation as a whole. Because the community where I live (thankfully) hasn't had a school shooting. When there's one homicide (murder or otherwise) it's big news for weeks. It's still something that gives me parental anxiety because it's more common than it should be, and we don't have the backbone to even talk about trying to do anything that might possibly, maybe reduce some of it.

Attacking the problem from other angles is great. Increased training for how to respond to violent situations, changes to police tactics (i.e. don't wait for SWAT) and changes to building design are great, but the idea that we can't also look at changing gun rules is fucking insane.

I was in high school when Columbine happened.  There was no education that day.  I'm willing to bet that's how it was at every high school in the country.  What's the cost of 15 million students grieving instead of learning, like 120 million (wo)man hours?  Just the indirect business-continuity cost of the incident is therefore loosely pegged at around $3.6 billion dollars?  And this is happening like, what, couple times a year for something that big?  Lets fucking start an actual militia in each state and give it a fully functional airforce and just confiscate the guns.  Now you can resist your oppressive government with F-22's and M-1 Tanks, and no more school shootings.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #161 on: February 16, 2018, 01:35:28 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?


Don't be a sea-lion. It's more a recurring thing where the table had "Semi and Automatic" weapons, and a minor point in what I said.

So, just to confirm . . . you have no evidence that supports your claim that automatic weapons "were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban" ?  Because I have trouble believing that the government would go to all the effort of banning automatic weapons that aren't showing themselves to be a serious problem.


The point is this: There is a population of legal automatic weapons, which are rarely used in crimes... like twice in 80 years. They require extensive regulatory work to get, and are expensive. Then there is a population of ILLEGALLY owned automatic weapons, that are not common, but do exist and and are used in crimes. The fact that there are ANY illegally owned ones out there, despite the difficulty of attaining one legally, and the availability of other firearms, and how rare they were when banned, eliminates fully automatic weapons as an example of how well effectively confiscatory regulation would work when applied to more common guns.

There was not and has never been confiscatory regulation of machine guns.  You just have to register them and follow the law.  According to the 1995 report I posted, over 240,000 fully automatic weapons were registered with the ATF.  Of these quarter million 'rare' guns, 7,700 were reported stolen . . . which likely accounts for the vanishingly small numbers used in crime.


Quote
Quote
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?

Given that registries have a quite thorough history of being abused, no. And, it appears to work well in states that have passed universal BG checks, even without a registry and with neighboring states who don't require it for private sales.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/


Quote
If the jurisdiction does not require that all firearm transfers be conducted through licensed dealers, private sellers should be required to:
- Conduct background checks through a central law enforcement agency that has access to federal and state databases of prohibited purchasers (Rhode Island requires private sellers to conduct background checks directly through law enforcement; Connecticut requires private sellers to conduct background checks through licensed dealers or law enforcement).
- Maintain records of all firearm transfers for a lengthy period (Illinois requires all sellers to retain sales records for 10 years).
- Report all transfers to state and local law enforcement (see Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts).

The link that you just posted indicates that record keeping requirements are necessary on the part of any private person selling a gun for the background check laws to work.  Without these, it would not be possible to ensure that guns changing hands are going through the background check requirement.  As long as you're a record of who owns what gun, then yeah, it could work.


Quote
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.

I'd settle on revoking thier concealed carry license for life, and only if it hurts someone. If you're practicing good muzzle control never pointing at anything but an intended targets or inanimate objects.    I can't find good stats on Licensed concealed carriers and accidental discharges, but I'd have to think it happens very, very infrequently. (unlicensed carriers? They're usually jabronies who probably are fondling the gun while walking around... don't lump them in with those of us who take it seriously enough to get trained and licensed!)

I agree, these types of incidents are probably vanishingly small.  Neither should ever happen by a trained and licensed person who exercised good judgement.

Why do you believe that someone who fires his gun without just cause should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?

Why do you believe that someone who fails to carry his concealed weapon safely should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?

This is the kind of irresponsible attitude and refusal of responsibility for actions that many of us find frustrating from gun advocates.  You want the freedom to carry a gun all the time, but want to avoid responsibility if you endanger others.  That's not reasonable.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #162 on: February 16, 2018, 01:46:16 PM »
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.

So if someone commits a single DUI, gets hit with reckless endangerment (via an automobile) or vehicular manslaughter charge-  should they be banned from driving forever?

Just checking your consistency.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #163 on: February 16, 2018, 01:55:29 PM »
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.

So if someone commits a single DUI, gets hit with reckless endangerment (via an automobile) or vehicular manslaughter charge-  should they be banned from driving forever?

Just checking your consistency.

My gut reaction would be to immediately say yes.  You don't accidentally get a DUI.  It's a choice to endanger others.

The problem is that much of the US is so car-centric and car dependent for work that I fear the financial impact of never being able to drive again might create a person who is then a drain on society forever more.  For this reason alone I'd be inclined to advocate a harsh penalty, but not a permanent ban on driving until the second offense.  If there was a way to prevent you from ever buying alcohol again after the first I'd be all over it though.

The choice to carry a concealed weapon is not a necessity, it's a privileged.  It's not important to your economic well-being.   Not owning a gun won't make you unproductive.  So yeah, if you endanger other people with one, you don't need to ever own one again.

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #164 on: February 16, 2018, 01:57:04 PM »
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.

I agree with this.  Also should be available for use between private sellers online.  I'm 50/50 on whether it would need a notary or if the seller seeing the buyer's driver's license alone is ok.

Edit to add:  I also do not think it is unreasonable to require transfers to occur at an approved location, as long as they are plentiful.  Examples (as a minimum):  All federal dealers, police stations, court houses (some office up front).  Given the widespread nature of those locations, I would not consider that infringement and a good step towards (what I understand to be) "Well-Regulated".

-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.

Agree, provided there is a means of appeal.  (Which I see you added below).  That is the #1 problem I have with most solutions from the left.  In their view of perfect All-Holy Government, they never seem to build in any sort of Judicial checks and balances-  namely the right to an appeal.  That has to be in there.

-There will be an appeal process defined for the above two rejection causes.

Agreed.

-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.)

This already is a common enough law that 99% of new gun sales include a matching trigger lock in the case.  (Its kinda nice, actually, since they are customer made to fit that specific gun).  See here:  https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/state-advocacy/Documents/GunSafetyLaws.pdf

---
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.

This would be great.  But just like it has been ignored thus far, it will continue to be ignored because 'guns are evil', 'no one needs them' blah blah blah.

It is funny to me that off-duty cops are required to carry everywhere (including gun free zones) but the extremely safe (statistically) concealed carry holders are not allowed.

I do think a 50-State reciprocity bill would buy a lot of goodwill towards other common sense laws, but no one ever wants to compromise.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 02:08:10 PM by TexasRunner »

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #165 on: February 16, 2018, 01:58:48 PM »
The choice to carry a concealed weapon is not a necessity, it's a privileged. 

Unfortunately that isn't what the second amendment says.

How come there is no real push to change it?  Only circumvent it with other laws?

simonsez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
  • Age: 32
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #166 on: February 16, 2018, 02:10:14 PM »
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.

So if someone commits a single DUI, gets hit with reckless endangerment (via an automobile) or vehicular manslaughter charge-  should they be banned from driving forever?

Just checking your consistency.
What does being under the influence have to do with anything?  Were the people in the careless shooting example drunk?

Wouldn't any vehicular manslaughter charge (sober or not) by a person make you think twice that there is risk to that particular person operating a vehicle responsibly?  I'm not sure about "no driving/guns for life" but the current penalties are obviously not severe enough.  It's amazing how many bad drivers there are, how easy it is to obtain a license to drive (though requirements have gone up), and how we don't have universal common sense laws.  Did you know you can still LEGALLY text while driving in Missouri, Arizona, and Montana?  What are those state governments waiting for?  Does that "freedom" outweigh the costs?

TheOldestYoungMan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 749
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #167 on: February 16, 2018, 02:37:15 PM »
but the current penalties are obviously not severe enough

You could mandate death by firing squad upon first violation, that's not going to deter a suicidal mass-murderer.  I don't think enough people understand that for law-abiding citizens cognizant of consequences, it doesn't take much to deter crime.  I don't leave work early for fear of being written-up, a thing that has no actual force and effect!  The only laws I violate on anything like a regular basis are traffic laws that are not enforced around these parts.

I'm not currently homicidal/suicidal though.  For the people likely to do the thing in the first place, they probably aren't too concerned about your proposed penalties, they're planning to blaze-of-glory it anyway.

It's easy to dismiss the arguments against proposed legislation that point out it wouldn't have made a difference, but it seems like a logical fallacy to me.  If the goal is to prevent these types of things from happening then it seems rational to exclude options with no real hope of accomplishing that goal.  Don't confuse movement for progress?


GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #168 on: February 16, 2018, 02:38:36 PM »
The choice to carry a concealed weapon is not a necessity, it's a privileged. 

Unfortunately that isn't what the second amendment says.

How come there is no real push to change it?  Only circumvent it with other laws?

The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about a necessity for citizens to carry a concealed weapon.  What do you want to change it to?

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #169 on: February 16, 2018, 02:39:23 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?


Don't be a sea-lion. It's more a recurring thing where the table had "Semi and Automatic" weapons, and a minor point in what I said.

So, just to confirm . . . you have no evidence that supports your claim that automatic weapons "were a vanishingly small part of the gun population before the ban" ?  Because I have trouble believing that the government would go to all the effort of banning automatic weapons that aren't showing themselves to be a serious problem.
No, I have no direct, concise evidence that explicitly says "machine gun statistics are lumped with semi autmatic statistics."  I have seen it numerous times in reports I've read in the past. I am not going to dig them up.

At any rate, the 1930's legislation was created because the prohibition gangs of the time were spraying eachother with tommy guns. Relatively few, very high profile events lead to that legislation. In chicago, where this stuff seemed to be centered, there were only an estated 500 machine guns at the time. Extrapolate that across the country and you're not talking about a massive number of guns, comparatively speaking.
Quote
The point is this: There is a population of legal automatic weapons, which are rarely used in crimes... like twice in 80 years. They require extensive regulatory work to get, and are expensive. Then there is a population of ILLEGALLY owned automatic weapons, that are not common, but do exist and and are used in crimes. The fact that there are ANY illegally owned ones out there, despite the difficulty of attaining one legally, and the availability of other firearms, and how rare they were when banned, eliminates fully automatic weapons as an example of how well effectively confiscatory regulation would work when applied to more common guns.

There was not and has never been confiscatory regulation of machine guns.  You just have to register them and follow the law.  According to the 1995 report I posted, over 240,000 fully automatic weapons were registered with the ATF.  Of these quarter million 'rare' guns, 7,700 were reported stolen . . . which likely accounts for the vanishingly small numbers used in crime.


240,000 is pretty rare out of all the other firearms out there.
the report does NOT say those 7700 guns are from the 240,000 legally owned ones.

I wrote effectively confiscatory. "following the law" takes over a year and makes the guns cost well over $10,000, and there is only a fixed supply of them. It is effectively impossible for typical citiczens to own one.

Quote
Quote
Quote
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?

Given that registries have a quite thorough history of being abused, no. And, it appears to work well in states that have passed universal BG checks, even without a registry and with neighboring states who don't require it for private sales.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/


Quote
If the jurisdiction does not require that all firearm transfers be conducted through licensed dealers, private sellers should be required to:
- Conduct background checks through a central law enforcement agency that has access to federal and state databases of prohibited purchasers (Rhode Island requires private sellers to conduct background checks directly through law enforcement; Connecticut requires private sellers to conduct background checks through licensed dealers or law enforcement).
- Maintain records of all firearm transfers for a lengthy period (Illinois requires all sellers to retain sales records for 10 years).
- Report all transfers to state and local law enforcement (see Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts).

The link that you just posted indicates that record keeping requirements are necessary on the part of any private person selling a gun for the background check laws to work.  Without these, it would not be possible to ensure that guns changing hands are going through the background check requirement.  As long as you're a record of who owns what gun, then yeah, it could work.


Quote
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.

I'd settle on revoking thier concealed carry license for life, and only if it hurts someone. If you're practicing good muzzle control never pointing at anything but an intended targets or inanimate objects.    I can't find good stats on Licensed concealed carriers and accidental discharges, but I'd have to think it happens very, very infrequently. (unlicensed carriers? They're usually jabronies who probably are fondling the gun while walking around... don't lump them in with those of us who take it seriously enough to get trained and licensed!)

I agree, these types of incidents are probably vanishingly small.  Neither should ever happen by a trained and licensed person who exercised good judgement.

Why do you believe that someone who fires his gun without just cause should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?

Why do you believe that someone who fails to carry his concealed weapon safely should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?

This is the kind of irresponsible attitude and refusal of responsibility for actions that many of us find frustrating from gun advocates.  You want the freedom to carry a gun all the time, but want to avoid responsibility if you endanger others.  That's not reasonable.

Your fallacy is: Straw man.

I don't want to support an absolute revokation of someone's rights based on some subjective determination made later? I mean, if the guy is so twitchy he shoots at a todler for running toward him, fine... but go all the way and jail the guy. But there are some gray cases out there that I don't beleive deserve that kind of repercussions. I'll agree with you in egregiously negligent cases that a full revokation of all rights to carry gun would be fine.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 02:51:11 PM by ncornilsen »

simonsez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
  • Age: 32
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #170 on: February 16, 2018, 02:41:29 PM »
but the current penalties are obviously not severe enough

You could mandate death by firing squad upon first violation, that's not going to deter a suicidal mass-murderer.  I don't think enough people understand that for law-abiding citizens cognizant of consequences, it doesn't take much to deter crime.  I don't leave work early for fear of being written-up, a thing that has no actual force and effect!  The only laws I violate on anything like a regular basis are traffic laws that are not enforced around these parts.

I'm not currently homicidal/suicidal though.  For the people likely to do the thing in the first place, they probably aren't too concerned about your proposed penalties, they're planning to blaze-of-glory it anyway.

It's easy to dismiss the arguments against proposed legislation that point out it wouldn't have made a difference, but it seems like a logical fallacy to me.  If the goal is to prevent these types of things from happening then it seems rational to exclude options with no real hope of accomplishing that goal.  Don't confuse movement for progress?
Huh?

We were talking about accidental discharge of a gun and involuntary manslaughter by hitting someone with a car.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9464
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #171 on: February 16, 2018, 02:45:38 PM »
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.

The US is not unique in this.  This is how Canada was formed - 4 colonies united, brought in other territories over time, so now we are 10 provinces and 3 territories. And we are pretty varied, enough that we sort of joke about it - if you live in Quebec, there is the ROC (rest of Canada) and if you live in Ontario we have a city called "the center of the universe".    There are always tensions between the various levels of government.  You should see some of the fights we have over what is federal jurisdiction and what is provincial jurisdiction.  Similar for Australia.  And in Europe I believe Germany, Italy and Switzerland were all formed by smaller political entities uniting.

So really it is simplistic to cite this as a cause for legislative issues and gun attitudes.



Comparing gun ownership and deaths to deaths from drunk driving, back in the 70's, for example, it was not a big issue.  MADD and others made it a big issue.  DUIs and drunk driving deaths still happen, but not at the rate that they used to, basically because drinking and driving is no longer socially acceptable.  Similarly, our long gun registry basically happened because of parents who were appalled that a misogynist could take a gun and kill engineering students who were women, just because they were women.

Handguns are rare here, because they are very hard to get unless you have major cause.  A lot of our gang deaths are caused by handguns - easy to smuggle them into Canada from the US, since you have so many floating around.  Apart from being sad to see you all shooting each other so much, we wish you would get a grip on handguns because we are tired of you being such an easy source for them.  You are the handgun equivalent to us of Columbia for drugs for you.

DarkandStormy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1144
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #172 on: February 16, 2018, 02:56:09 PM »
Quote
The troubled teen authorities say killed 17 people at a Florida high school excelled in an air-rifle marksmanship program supported by a grant from the National Rifle Association Foundation, part of a multimillion-dollar effort by the gun group to support youth shooting clubs.

https://apnews.com/87b429399f774064beefd7a7dff3a41a?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP&__twitter_impression=true

The NRA literally paid to train the shooter.

So I say again:

Look up candidates who took money from the NRA. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/opinion/thoughts-prayers-nra-funding-senators.html?mtrref=t.co&assetType=opinion

Vote for their opponent.  Talk to your friends, family, neighbors.  Try to convince them to vote for the candidate the NRA does not like or support.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #173 on: February 16, 2018, 03:03:49 PM »
Quote
Quote
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.

I'd settle on revoking thier concealed carry license for life, and only if it hurts someone. If you're practicing good muzzle control never pointing at anything but an intended targets or inanimate objects.    I can't find good stats on Licensed concealed carriers and accidental discharges, but I'd have to think it happens very, very infrequently. (unlicensed carriers? They're usually jabronies who probably are fondling the gun while walking around... don't lump them in with those of us who take it seriously enough to get trained and licensed!)

I agree, these types of incidents are probably vanishingly small.  Neither should ever happen by a trained and licensed person who exercised good judgement.

Why do you believe that someone who fires his gun without just cause should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?

Why do you believe that someone who fails to carry his concealed weapon safely should be allowed to continue to own a gun, let alone carry one concealed?

This is the kind of irresponsible attitude and refusal of responsibility for actions that many of us find frustrating from gun advocates.  You want the freedom to carry a gun all the time, but want to avoid responsibility if you endanger others.  That's not reasonable.

Your fallacy is: Straw man.

I don't want to support an absolute revokation of someone's rights based on some subjective determination made later? I mean, if the guy is so twitchy he shoots at a todler for running toward him, fine... but go all the way and jail the guy. But there are some gray cases out there that I don't beleive deserve that kind of repercussions. I'll agree with you in egregiously negligent cases that a full revokation of all rights to carry gun would be fine.


1. Can you provide a valid reason why a concealed carry weapon should accidentally discharge that doesn't involve gross negligence on the part of the owner?

2. In the second, this is a case where a CCW holder drew and fired his gun without just cause.  In what way is this action is not egregious and negligent?


From my point of view we're talking about revoking someone's rights when they've proven themselves incapable of exercising those rights responsibly.

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2323
  • Location: NZ
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #174 on: February 17, 2018, 02:11:48 AM »
I'll say this again.

With gun related deaths in the USA at 15,500 per year and increasing at 6% per year, when will you take action?

In 32 years 100,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 51 years 300,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 72 years 1,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 100 years 5,500,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 151 years 100,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 02:13:56 AM by gooki »

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 517
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #175 on: February 17, 2018, 03:09:37 AM »
Not looking to offend or annoy anyone, but as a UK citizen I find it beyond baffling that the US government does precious little to stop the scourge of school shootings. So many families destroyed.
The UK believes in free trade, deregulation, and privatisation. This has led to loss of jobs (often exported), a rise in slums, a drop in real incomes for the remaining employed working class, a drop in public services with a rise in utility costs, and skyrocketing housing costs. With this has inevitably come government deficits (fewer people to pay taxes with more demand on govt services) and rising public debt.

Along the way this has led to more substance abuse, more domestic violence, suicides, and rootless young men committing crimes and even terrorism.

I find it beyond baffling that the UK government does nothing about this.

The reason in both countries is ideology. Ideology means pursuing a course of action regardless of whether it works or not. "It's the right thing to do!"

px4shooter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #176 on: February 17, 2018, 11:44:23 AM »
I'll say this again.

With gun related deaths in the USA at 15,500 per year and increasing at 6% per year, when will you take action?

In 32 years 100,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 51 years 300,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 72 years 1,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 100 years 5,500,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 151 years 100,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

And DUI deaths aren't fire behind, but keep in mid the gun related death numbers include the police, people defending themselves, and accidental deaths.

Now, do you want to compare injuries for DUI accidents with gun related acts?

Alcohol causes more harm than firearms.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9464
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #177 on: February 17, 2018, 02:55:51 PM »
I'll say this again.

With gun related deaths in the USA at 15,500 per year and increasing at 6% per year, when will you take action?

In 32 years 100,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 51 years 300,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 72 years 1,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 100 years 5,500,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 151 years 100,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

And DUI deaths aren't fire behind, but keep in mid the gun related death numbers include the police, people defending themselves, and accidental deaths.

Now, do you want to compare injuries for DUI accidents with gun related acts?

Alcohol causes more harm than firearms.

The culture has to change.  DUI is much less socially acceptable than it was 30-40 years ago.  There will still be idiots who do it, but designated drivers are an accepted part of going out, and bars give them free non-alcoholic drinks.  I see it at curling (a former hotbed of off-the-ice drinking).  People have one beer, or none, where they would have had 3 or 4 back in the day.

Canada has lots of long guns, very few hand guns, but our shooting rates are much lower than our neighbours'.  It is culture - I know lots of people who own rifles, but they consider them tools for either hunting, or managing coyotes and other predators on their farms.  They are not tools for protection from other people.  Since rifles and shotguns are rather obvious, and almost no-one legally has a handgun, guns are not a major danger to us.  Sure, if you are in a criminal gang you are at risk from other gang members who have illegal guns, but this is not most people.  Literally, over my whole life the only hand guns I have seen have been carried by police and Brinks, and they were holstered.  Long guns, sure, I shot one myself once (a 22), again killing pests on a farm.

So really, if Americans want to have fewer shooting deaths, they need to examine who they are and how they want to change.  Change is certainly possible.  Just watch the original "Parent Trap" (the Hayley Mills version) and then the remake.  Watch for the cigarettes.  Everyone smoked in the original, almost no-one in the remake.  Major change.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #178 on: February 17, 2018, 02:58:41 PM »
I'll say this again.

With gun related deaths in the USA at 15,500 per year and increasing at 6% per year, when will you take action?

In 32 years 100,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 51 years 300,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 72 years 1,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 100 years 5,500,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

In 151 years 100,000,000 citizens will die annually from gun related deaths.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

And DUI deaths aren't fire behind, but keep in mid the gun related death numbers include the police, people defending themselves, and accidental deaths.

Now, do you want to compare injuries for DUI accidents with gun related acts?

Alcohol causes more harm than firearms.

Good point, which is why the government and states themselves are constantly examining new ways to handle the alcohol related harm.  DUI laws are ridiculously more strict than they were when I was growing up. Marketing campaigns, clubs, etc. all to help combat alcohol related "harm." Compare and contrast that to "we can't talk about gun control" apparently no matter how many folks (kids) die.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1768
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #179 on: February 17, 2018, 02:59:39 PM »

KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #180 on: February 17, 2018, 05:28:53 PM »
I donít think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.

More for the international viewers on the rivalry between the states and federal government:

US agents arrest more than 200 undocumented immigrants, target 122 businesses in California sweep https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/federal-immigration-raids-in-southern-california-target-122-businesses.html

Now the article has to do with illegal immigrants which is off-topic, but if you see the laws California has passed to stick it to the Federal government, you can see how complicated things get with 50 states. And of course, the Fed will challenge a lot of the laws California has passed regarding this in court.

So imagine sorting out all the various opinions regarding firearms.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2018, 05:32:48 PM by KTG »

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 368
  • Location: Cotswolds
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #181 on: February 18, 2018, 01:57:16 AM »
I donít think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.


Yes, there would have to be exceptions of course. But...

It is the change in the frame of reference for the debate that is most important.

Starting from a position of no guns for any one and then working out from there who actually needs them is a revolution in thinking.
It is the revolution in thinking that is needed if you want to end the gun culture madness.

Yes, you can poo-poo it. That is the natural human reaction to all really brave ideas.
But just as we managed to stop bleeding sick people, burning witches, enslaving races etc etc we can make changes when enough brave people's voices are heard above the crowd.


KTG

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 197
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #182 on: February 18, 2018, 06:32:07 AM »
Wow, I brought up those militiaís before...

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/jury-returns-no-convictions-for-four-men-in-bunkerville-standoff-case/

Looks like the US government is having a some problems convincing juries what some of these guys are doing is wrong.

Honestly I think Bundy and his supporters totally crossed the line in that standoff with the sheriff. But itís guys like these that you will never disarm. At least not while they are alive.

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #183 on: February 18, 2018, 06:52:38 AM »
I donít think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.

The interesting part of that argument, is that most of Alaska is closer to Canada than the rest of the US. So I don't really understand why the rural Canadian type of regulations can't work in rural Alaska?

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9464
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #184 on: February 18, 2018, 09:10:44 AM »
I donít think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.

The interesting part of that argument, is that most of Alaska is closer to Canada than the rest of the US. So I don't really understand why the rural Canadian type of regulations can't work in rural Alaska?

Lots of guns in rural Canada - we have bears of some sort almost everywhere, plus people hunt, and farmers worry about coyotes (and fishers).  I know lots of people who own guns.  They have to have taken a gun safety course - which seems perfectly reasonable to me.  I took driver ed, after all.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #185 on: February 18, 2018, 10:35:23 AM »
I donít think it would be fair for a total ban of guns in rural areas of America, especially in Alaska. Not only to deal with certain kinds of wildlife, but with the great distances between homes and police, some people might be waiting 20-30 minutes for a police officer to show up in an emergency. Far too long.

The interesting part of that argument, is that most of Alaska is closer to Canada than the rest of the US. So I don't really understand why the rural Canadian type of regulations can't work in rural Alaska?

Lots of guns in rural Canada - we have bears of some sort almost everywhere, plus people hunt, and farmers worry about coyotes (and fishers).  I know lots of people who own guns.  They have to have taken a gun safety course - which seems perfectly reasonable to me.  I took driver ed, after all.

I lived in a small rural northern Canadian village my whole childhood (up to the last couple years of high school).  Plenty of guns in the town and the neighboring native reserve.  Our highschool actually had a gun check rule (leave your rifle at the office gun safe - no loaded weapons on the grounds) since a lot of us would go hunting immediately after school.  I suspect that this particular office policy has been changed in the 20 odd years since I left, but the kind of oppressive gun-free regime that many gun advocates imagine in Canada is pure fantasy.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9464
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #186 on: February 18, 2018, 10:51:22 AM »

I lived in a small rural northern Canadian village my whole childhood (up to the last couple years of high school).  Plenty of guns in the town and the neighboring native reserve.  Our highschool actually had a gun check rule (leave your rifle at the office gun safe - no loaded weapons on the grounds) since a lot of us would go hunting immediately after school.  I suspect that this particular office policy has been changed in the 20 odd years since I left, but the kind of oppressive gun-free regime that many gun advocates imagine in Canada is pure fantasy.

Maybe that fantasy is the only way they can explain to themselves why we are not all shooting each other?  Really our secret is our excessive (in their minds) niceness/politeness.  We wouldn't shoot each other, that would be rude!

gaja

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #187 on: February 18, 2018, 12:13:54 PM »

I lived in a small rural northern Canadian village my whole childhood (up to the last couple years of high school).  Plenty of guns in the town and the neighboring native reserve.  Our highschool actually had a gun check rule (leave your rifle at the office gun safe - no loaded weapons on the grounds) since a lot of us would go hunting immediately after school.  I suspect that this particular office policy has been changed in the 20 odd years since I left, but the kind of oppressive gun-free regime that many gun advocates imagine in Canada is pure fantasy.

Maybe that fantasy is the only way they can explain to themselves why we are not all shooting each other?  Really our secret is our excessive (in their minds) niceness/politeness.  We wouldn't shoot each other, that would be rude!

In Norway, 10% of the population has a hunting license (more, if you only count those older than 18). I grew up in a smallish town, with guns in every house. But we never saw anyone carrying them in the streets, not even the police.  Most of us, except for the chalky white bawbag who has been locked up since 2011, understand that guns are for food and protection from polar bears, not for shooting people.

We got our independence from the Swedish oppressors in 1905, with barely a shot fired. Democracy and diplomacy works. No need for war if you can vote to change the government.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #188 on: February 18, 2018, 03:42:25 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.

Why only go back as far as Sandy Hook?  We lived in Blacksburg, VA and my wife was enrolled at VT in 2007.  Fortunately she was in off-campus vet school rotations the day it happened. Lots of politicians raised money promising to do something then did nothing, even when the "pro gon control" party had 60 senators and control of the house and presidency.

I believe it's an issue that neither political party will make a deal on, they'd rather raise money in front of a microphone.  Sorry if it's a polarizing statement, but they all have blood on their hands

I firmly believe there's been a deal to be made to go back to regulations on pistol grips and no clips larger than 10 rounds,  we don't need citizens owning military style weapons.

What impact would banning pistol grips have on anything?  I'm open to ideas on stopping these attacks, but the scary looking gun isn't the problem.  Unfortunately, the shooter could have achieved this horror with nearly any semiautomatic firearm of decent caliber. 

Unfortunately this kid was nuts, reported multiple times to law enforcement and nobody did anything about it.  On top of that, the school had security procedures which allowed him into the premises.  Fixing those problems would be a good start. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1275
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #189 on: February 18, 2018, 05:26:48 PM »
Midwest...I think part of it is it requires more skill to shoot a Ruger Ranch .223 than an AR, its harder to hold at the waist.  Personal preference though.

Going back to the 10 shot clip limit would be a good start.

My point is I think Republicans were ready to deal (personally heard that from a Georgia congressman back then who had no contest in reelection), but then the deal gets tainted with stuff that prevents anything from happening today, like a national firearms registry.

I've shot both of those rifles and many others and never felt compelled to fire a rifle from my hip.  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. 

I'd like to prevent these massacres from happening.  California has many of the things being proposed in place, yet they are still happening on a regular basis.

This kid was reported on multiple occasions to law enforcement, had multiple visits from law enforcement to his home, and a school that was aware he was a threat.  Maybe we should consider a  new approach to school security and how we could prevent crazies like him from getting firearms.

PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #190 on: February 18, 2018, 05:40:02 PM »
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.

chasesfish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2545
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Texas
    • Years in the making, I created a journal!
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #191 on: February 18, 2018, 06:14:33 PM »
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.

You said it better than I could and I was close to both the VT shooting and the downtown Dallas police massacre in the summer of 2016.  Seconds count and high capacity magazines need to go back to their ban, at least in calibers higher than a .22

I'm not dilution all thinking there's going to be a national gun ban, grew up with firearms, and own a bunch handed down, but we didn't have the same awful body counts during the 10 years with the capacity bans.

This is just the inter web, I don't think I'll change people's mind

TexasRunner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #192 on: February 18, 2018, 06:16:15 PM »
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.

But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.

Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.

Rimu05

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 191
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #193 on: February 18, 2018, 06:39:03 PM »
My question is if itís not more of a mental health issue than a gun issue.
Other countries have mental health issues as well. But we don't have the shootings. Next excuse.

Yeah I would say its more of a cultural thing.

Then again, Mexico is pretty violent and they flat out ban guns there.

If there weren't any guns, people would be using knives, bats, swords, who knows what else. There would still be killings, just not mass shootings.

People are people, no matter where they are from. Mankind is a violent species. Don't kid yourself thinking otherwise. Pick up any history book and half of it will focus on who was at war with who.

Good luck walking into a room and stabbing 500 or so like the Vegas shooting.  Knifes will be safer in regards to mass causality.

This so much. I have posted multiple times on social media. Will restricting guns stop people from killing? Of course note, but I would rather a person come at me with a knife, a rock or a bat. I have a higher chance of survival and I can run away... It's also far easier to disarm someone with a knife.

On that note, when I was in Kenya, in response to the mass shootings. They increased security. Going into the mall? Have to go through a metal detector and the guards at the mall entrance get to search your stuff. This in U.S would probably cause mass outrage. Even the airport in Kenya, the initial security check is far from the airport. You have to go through security, the cars are searched by the guards there and they use a portable metal detector. Then you drive about a mile or two to the airport.

Also, the security check into the airport is at the entrance of the airport building. That means friends and family are not allowed inside the airport.

In the U.S, every time I am at the airport, I realize, anyone could waltz in with a gun or a bomb very easily!


PKFFW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 375
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #194 on: February 18, 2018, 07:15:52 PM »
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.

Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)

As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed.  US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture.  Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.

I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.

px4shooter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 98
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #195 on: February 18, 2018, 07:25:05 PM »

Canada has lots of long guns, very few hand guns, but our shooting rates are much lower than our neighbours'.  It is culture -


So really, if Americans want to have fewer shooting deaths, they need to examine who they are and how they want to change.  Change is certainly possible.  Just watch the original "Parent Trap" (the Hayley Mills version) and then the remake.  Watch for the cigarettes.  Everyone smoked in the original, almost no-one in the remake.  Major change.

I snipped some of your response to highlight the most honest statements on this issue. Culture is the issue. You are absolutely right. Sadly, if you want to look at what sub-culture continues to embrace violence and spread the acceptance, you will be called a racist, bigot, etc. When an entire sub-culture, that even spans racial lines, is all about violence, killing, shooting, demeaning women, etc., why is there a surprise that same sub-culture has an extremely high violence rate and it destroys the statistics for the rest of the US?

But, like I said above, it is a sub-culture. That is the issue, but trying to highlight the issue will create nothing but racist based responses. The sub-culture loves violence, promotes the acts, and even manages to do these acts in areas with some of the most strict gun control. It shows the guns aren't the problem. It is the mental mindset of that sub-culture that is openly embraced.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3744
  • Location: Avalon
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #196 on: February 19, 2018, 01:27:46 AM »

Canada has lots of long guns, very few hand guns, but our shooting rates are much lower than our neighbours'.  It is culture -


So really, if Americans want to have fewer shooting deaths, they need to examine who they are and how they want to change.  Change is certainly possible.  Just watch the original "Parent Trap" (the Hayley Mills version) and then the remake.  Watch for the cigarettes.  Everyone smoked in the original, almost no-one in the remake.  Major change.

I snipped some of your response to highlight the most honest statements on this issue. Culture is the issue. You are absolutely right. Sadly, if you want to look at what sub-culture continues to embrace violence and spread the acceptance, you will be called a racist, bigot, etc. When an entire sub-culture, that even spans racial lines, is all about violence, killing, shooting, demeaning women, etc., why is there a surprise that same sub-culture has an extremely high violence rate and it destroys the statistics for the rest of the US?

But, like I said above, it is a sub-culture. That is the issue, but trying to highlight the issue will create nothing but racist based responses. The sub-culture loves violence, promotes the acts, and even manages to do these acts in areas with some of the most strict gun control. It shows the guns aren't the problem. It is the mental mindset of that sub-culture that is openly embraced.
I'm not North American so I am at a loss to understand what sub-culture you are referring to.  Can you explain?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #197 on: February 19, 2018, 06:11:48 AM »
^^^ Well, since weíre talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess heís talking about the white male subculture?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12291
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #198 on: February 19, 2018, 07:49:15 AM »
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.

Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)

As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed.  US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture.  Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.

I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.

The whole question is a red herring anyway.  There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment.  The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns.  That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.

You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense.  Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).

Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: US School Shootings
« Reply #199 on: February 19, 2018, 08:09:47 AM »
But "guns should be illegal" "certain parts of guns should be illegal" and ignoring the 2nd amendment doesn't get anyone anywhere.

Still listening for anyone to list suggestions for removing the second amendment or codifying the militia.

Making certain parts of certain guns illegal is not helpful to the conversation without changing the 2nd amendment.
Have you changed your own post for some reason? (striking and bolding)

As for the 2nd Amendment, as I've posted before, I'm not interested in trying to argue it should be changed or even that your laws should be changed.  US society has collectively decided that at this point in time it is willing to accept the number of deaths that come with its gun culture.  Until that changes, no law changes, whether the 2nd Amendment is changed or not, will make any difference.

I am, very occasionally, unable to stop myself from pointlessly pointing out when someone is in error (pistol grip is "cosmetic" only) or using faulty logic.

The whole question is a red herring anyway.  There's no real need to change the 2nd amendment.  The supreme court (in the US v Miller) ruled that the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the regulation of guns or parts of guns.  That's why fully automatic weapons/sawed off shotguns are more difficult to buy, and require registration.

You have to remember that it wasn't until 2008 (DC v Heller case) that the supreme court radically changed course and decided that the 2nd amendment protected a citizen's right to a handgun privately for home defense.  Prior to this, decisions about the 2nd amendment were tied to the use of a weapon in a militia (y'know . . . . like it actually says in the 2nd amendment).

Changing the most recent interpretation of the 2nd amendment is all that's needed.

I prefer to use factual definitions of things. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

Militia, when the constitution was written, was very clearly intended to be an individual right. The definition used at that time somewhat fell out of use, and the idea that a militia was an organization came later.

Quote
^^^ Well, since weíre talking about mass shootings, and school shootings in particular, and a plurality of those shootings is committed by white men, I guess heís talking about the white male subculture?

px4 certainly veered off topic, but by and large, the most gun violence seems to be between gangs... so I believe he is referring to gang culture.  I don't know why he had to drag race into it, as gangs are made up of all races of people. His point stands, gang violence, partially a result of the war on drugs, is responsible for most firearms homicides.