• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

So maybe people---and by people, I mean the people who count, you know: men should start caring out women's sports,, about women's opportunities, about sexual assault and harassment and health care and birth control and abortion.
100%.

And I do want to apologize for having a go at you. You are of course, absolutely correct: If people (I mean more or enough people) cared enough, there would be a lot more talk and action re: pay discrepancy, lack of media coverage, abuse, opportunities for girls in K-12 in sports and at university we could legit say that we cared.

Obviously you do care.
Trust me - I understand your frustration. My second go to argument whenever this comes up is asking the person which team won the WNBA last year or the Women's World Cup in cricket or the WNRL. The answer is pretty much what you'd expect.
 
You're missing my point.

The guns are out there. Far more than the criminals will use up within the timeframe before it becomes easy for them to make them.

Thus the only way to disarm them is seize the guns that are in private hands. And that probably won't work.

To think that restricting sales will disarm the criminals is very much wishful thinking.
In other words, the NRA won, so some children will die and trying to do anything to stop it could be fruitless, so trying is a bad idea.

You'll defend Scorched Earth against Gaza to keep Hamas down, knowing it won't end Hamas... but goodness no, you are steadfastly against any attempt to reign in gun violence in the US. Oh... it'll be futile, we can't try to keep newer guns out of the hands of people intent on murdering children because older guns are out there. It was dumb luck the Oregon tragedy didn't reach the magnitude of Sandy Hook.
 
There are an estimated 20 to 24 million AR 15s in private hands in America. That ship has sailed.
And something like 10x as many handguns.

But people don't want to accept that there are no good answers and demand good "answers" that don't work.
Another Loren post making perfect the enemy of the good.
 
The problem with gun violence is the easy, almost unfettered access to firearms in general but specifically firearms with large capacity magazines abd the. Capacity to fire very quickly.
We have a total of one shooting where magazine capacity was relevant. And that guy had stuff far more illegal than a big magazine.

Most shooters have plenty of time to reload, capacity is not relevant.
If capacity is not relevant, then laws limiting capacity shouldn’t be an issue.
Capacity is not an issue with almost all mass shootings. Doesn't mean capacity isn't an issue in defensive situations. Mass shootings nobody is shooting back (if somebody is shooting back that almost certainly ends the mass shooting even if they don't stop the shooter), they can reload.
 
The problem with gun violence is the easy, almost unfettered access to firearms in general but specifically firearms with large capacity magazines abd the. Capacity to fire very quickly.
We have a total of one shooting where magazine capacity was relevant. And that guy had stuff far more illegal than a big magazine.

Most shooters have plenty of time to reload, capacity is not relevant.
If capacity is not relevant, then laws limiting capacity shouldn’t be an issue.
Capacity is not an issue with almost all mass shootings. Doesn't mean capacity isn't an issue in defensive situations. Mass shootings nobody is shooting back (if somebody is shooting back that almost certainly ends the mass shooting even if they don't stop the shooter), they can reload.
Okay, we'll just limit access to low capacity weapons and let people have unlimited access to high capacity ones. Problem solved! :)
 
The problem with gun violence is the easy, almost unfettered access to firearms in general but specifically firearms with large capacity magazines abd the. Capacity to fire very quickly.
We have a total of one shooting where magazine capacity was relevant. And that guy had stuff far more illegal than a big magazine.

Most shooters have plenty of time to reload, capacity is not relevant.
If capacity is not relevant, then laws limiting capacity shouldn’t be an issue.
Capacity is not an issue with almost all mass shootings. Doesn't mean capacity isn't an issue in defensive situations. Mass shootings nobody is shooting back (if somebody is shooting back that almost certainly ends the mass shooting even if they don't stop the shooter), they can reload.
If it takes more time to reload, it gives more time for people to flee or attack the shooter and for rescuers to arrive.

Reloading time is the same in all situations.

So your analysis is flawed.
 
The problem with gun violence is the easy, almost unfettered access to firearms in general but specifically firearms with large capacity magazines abd the. Capacity to fire very quickly.
We have a total of one shooting where magazine capacity was relevant. And that guy had stuff far more illegal than a big magazine.

Most shooters have plenty of time to reload, capacity is not relevant.
This whole "It's never going to work even though we've never tried it", is getting pretty tiresome.
You can learn a lot by examining counterfactuals.

In this case, pretend the shooters couldn't get high capacity magazines and what effect that would have had on the outcome.

Las Vegas, certainly--but note the guy had stuff much more illegal than a big magazine. A ban would not have mattered.

One from Arizona should have, he was jumped while reloading. But it turned out that his reload was damaged, there is no way he would have gotten any more shots off if he hadn't been jumped.

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?
 
Since sex-change surgeries are not done in schools you are not really comparing apples to apples.
Apparently you are unaware that the righties in the US tell people the kids go to school as a boy and come back from school as a girl.
I was out of town visiting my mother last weekend and had lunch with a relative who is in the right. She basked me about boys playing in girls sports and unforgivably it wasn’t until after the trip that I really came up with the best responses. I am not used to talking to people face to face on these issues. Ultimately though I am far more worried that my daughter will be shot at school than she will compete against a boy in her sport. And the statistics back that up. I wish I had told her that I thought it was a fabricated issue, like voter fraud. I did tell her I have never seen it come up In my kids’ schools. And I live in the SF Bay Area.
Know what's more likely than either: being in an airplane crash.
 
There are an estimated 20 to 24 million AR 15s in private hands in America. That ship has sailed.
And something like 10x as many handguns.

But people don't want to accept that there are no good answers and demand good "answers" that don't work.
Another Loren post making perfect the enemy of the good.
No. You claim good, doesn't make it so.

Estimates of the number of guns out there range over the hundreds of millions. Pretty hard to seize guns you don't know about. (Which is why gun banners are always after gun registration.) You'll disarm the law abiding before you disarm the criminals.

You've fallen into the standard do-something trap. No, doing "something" is virtually certain to be the wrong action. A right action stands on it's own, anything that is presented as an answer to we-have-to-do-something has already failed that test.
 
The problem with gun violence is the easy, almost unfettered access to firearms in general but specifically firearms with large capacity magazines abd the. Capacity to fire very quickly.
We have a total of one shooting where magazine capacity was relevant. And that guy had stuff far more illegal than a big magazine.

Most shooters have plenty of time to reload, capacity is not relevant.
If capacity is not relevant, then laws limiting capacity shouldn’t be an issue.
Capacity is not an issue with almost all mass shootings. Doesn't mean capacity isn't an issue in defensive situations. Mass shootings nobody is shooting back (if somebody is shooting back that almost certainly ends the mass shooting even if they don't stop the shooter), they can reload.
If it takes more time to reload, it gives more time for people to flee or attack the shooter and for rescuers to arrive.

Reloading time is the same in all situations.

So your analysis is flawed.
That's the theory. Except in practice the actual rate of fire is well below what even half-ass reloading could keep up with.

I wish there was a good answer, but that doesn't make bad answers good.
 
The problem with gun violence is the easy, almost unfettered access to firearms in general but specifically firearms with large capacity magazines abd the. Capacity to fire very quickly.
We have a total of one shooting where magazine capacity was relevant. And that guy had stuff far more illegal than a big magazine.

Most shooters have plenty of time to reload, capacity is not relevant.
This whole "It's never going to work even though we've never tried it", is getting pretty tiresome.
You can learn a lot by examining counterfactuals.

In this case, pretend the shooters couldn't get high capacity magazines and what effect that would have had on the outcome.

Las Vegas, certainly--but note the guy had stuff much more illegal than a big magazine. A ban would not have mattered.

One from Arizona should have, he was jumped while reloading. But it turned out that his reload was damaged, there is no way he would have gotten any more shots off if he hadn't been jumped.

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?


Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?

You made such a very good question I copy-pasted it several times.

The only answer I can give is that it has worked every time it's been employed. Apart from that minor detail - fuck. You've got me dead to rights. But good luck with your "School shootings are just a necessary evil to preserve our well regulated belief in a 2nd Amendment militia".

The solution is there if you want it. Also, it's worth pointing out the people who need more than 5 shots to defend themselves should not be near a firearm. But I'll be generous and say 10 rounds. If they were the only magazines available it would cut down the amount of casualties your country suffers - your fantasies notwithstanding.
 
Since sex-change surgeries are not done in schools you are not really comparing apples to apples.
Apparently you are unaware that the righties in the US tell people the kids go to school as a boy and come back from school as a girl.
I was out of town visiting my mother last weekend and had lunch with a relative who is in the right. She basked me about boys playing in girls sports and unforgivably it wasn’t until after the trip that I really came up with the best responses. I am not used to talking to people face to face on these issues. Ultimately though I am far more worried that my daughter will be shot at school than she will compete against a boy in her sport. And the statistics back that up. I wish I had told her that I thought it was a fabricated issue, like voter fraud. I did tell her I have never seen it come up In my kids’ schools. And I live in the SF Bay Area.
Know what's more likely than either: being in an airplane crash.
Depends how often one flies. These kinds of statistics ( and you provided now sources so I can’t know for sure) are usually averaged over such large swaths of parameter space they aren’t useful for predictions.

ETA: I admit one can die in an airplane crash without ever flying, but that’s even lower odds compared to being a passenger on board.
 
Since sex-change surgeries are not done in schools you are not really comparing apples to apples.
Apparently you are unaware that the righties in the US tell people the kids go to school as a boy and come back from school as a girl.
I was out of town visiting my mother last weekend and had lunch with a relative who is in the right. She basked me about boys playing in girls sports and unforgivably it wasn’t until after the trip that I really came up with the best responses. I am not used to talking to people face to face on these issues. Ultimately though I am far more worried that my daughter will be shot at school than she will compete against a boy in her sport. And the statistics back that up. I wish I had told her that I thought it was a fabricated issue, like voter fraud. I did tell her I have never seen it come up In my kids’ schools. And I live in the SF Bay Area.
Know what's more likely than either: being in an airplane crash.
Sadly what is fairly likely is sexual assault.
 
The problem with gun violence is the easy, almost unfettered access to firearms in general but specifically firearms with large capacity magazines abd the. Capacity to fire very quickly.
We have a total of one shooting where magazine capacity was relevant. And that guy had stuff far more illegal than a big magazine.

Most shooters have plenty of time to reload, capacity is not relevant.
This whole "It's never going to work even though we've never tried it", is getting pretty tiresome.
You can learn a lot by examining counterfactuals.

In this case, pretend the shooters couldn't get high capacity magazines and what effect that would have had on the outcome.

Las Vegas, certainly--but note the guy had stuff much more illegal than a big magazine. A ban would not have mattered.

One from Arizona should have, he was jumped while reloading. But it turned out that his reload was damaged, there is no way he would have gotten any more shots off if he hadn't been jumped.

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?


Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?

Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?

You made such a very good question I copy-pasted it several times.

The only answer I can give is that it has worked every time it's been employed. Apart from that minor detail - fuck. You've got me dead to rights. But good luck with your "School shootings are just a necessary evil to preserve our well regulated belief in a 2nd Amendment militia".

The solution is there if you want it. Also, it's worth pointing out the people who need more than 5 shots to defend themselves should not be near a firearm. But I'll be generous and say 10 rounds. If they were the only magazines available it would cut down the amount of casualties your country suffers - your fantasies notwithstanding.
I feel that it is important to point out that Loren dues not have children. While Loren can make some good points, I’ve noticed that his ability to feel empathy or concern is limited to how much an issue affects him or his immediate family. I don’t mean this as a ding. I know a lot of people like that. But I do see it as a limitation.
 
The problem with gun violence is the easy, almost unfettered access to firearms in general but specifically firearms with large capacity magazines abd the. Capacity to fire very quickly.
We have a total of one shooting where magazine capacity was relevant. And that guy had stuff far more illegal than a big magazine.

Most shooters have plenty of time to reload, capacity is not relevant.
If capacity is not relevant, then laws limiting capacity shouldn’t be an issue.
Capacity is not an issue with almost all mass shootings. Doesn't mean capacity isn't an issue in defensive situations. Mass shootings nobody is shooting back (if somebody is shooting back that almost certainly ends the mass shooting even if they don't stop the shooter), they can reload.
If it takes more time to reload, it gives more time for people to flee or attack the shooter and for rescuers to arrive.

Reloading time is the same in all situations.

So your analysis is flawed.
That's the theory. Except in practice the actual rate of fire is well below what even half-ass reloading could keep up with.
You are contradicting your earlier claim that capacity is not an issue.
I wish there was a good answer, but that doesn't make bad answers good.
That has never stopped you.

Loren Pechtel said:
Why should we expect a benefit from something history says never was a realistic limit in the first place?
That is the bedrock principle of conservatism - no expectation of improvement because of history. There would be no innovation if everyone held fast to that principle.
 
Last edited:
Since sex-change surgeries are not done in schools you are not really comparing apples to apples.
Apparently you are unaware that the righties in the US tell people the kids go to school as a boy and come back from school as a girl.
One example:
I am aware what your nutters (and they are legion) say.
The curse of modern Australia is our perverse fascination with America. It means I hear and learn far more about the USA that I need or want.
 
Back
Top Bottom