Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Toni]

So why are such background checks not implemented? Surely they are regulatory rather than legislatived

For that to be effective a federal authority would need to be in charge. In America that would be the ATF. The ATF aren't allowed to record such information.



Fucking ridiculous, I know.

Because gun tracing doesn't accomplish much. We used to have a local handgun registry. It finally got scrapped when it came to light that the police had never gotten useful information from it.

Lolol. Even you are not that naive.

 

[Patooka]

Because gun tracing doesn't accomplish much. We used to have a local handgun registry. It finally got scrapped when it came to light that the police had never gotten useful information from it.

A local registry turned out to not be effective? Naw, say it isn't so.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Funny how LP keeps calling everyone else paranoid.

Projection much?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A LOT of kids, especially teenaged boys, engage in petty theft, fighting, property damage, illegal consumption of various substances and sometimes go joy riding or worse. What is the biggest difference between those who go on to spend a lot of their adulthood in and out of cells and those who go on to college, jobs or careers, marriage, children? A lot of it in this country boils down to color of skin, closely correlated with socioeconomic status. Two kids doing exactly the same thing in different parts of town are often treated very differently because of what they look like and where they live.

The solution is not to start treating all kids harshly. It's to treat all kids with kindness and compassion--and firmness and consistency and fairness. Consequences, not jail sentences.

Always trying to make it about race. It's not. It is socioeconomic. And it's no surprise that things are treated differently in different parts of town--areas with more problems will in general come down harder on those who cause problems.

...or the ones that look like them.

What I find interesting in that all these claims it is just "socioeconomic", that isn't followed by a called for an economic great awakening level investment into these socioeconomically deprived areas.

Just justifications as to why there are no banks, investment, or grocery stores in said areas.

 

[Gospel]

I think we need to focus on the person, not the type of gun. I agree with you that sensible gun laws are needed, but I think Dems are getting in their own way over and over again.

Surely DEMS do indeed get in their own way but what's stopping the rest of us? hmm?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A sufficiently sweeping ban will stop most mass shooters but that's all you'll do about crime.

And that would be a worthy goal. I already said I’m not Compelled by the argument that if you can’t stop all crime there’s no point in stopping any crime.

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

(Suicide is another matter--there you will have some effect. I question how much, though, as you just make people get a bit more complex about it.)

The right doesn’t let this get in the way of their efforts to say restrict abortion for which they supported all Kinds of Legislation that simply made it harder and harder and more complex.

As far as I'm concerned both sides get it very wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How many people dying because they can't defend themselves is too many?

The vast majority of people who kill in self defence are just criminals defending themselves against other criminals.

It's therefore impossible to give a shit about anyone else who finds themselves in that situation.

Apparently.

That's not what the data says.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about showing how licensing firearms is supposed to do much of anything to save children?

Well, for a start it plugs the enormous gaping hole of 'lost' firearms that have been diverted from legal to illegal ownership.

That's what the gun-banners would have you believe. Most crime guns are stolen.

It's all about getting a list for future seizure.

Your paranoia on this is already well established. You needn't repeat it.

So this was innocent:

Texas AG Tried to Get a List of Trans Residents … For Some Reason

The office of Ken Paxton’s request speaks to the increasing scrutiny and targeting of transgender individuals by GOP lawmakers

www.rollingstone.com

Or is it only evil when done by the right?

Hint: Very few crimes are committed by the legal owner of a gun, and those that are committed are often not of the type to be deterred by registration requirements anyway.

Hint: Almost all illegally owned guns began as legally owned guns. Registration requires responsibility - owners need to know where their guns are, and to report loss or theft promptly.

Reporting theft isn't going to do much of anything about theft.

And if you want thefts reported do something about theft reports. As it stands few people will bother with a report if it's below their insurance deductible.

Hint: Gun-banners make a big deal about what was done in Australia--but in reality what was done had basically no effect.

That's utter bollocks. It had a huge and well documented effect. I know you have seen the data posted here previously, and I am aware that you refuse to believe it; But your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the existence of data isn't a rebuttal of it.

I see the pattern--the slope is unchanged in the big picture. No effect.

The murder rate was declining, it continued to decline at basically the same rate.

So what? The point of the exercise was to reduce the risk of mass shootings.

And I've already established that self defense saves more than mass shooting kills.

Maybe it had an effect on mass shootings but it's certainly not visible (other than as a blip that returns to normal) in the murder rate.

It's plenty visible in the mass shooting rate, which has fallen to zero, and remained there for twenty six years.

Adjusted for population, that would be the equivalent of almost two years without a single mass shooting in the USA.

Don't try to tell me that the US mass shooting frequency is basically indistinguishable from 0.5 per annum, because that would be a lie so large that your pants might start a firestorm and destroy your entire city.

I do agree we have a mass shooting problem, but that doesn't mean your approach would save lives overall.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you lump in teenagers with children in order to inflate your numbers - implicitly pretending that all those numbers are due to things like school shooting - you are being dishonest. And we cannot solve these problems by being dishonest or by referring to meaningless legalisms.

Which is my point all along in this thread.

You can't solve a problem until you identify it. Any solution attempted on a misidentified problem is unlikely to be of much benefit. Step #1 is identify the problem. Step #1 is never to act.

It appears that your objective is exactly "never to act". And to justify your inaction by reference to the fact that the figures you won't allow to be collected, or disagree with, or have questioned (whether or not justifiably) haven't been collected.

I have no objection to collecting statistics, but I do object to rigged research designed to support a position rather than find out the facts. Unfortunately, the latter predominates in politically sensitive issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I find interesting in that all these claims it is just "socioeconomic", that isn't followed by a called for an economic great awakening level investment into these socioeconomically deprived areas.

Just justifications as to why there are no banks, investment, or grocery stores in said areas.

It's not a problem you can fix by throwing money at it. We've seen multiple attempts, all have been major failures. I'm not sure there is even a fix--any place that has suffered heavy emigration ends up a shit hole. The inner cities have suffered heavy emigration.

And there aren't such businesses because it's not profitable to be there. They are looking at profit and loss, not race.

 

[Shadowy Man]

A sufficiently sweeping ban will stop most mass shooters but that's all you'll do about crime.

And that would be a worthy goal. I already said I’m not Compelled by the argument that if you can’t stop all crime there’s no point in stopping any crime.

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

Again a false dichotomy. It’s not all guns or no guns. If there are people who want to use guns for legitimate self-defense they won’t be bothered by common sense gun laws.

And I’d like to see the statistics of AR-15s used in self defense versus those used in mass shootings. Do you have that information or are you speaking what you’d like to be true?

 

[bilby]

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings.

You believe this; But if you want others to, you're going to have to provide some compelling evidence. Because it stinks like horseshit.

 

[bilby]

How many people dying because they can't defend themselves is too many?

The vast majority of people who kill in self defence are just criminals defending themselves against other criminals.

It's therefore impossible to give a shit about anyone else who finds themselves in that situation.

Apparently.

That's not what the data says.

What fucking data? Are you hiding it from us?

 

[bilby]

And I've already established that self defense saves more than mass shooting kills.

No, you've asserted it, without evidence, repeatedly.

That's not the same thing as 'establishing' it.

 

[Toni]

A sufficiently sweeping ban will stop most mass shooters but that's all you'll do about crime.

And that would be a worthy goal. I already said I’m not Compelled by the argument that if you can’t stop all crime there’s no point in stopping any crime.

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

(Suicide is another matter--there you will have some effect. I question how much, though, as you just make people get a bit more complex about it.)

The right doesn’t let this get in the way of their efforts to say restrict abortion for which they supported all Kinds of Legislation that simply made it harder and harder and more complex.

As far as I'm concerned both sides get it very wrong.

Why aren’t school shootings enough reason to institute reasonable limits to gun ownership?

Why not reinstitute the 1994 ban on AR-15 rifles and similar weapons? Their ban doesn’t d reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What I find interesting in that all these claims it is just "socioeconomic", that isn't followed by a called for an economic great awakening level investment into these socioeconomically deprived areas.

Just justifications as to why there are no banks, investment, or grocery stores in said areas.

It's not a problem you can fix by throwing money at it. We've seen multiple attempts, all have been major failures. I'm not sure there is even a fix--any place that has suffered heavy emigration ends up a shit hole. The inner cities have suffered heavy emigration.

It is so hard to imagine why lack of investment has led to places becoming "shitholes". I mean, perhaps if something was done BEFORE it rotted.

And there aren't such businesses because it's not profitable to be there.

I know, like I said, you justify the reasons why it has rotted and remains rotted. It is a self-perpetuating cycle that started with a decision to not do (or significantly deprioritize) business there.

And I've already established that self defense saves more than mass shooting kills.

No, you've asserted it, without evidence, repeatedly.

That's not the same thing as 'establishing' it.

Yeah, there is a reason why suicides are also kept out of his statement. Guns are more likely to kill oneself than save a person's life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A sufficiently sweeping ban will stop most mass shooters but that's all you'll do about crime.

And that would be a worthy goal. I already said I’m not Compelled by the argument that if you can’t stop all crime there’s no point in stopping any crime.

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

Again a false dichotomy. It’s not all guns or no guns. If there are people who want to use guns for legitimate self-defense they won’t be bothered by common sense gun laws.

And I’d like to see the statistics of AR-15s used in self defense versus those used in mass shootings. Do you have that information or are you speaking what you’d like to be true?

You have no reasonable way to sort out the mass shooters from the self defense people. Both will appear law-abiding.

And just because AR-15 type guns appeal to people who want to make a statement doesn't mean that they're necessary.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And I've already established that self defense saves more than mass shooting kills.

No, you've asserted it, without evidence, repeatedly.

That's not the same thing as 'establishing' it.

I've posted it before. It goes in one eye and out the other, I don't feel any need to dig it up time and again.

Civilian justified homicides are a few times higher than mass shooting deaths and self defense has a much higher survival rate so the number of incidents is even higher. Unfortunately, we do not have a good count of total incidents but even the low numbers are far, far above the mass shooting death rate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why aren’t school shootings enough reason to institute reasonable limits to gun ownership?

Why not reinstitute the 1994 ban on AR-15 rifles and similar weapons? Their ban doesn’t d reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings?

"Reasonable" is one of those words with a highly variable meaning and shouldn't be used in arguments like this.

And why we shouldn't restore it is that it was just an exercise in doing something meaningless. Guns are a spectrum, not a binary--you can't define what "should" be banned without encountering crazy edge cases where a trivial difference between two guns makes one legal and one not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I find interesting in that all these claims it is just "socioeconomic", that isn't followed by a called for an economic great awakening level investment into these socioeconomically deprived areas.

Just justifications as to why there are no banks, investment, or grocery stores in said areas.

It's not a problem you can fix by throwing money at it. We've seen multiple attempts, all have been major failures. I'm not sure there is even a fix--any place that has suffered heavy emigration ends up a shit hole. The inner cities have suffered heavy emigration.

It is so hard to imagine why lack of investment has led to places becoming "shitholes". I mean, perhaps if something was done BEFORE it rotted.

Nice job of missing the point. The same thing happens at the level of countries. People see a place going downhill and they get out. The ones that actually take the leap of getting out are on average better than the ones who don't.

And there aren't such businesses because it's not profitable to be there.

I know, like I said, you justify the reasons why it has rotted and remains rotted. It is a self-perpetuating cycle that started with a decision to not do (or significantly deprioritize) business there.

You have it backwards--the decision not to do business there is the result, not the cause.

And I've already established that self defense saves more than mass shooting kills.

No, you've asserted it, without evidence, repeatedly.

That's not the same thing as 'establishing' it.

Yeah, there is a reason why suicides are also kept out of his statement. Guns are more likely to kill oneself than save a person's life.

Suicide is a separate issue. And strangely, guns either cause high suicide rates or high homicide rates but very strangely almost never both. Until you can explain that they look a lot more like a symptom, not a cause.