Yet another school shooting

[barbos]

Please present disinterested evidence that press coverage of school shootings helps angry youths to get a gun and kill people at school.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. While you might be able to take away the guns you aren't going to be able to take away all the weapons. We aren't going to take away all the cars!

However, going after the motivation doesn't require removing all the weapons.

Look later in the thread, you'll find an example of what I have in mind actually working.

You are so right. If guns are unavailable, these attacks will take place using other weapons. That's why there are dozens of deadly knife and vehicular attacks on British, Canadian, French, German and Australian schools each year.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

Your hypotheses really don't stand up well to even the slightest scrutiny, do they. And yet you keep on trotting them out...

Taking guns away is not a viable idea in US, in fact it's even less viable than overthrowing Putin in Russia
So I have a better idea which I suspect will work - voluntary total ban on coverage of school shootings by the media (TV, facebook, etc,but mainly TV). CNN&Co just need to air the statement saying "This is a last time we cover school shooting, here is why...." and that should be it.
All these coverages are exactly the same, same story, same script, what's the point to repeat it each time?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But more importantly, I question your comment about self-defense. Are lethal firearms really required for the majority of self-defense scenarios? I'm asking if you have any data to support your assertion that the number of people injured or killed as a result of not being able to kill an attacker with a gun would outweigh the number of lives saved due to fewer guns being in circulation generally.

You're moving the goalposts!!

I'm saying that gun-grabbing won't disarm the criminals and that's the vast majority of gun attacks. By the time all those guns out there wear out they will be making them. 3D printing and CNC manufacturing will let you make a gun in your garage. The technology is already there, just not at a home-use price point.

What gun-grabbing could accomplish if aggressive enough would be to disarm the crazies. They won't have the criminal contacts to get guns. Thus I'm comparing self defense to mass shootings (and not the inflated numbers routinely tossed around that include lots of gang fights.) The number of self defense killings is more than 10x the number of mass-shooting deaths--and 90% of self-defense shootings don't kill the target. Thus if even 1% bad guys who are shot would have otherwise killed the person it's at parity.

 

[Patooka]

Please present disinterested evidence that press coverage of school shootings helps angry youths to get a gun and kill people at school.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. While you might be able to take away the guns you aren't going to be able to take away all the weapons. We aren't going to take away all the cars!

However, going after the motivation doesn't require removing all the weapons.

Look later in the thread, you'll find an example of what I have in mind actually working.

You are so right. If guns are unavailable, these attacks will take place using other weapons. That's why there are dozens of deadly knife and vehicular attacks on British, Canadian, French, German and Australian schools each year.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

Your hypotheses really don't stand up well to even the slightest scrutiny, do they. And yet you keep on trotting them out...

Also, it appears that there is a lot less paperwork involved in purchasing a firearm than a car. Every year, my car needs to have an eSafety check, it needs to be insured with a CTP provider before I can take it out on the road. And even then I'm not allowed to drive it if my dinner comprised of Jim Beam and coke, and I'm not allowed to drive at the speed of sound near primary schools in the morning or afternoon. These are fair and reasonable restrictions in my opinion. I just don't see why there can't be restrictions and regulations involving firearms designed to keep the general public safe. And a firearm is far, far less useful in my day-to-day than a car.

Additionally, who the fuck is advocating that all firearms need to be confiscated and shot into the sun? My take on gun control is something like this:

IF weapon is superior than what allied soldiers used to invade Normandy in 1944 in terms of rate of fire and ammunition capacity
- THEN explain in 30 seconds or less why such a weapon is necessary for you to own.
- IF explanation is woefully inadequate (it probably will be, dick compensating is not an acceptable justification)
- THEN surrender said firearm
ELSE have a nice day.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 14542

Talk about biased reporting!

This is actually is one of the things His Flatulence got right.

The problem is that "mental illness" is a very broad category--and most people who fall into that category have no reason to be prohibited from having guns. No regard for the constitution at all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm ok with gun ownership for home defense for now. But I am positive nobody needs an AR-15 for home defense. These types of weapons of mass destruction have to be removed from public circulation. I think we all agree there is no silver bullet to the problem of deaths through gun violence but at least start hacking at these mass shootings and get heavy duty weapons out of the hands of the general public. Fucking about with laws about magazines and fully automatic this and bumper stock that gets us nowhere. The problem appears to be getting worse and nothing is being done. That is a scandal.

Actually, such guns are often recommended for home defense use.

Full rifles are bad idea because of overpenetration.

Shotguns work pretty well if you're strong. They have quite a bit of recoil, though, which makes them out of the question for the sufficiently weak and discourage practice for those of moderate strength.

Handguns likewise work pretty well if you're strong, but again there are recoil issues, especially if you want a larger round. Also, the recoil makes it hard to put multiple rounds on target without a lot of practice.

This leaves the handgun/rifle crosses--the so-called assault rifle. Low recoil so it's easy to practice and easy to hold on target. It also fires a light bullet so it has nowhere near the overpenetration that a true rifle has.

Thus for the weaker people this is the defense weapon of choice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, I know I'm the only person in this world who feels for this kid's pain and wants to know what we are going to do to stop school shootings.

We need to start dealing with this before anyone even thinks that a possible solution to whatever bad things they are feeling and experiencing gets resolved with a gun or twenty.

Anything to pretend the problem is society at fault.

Some of the reports have said he killed small animals. That's a big, big red flag and not due to his recent losses.

 

[Copernicus]

View attachment 14542

Talk about biased reporting!

This is actually is one of the things His Flatulence got right.

The problem is that "mental illness" is a very broad category--and most people who fall into that category have no reason to be prohibited from having guns. No regard for the constitution at all.

How did Trump get that right? Nobody would seriously question that many, if not all, of these shooters are mentally deranged. What the tweet is really implying is that we should do nothing but focus on the mental illness issue. There is no known way to eliminate, or even significantly reduce, the number of potentially deranged murderers that manage to get their hands on weapons without significantly curtailing the ability of people to legally purchase such weapons--i.e. gun control laws. Trump himself repealed Obama's executive action that tried to curtail access of guns to the mentally ill, so he actually got this particular issue wrong well before he issued that tweet. The image accurately conveys that fact.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, it appears that there is a lot less paperwork involved in purchasing a firearm than a car. Every year, my car needs to have an eSafety check, it needs to be insured with a CTP provider before I can take it out on the road. And even then I'm not allowed to drive it if my dinner comprised of Jim Beam and coke, and I'm not allowed to drive at the speed of sound near primary schools in the morning or afternoon. These are fair and reasonable restrictions in my opinion. I just don't see why there can't be restrictions and regulations involving firearms designed to keep the general public safe. And a firearm is far, far less useful in my day-to-day than a car.

To take it out in public, not to possess it. And you're not allowed to carry your gun if your dinner was Jim Beam and coke, either. And you're not allowed to shoot anywhere in most cities (except at ranges) without a very good reason. The only things missing from your list are the safety checks (for which there is little need) and the insurance (which is really just a means of making guns expensive and getting a list of guns. Very little of what a gun does is insurable.)

IF weapon is superior than what allied soldiers used to invade Normandy in 1944 in terms of rate of fire and ammunition capacity
- THEN explain in 30 seconds or less why such a weapon is necessary for you to own.
- IF explanation is woefully inadequate (it probably will be, dick compensating is not an acceptable justification)
- THEN surrender said firearm
ELSE have a nice day.

1.5 million crew-served machine guns. And plenty of M1 Garands with a rate of fire the same as modern firearms. It did have a smaller magazine--but that was because it fired a much heavier round.

 

[Ford]

Perspective:

There are survivors of Columbine who probably have kids the same age as the victims of this latest shooting.

That massacre happened in 1999. So there are likely members of that graduating class who have children in high school now.

A generation has passed since that horrific incident. and here we are again.

 

[bilby]

... On the surface, fine. Look at the details and it's not so fine. You can't let even a family member borrow a gun. ...

Oh, the humanity!!

Why should you be allowed to let a family member borrow a gun?

How can this "right" to loan firearms to family possibly be so vitally important as to render measures to prevent people from dying unacceptable?

 

[Opoponax]

Numerous fatalities are being stated. We lost. That simple. The NRA won, we lost, and all of the mass murder victims are are lost.

But you know... terrorism and shit. We need to stay on top of that.

Attacking the NRA about this is wrong--the NRA's lobbying budget is small. It's just they say what tens of millions of gun owners think.

Here's the thing about the NRA. But first: fuck the NRA.

Now, you're right about the amount of money they contribute. It's surprisingly small, relatively speaking. BUT, their members are fucking lockstep like a North Korean parade troupe. If candidate 1 gets an A- and candidate 2 gets an A+ rating from the NRA, Candidate 2 wins and Candidate 1 may as well have never existed. A significant number of people wait for the NRA to tell them how to vote, and then that's how they vote.

And have you seen their recent videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgMRP4KOALw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag&t=2s

Fucking maniacs.

 

[Opoponax]

I'm ok with gun ownership for home defense for now. But I am positive nobody needs an AR-15 for home defense. These types of weapons of mass destruction have to be removed from public circulation. I think we all agree there is no silver bullet to the problem of deaths through gun violence but at least start hacking at these mass shootings and get heavy duty weapons out of the hands of the general public. Fucking about with laws about magazines and fully automatic this and bumper stock that gets us nowhere. The problem appears to be getting worse and nothing is being done. That is a scandal.

Actually, such guns are often recommended for home defense use.

Full rifles are bad idea because of overpenetration.

Shotguns work pretty well if you're strong. They have quite a bit of recoil, though, which makes them out of the question for the sufficiently weak and discourage practice for those of moderate strength.

Handguns likewise work pretty well if you're strong, but again there are recoil issues, especially if you want a larger round. Also, the recoil makes it hard to put multiple rounds on target without a lot of practice.

This leaves the handgun/rifle crosses--the so-called assault rifle. Low recoil so it's easy to practice and easy to hold on target. It also fires a light bullet so it has nowhere near the overpenetration that a true rifle has.

Thus for the weaker people this is the defense weapon of choice.

Sorry to respond to two posts in a row of yours, it just so happens that...

An AR-15 is a horrible home defense gun precisely because of over-penetration. Example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am5avCq64oU

Go to the 3 minute mark, and then the 14 minute mark. To summarize, over penetration is an obvious problem with both an AR and an AK.

For someone who's not that big and strong, a 12 gauge shotgun is not a good choice, but 20 gauge shotgun is. I'd recommend a semi-auto because they're somewhat easier to fire than a pump action.

To be fair, there are home defense rounds for the AR, but the muzzle velocity of those rounds is still around 2900 FPS, which means that it's still going to go through every wall of your house, then right through whatever's outside of it. A 20 gauge will absolutely hit whatever's in front of it inside your home and it won't go very far outside, if at all. And it'll definitely incapacitate (at least) any person it hits.

 

[marc]

We have this notion of innocent until proven guilty.

ironic coming from someone who doesn't seem to have a problem with police shooting unarmed, innocent people if they feel threatened.

If your intent is the gun-grabbers's holy grail of a list of privately held guns it's not so good.

Now this sounds like the full on paranoid propaganda the NRA pushes. Even ignoring the whole overblown 'gun grabber' epithet, how is a list of gun owners a 'holy grail'?

Also, look at the crap of putting people's psychiatric records in law enforcement databases. It would be illegal for a doctor to submit records to such a system!

And why would a person's entire psychiatric record need to be in the database? Why not just a flag that Dr. X has submitted that patient Y is a potential danger. Then the patient can petition to have the flag removed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

View attachment 14549
View attachment 14550

Why are people do dumb they fall for this shit? Seriously. Do people really think atheists run around with ATHEIST written on their shirts? This is like a cartoon where the artist labels things: a can of soda with the word SODA on it.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

based on a photo circulating of a masked man wearing a MAGA hat... also dumb fucks who really need to wait until they have verified facts.

Drawing a conclusion based on the hat is too soon. The MAGA hat could have been him with a parody shot. However, since that time there's been more info coming out. (1) three anonymous classmates said they saw him with a white supremacist leader on three occasions. the leader denies that he knew Cruz personally. (2) the leader of the group confirmed that Cruz was a member of the group and took part in paramilitary exercises. the leader says nothing Cruz did was condoned by the group. Since that time an online alt-righter got pissed off and wrote on the Internet that the group's leader Jordan Jereb was actually trolling the interviewer. If so, maybe this is another elaborate ploy by the Right to play victim. You know, victim of a left-biased/Jewish mainstream media, etc etc.

So, yes, some more reliable info is needed now.

I will add that there is probably a link between mental health and membership in extremist groups like White supremacy groups or Islamist groups in the US.

In any case, even if the proximal cause of Cruz killing the people was white supremacy or Islamist terrorism or whatever, there are still two facts to deal with. (a) Cruz is clearly out of his mind. He's mentally disturbed. (b) AR-15 shooting 45 rounds per minute enables attackers to kill many people quickly.

Sorry to be Captain Obvious. If we are to make policy decisions based on events like these we have to look at the facts such as these.

 

[Hermit]

 

[Elixir]

lot less paperwork involved in purchasing a firearm than a car.

And it's a lot easier to rent a car than a gun. Probably one reason automotive vehicles are becoming more popular as weapons of mass murder...

 

[Malintent]

The Constitution does not prohibit gun control laws or even limited types of gun ownership bans. The barriers are all political, not legal. Unfortunately, the court system is dominated by a pro-gun SCOTUS that will seek creatve ways to block some practical gun control measures. For example, they have now ruled that gun ownership is protected if the purpose is home defense, even though the purpose made explicit in constitutional language is militia duty.

.. and the state police fill that role... so what the 2nd amendment REALLY says is that States have the right to form their own police force, independent of the Federal government, and arm them. We do that. done. average citizens are not guaranteed the right, by the constitution, to own and use guns. The state has the right to form an armed police force.

If you want to own a gun, become a cop or join the military.

 

[SimpleDon]

I agree with David Leonhardt in today's New York Times, The Truth About the Florida School Shooting.

He says,

Here's the truth, the kids killed in Florida yesterday, had the misfortune of growing up - of trying to grow up - in a country that didn't care enough about their lives.

May we honor them with an anger that does not cease until the unnecessary deaths of children do.

You know I grew up in Miami during the HEIGHT of the Cocaine Wars. We had shootouts constantly. We had race riots. We had massive immigration when Castro emptied his jails/mental hospitals. Guess what? I NEVER EVER ONCE FELT THREATENED IN SCHOOL. NEVER.

Cubans escaping from communism are good immigrants, just like the Norwegians who are certain to flood our shores to escape from socialism after our dear leader invited them.

The opinion piece I quoted from pointed out that we are now the most dangerous of the wealthy nations for a child to be born into. It is due to a combination of a high infant mortality, high teenager traffic death rate and the school shootings. None of which we seem to be capable of lowering. We don't even seem to be capable of trying to lower them.

All because of the conservative ethos of not doing anything that would infringe on the individual freedoms of conservatives to do something stupid.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Constitution does not prohibit gun control laws or even limited types of gun ownership bans. The barriers are all political, not legal. Unfortunately, the court system is dominated by a pro-gun SCOTUS that will seek creatve ways to block some practical gun control measures. For example, they have now ruled that gun ownership is protected if the purpose is home defense, even though the purpose made explicit in constitutional language is militia duty.

.. and the state police fill that role... so what the 2nd amendment REALLY says is that States have the right to form their own police force, independent of the Federal government, and arm them. We do that. done. average citizens are not guaranteed the right, by the constitution, to own and use guns. The state has the right to form an armed police force.

If you want to own a gun, become a cop or join the military.

I disagree.

2nd amendment: a well regulated militia blah blah blah ==> the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This has logical form A ==> B. It does not mean there is not a C ==> B. It does not mean (not A) ==> (not B).

Two points under consideration: there are two other reasons for keeping and bearing arms: hunting for food and personal home defense. While the Constitution does not mention either of these, it does say in the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It further states in the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So I will say that an absolutist statement of "If you want to own a gun, become a cop or join the military" is negated by rights of the people, recognized since the beginning to hunt and for personal defense.

BUT this counter needs to be a nuanced view. The states retain a right if so voted within the state to regulate the types of guns/weapons etc, i.e. states' rights. Congress itself does not have an enumerated power to regulate guns, EXCEPT the commerce clause. Because trade across states and between states is so frequent with our current technology and society, the laws now need to be federal.

So in my interpretation, there is nothing stopping Congress from making a law to ban AR-15's or similar, provided such law is reasonable, allows for hunting, and allows for personal defense [by other types of guns]. [A possible exception could be if a state has explicitly allowed automatic weapons in its state Constitution or its state laws. We might then need Supreme Court to step in.] Still, Congress can never ban guns completely to citizens unless there is a Constitutional Convention.