Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[ZiprHead]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

Why? So very few people die of murder it isn't even really worth thinking about at all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

It seems so disingenuous.

We shouldn't enact laws to restrict access to weapons used for massacres because massacres account for so few gun related deaths.

We also shouldn't enact laws to restrict access to guns that cause most violent crime related death because 2nd Amendment.

It should just be:

We shouldn't try to regulate guns. The collateral damage is acceptable.

Seems peculiar that it seems easier to buy a gun than to vote.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

It seems so disingenuous.

We shouldn't enact laws to restrict access to weapons used for massacres because massacres account for so few gun related deaths.

We also shouldn't enact laws to restrict access to guns that cause most violent crime related death because 2nd Amendment.

It should just be:

We shouldn't try to regulate guns. The collateral damage is acceptable.

Seems peculiar that it seems easier to buy a gun than to vote.

Did you see Jon Stewart interview that Oklahoma State Senator? He's so pro-gun he tried to use the argument that the 2nd Amendment was the only right that uses the phrase "shall not be infringed". And Jon was like "oh, so this is a semantic argument?" Jon brutalized this guy.

 

[thebeave]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy who goes into the rough inner city neighborhoods saying, "Ok, everyone, hand 'em over". Good luck with that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy who goes into the rough inner city neighborhoods saying, "Ok, everyone, hand 'em over". Good luck with that.

That's the only way to accomplish it???

 

[thebeave]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy who goes into the rough inner city neighborhoods saying, "Ok, everyone, hand 'em over". Good luck with that.

That's the only way to accomplish it???

Well, no. I was being a little facetious. But the point remains. How are are going to get them to just turn over their handguns?

 

[Rhea]

Why would we NOT think about things that are adversely affecting lots of children?

Because think of the children arguments are almost always proposing going too far.

Doubling down on the slippery slope fallacy?
Appeal to lack of citation?

They are not “almost always.” Many times they are the argument for, “can we just address the most tragic?”

Polio isn't a think of the children argument.

You didn’t see all the pictures of children in iron lungs to get vaccine compliance?

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

Yes, as I said, the high capacity assault style weapons seem to be the weapon of choice for those wanting to kill school children. They are used a high percent of the time, aren’t they. So if one were to say, “Let’s stop the source of the weapon used most often to kill lots of children. We’ll work on criminal-to-criminal killings, and killings of people who have a chance at a police alert button afterward - after we take care of the threat to people who are utterly defenseless.

You have such a weird way of thinking. “Dead children? I mean, there are more dead gangsgters, so why should we do anything about the dead children?”

Yes, I am proposing that the rapid-fire, high magazine load weapons are good for nothing but offense, nothing but terrible crimes. There is no legitimate need for an AR-type weapon.

Is there a problem with chipping away at the dangerous parts of gun culture?

And why do you call them the dangerous part?

The one that deliberately goes after utterly defenseless populations of children.
You know, THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

What exactly IS WRONG with chipping away at gun culture? Are you making the fallacy of the slippery slope? That if one chip is successful then complete gun bans start the following morning?

Because the intent is to go down that slope. It's the same thing the Christians have been doing with abortion.

Bullshit. Whose intent. What percent of the people who want increased gun control want a total ban?
It’s not a slippery slope that anyone is on, and certaibnly not a large percent. Dare I say, can you even name a 1% population that wants a total ban?

Because remember, aboce, you said children being 1% of murder victims meant you didn’t have to do anything about it.

SURELY you can name an organization of at least 3.3M people whose stated goal is a total ban? Otherwise, stop making one sauce for the goose and another for the gander.

Or are you one of those that says, “wait, if you make sure people can’t get their guns stolen and straw purchases are stopped, that means only the criminals will have guns” Which is non-sensical?

Sorry, I don’t have patience for gun fetishists.
Guns should be controlled such that:
- their sales are known and followed - no more illegal straw sales
- their ownership is known and controlled - no more stolen guns

And how does that stop the theft of guns??

1. “their sales are known and followed - no more illegal straw sales.” This means that the current easy flow of guns from manufacturers to criminals will have accountability. The straw-buyer will risk jail-time because 600 sales to a single individual will be flagged (and how!) when the level is at 10 or 20, not 600. That’s 580 fewer illegal handguns on the street. And the retailer who sells to those people will be flagged (and how!) so that multiple straw-buyers are stopped. 1000s fewer hand gun. And the distributors who sell many hundereds of guns to a little shop on the border of Illinois will be flagged (and how!) just like the opioid drug stores, so that multiple retailers will be stopped. 10K-100K guns stopped. And the manufacturers who sell suspicious numbers of weapons to certain distributors will be held accountable and flagged (and how!) stopping millions of guns bound for straw sales and street corner distribution. This accounts for the VAST majority of illegal guns used in crimes.
2. “their ownership is known and controlled - no more stolen guns” This means that gun owners are held accountable for having their guns stolen. They have to self-decalare that they have laid eyes on their guns and still have them, every year would be prudent. If that gun is used in a crime they have to answer for how it was able to be stolen. THis acccounts for 10-15% of guns used in crimes, which is small but significant.

The only way to stop the theft is to remove them all--which is the intent.

Wrong. Street guns have a pretty short life, because hanging onto it after a crime is risky. Not as risky as it is in other countries who do a better job, but it’s risky. GUn gets used in a crime, it gets ditched. Stop the flow of illegal guns and the number of guns in the wild drops fast.

And again, the intent of WHOM? Your nefarious boogeyman?
Name the multi-million member groups stating a purpose of complete ban.

Any time a gun fetishist replies with, “but gun control means you’ll take them all!1!!1!” I will reply, “if those are the only two choices you can envision, you deserve to have them all taken.”

I own guns and I have no patience at all for the stupid dangerous sky-is-falling arguments of fetishists.

The forces trying to "regulate" guns have admitted their goal is banning.

Name them. Name these forces. I call bullshit. It’s a very small number of people. The majority of Americans favor gun control;

1. Monitoring sales
2. Mandatory background checks on every single sale from any source
3. Regular verification that a gun is still in the posession of its owner
4. Heavy penalties for illegal carry
5. No open carry or concealed carry

I other words; use them in your home of for hunting, be responsible and be accountable.

 

[Rhea]

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy who goes into the rough inner city neighborhoods saying, "Ok, everyone, hand 'em over". Good luck with that.

“Inner city” guns have a short shelf life. When they are used in a crime, they are discarded. Stop the flow of new guns and the supplie will diminish quickly. No one has to go in and ask for them.

 

[SIB]

I used to believe in six shooters and bolt action rifles only on the east coast. Now that marginalized people, criminals, and special Ed is dictating the pace, I may just join the NRA.

Write down what we do. Everything we do. Be honest. That is how we should be judged. Then, judge ourselves using the same standards we do others.

The last dude was on "a plan". And they actually think they are crusading for good.

 

[ZiprHead]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy who goes into the rough inner city neighborhoods saying, "Ok, everyone, hand 'em over". Good luck with that.

That's the only way to accomplish it???

Well, no. I was being a little facetious. But the point remains. How are are going to get them to just turn over their handguns?

No questions asked buy backs would be a start. Huge penalties imposed after the buy backs.

Maybe the Aussies here can explain how they accomplished it.

 

[Patooka]

Maybe the Aussies here can explain how they accomplished it.

Firstly not have so many gun manufacturing companies based in the country. Personally, I don't see that happening. Whoever now owns Colt, Remington (I think they're both owned by Česká zbrojovka Uherský Brod nowadays, I'm not sure), Rock Island, Browning, Smith and Wesson, Springfield Armorys and foreign companies like Sig Saur, FN, and a metric fuckton of others aren't going to pull up tent pegs and move. You're not going to get rid of guns.

What you can do is do a much better job of keeping track of them. And that requires dragging the ATF out of the 20th century.

But the big thing Australia had that America doesn't is time. The Australian government did only take a few months to roll out some legislation that is true. But after that they kept hammering at the problem for years. I remember my Dad owning two semi auto .22LR rifles. He didn't surrender them until 1998 - two years after the Port Arthur Massacre. I'm going to sound like Grandpa Simpson right now, but things did move slower in the 90s. People lose their shit if their Uber Eats is 5 minutes late nowadays. Any sort of measure for sensible gun control today unfortunately is expected to deliver immediate results. And if it doesn't, I have complete confidence people like Derec and Loren will shoot it down as a complete failure. And I honestly don't have a solution for that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Just as most people would agree that abortion should have some restrictions so do people agree that guns should have some restriction. Both currently do. What we can’t seem to have is a good faith discussion about where to draw the lines of regulation. At some points the needs of public health can outweigh the rights of the individual and we have made those decisions on many subjects before.

And we already did--machine guns, things over .50 caliber and disguised guns are highly restricted.

That’s your opinion where the line should be drawn but there are other opinions to be had. Since they disagree with yours they’re probably wrong. But they’re there.

The point is you're ignoring that an agreement was reached, you are pretending there was nothing when in reality you're trying to get a second bite at the apple. That's usually a Republican tactic but whoever is doing it it means honest negotiation isn't possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are. you serious? I've yet to hear any large group of people say that their goal is to ban all guns. I'd love it if there was no such thing as guns, but I'm living with a man who owns several guns, all unloaded. Hopefully, they will be sold before too long, if I keep reminding him. I'm a realist. I understand that we have the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS has interpreted in a way that I don't like. Nothing I can do about that.

The leaders of the organizations trying to regulate guns have admitted their true goals.

The majority of people, including gun owners, want much tighter gun regulation. Of course this won't stop all murders. Of course, there will still be illegally owned guns. But, we need to start somewhere to lesson the impact of gun shootings, especially school shootings. You and I didn't have to deal with this when we were in school, did we? Real change takes time. If we sit back and whine that we can't due a damn thing to slow down school shootings, we are stupid, lazy people.

For example, how did a 6 year old have access to a gun that was used to shoot his teacher? Why? Can't we do something to keep guns out of the hands of children and teenagers if we really try?

I do favor requiring most guns to be locked up--the problem is many want to use that as a stealth restriction, mandating storage requirements that many can't meet. It's like California's attempt to ban "unsafe" handguns--the courts have recently smacked them down for it being a stealth ban as no new guns will meet their requirements and the old models eventually end up updated and thus no longer on the market.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Polio isn't a think of the children argument.

You didn’t see all the pictures of children in iron lungs to get vaccine compliance?

It's about everyone, not just children.

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

Yes, as I said, the high capacity assault style weapons seem to be the weapon of choice for those wanting to kill school children. They are used a high percent of the time, aren’t they. So if one were to say, “Let’s stop the source of the weapon used most often to kill lots of children. We’ll work on criminal-to-criminal killings, and killings of people who have a chance at a police alert button afterward - after we take care of the threat to people who are utterly defenseless.

But plenty of mass shootings don't use them--clearly, they are not required. The effect of a measure is the result after displacement, not simply the number that used the path you removed. Thus the effect of banning assault weapons is the difference between mass shootings with assault rifles and mass shootings with handguns, not the total mass shootings with assault rifles. What I'm saying is that this effect will be quite small--mass shooters generally have time to ensure their targets are dead and when they do that the type of weapon becomes irrelevant.

It would save some in cases like the Las Vegas shooting--but that one is a major outlier, not a typical mass shooting.

You have such a weird way of thinking. “Dead children? I mean, there are more dead gangsgters, so why should we do anything about the dead children?”

Yes, I am proposing that the rapid-fire, high magazine load weapons are good for nothing but offense, nothing but terrible crimes. There is no legitimate need for an AR-type weapon.

You realize most handguns have the same rate of fire? And big magazines make little difference as the limiting factor is almost always a lack of targets.

Is there a problem with chipping away at the dangerous parts of gun culture?

And why do you call them the dangerous part?

The one that deliberately goes after utterly defenseless populations of children.
You know, THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD?

You haven't established that it's a particularly dangerous part of the culture.

What exactly IS WRONG with chipping away at gun culture? Are you making the fallacy of the slippery slope? That if one chip is successful then complete gun bans start the following morning?

Because the intent is to go down that slope. It's the same thing the Christians have been doing with abortion.

Bullshit. Whose intent. What percent of the people who want increased gun control want a total ban?
It’s not a slippery slope that anyone is on, and certaibnly not a large percent. Dare I say, can you even name a 1% population that wants a total ban?

The majority of Americans don't support the Dobbs decision, either.

Because remember, aboce, you said children being 1% of murder victims meant you didn’t have to do anything about it.

[Citation needed]

The 1% figure was about mass shootings, I said nothing about the age of the victims.

SURELY you can name an organization of at least 3.3M people whose stated goal is a total ban? Otherwise, stop making one sauce for the goose and another for the gander.

Or are you one of those that says, “wait, if you make sure people can’t get their guns stolen and straw purchases are stopped, that means only the criminals will have guns” Which is non-sensical?

Sorry, I don’t have patience for gun fetishists.
Guns should be controlled such that:
- their sales are known and followed - no more illegal straw sales
- their ownership is known and controlled - no more stolen guns

And how does that stop the theft of guns??

1. “their sales are known and followed - no more illegal straw sales.” This means that the current easy flow of guns from manufacturers to criminals will have accountability. The straw-buyer will risk jail-time because 600 sales to a single individual will be flagged (and how!) when the level is at 10 or 20, not 600. That’s 580 fewer illegal handguns on the street. And the retailer who sells to those people will be flagged (and how!) so that multiple straw-buyers are stopped. 1000s fewer hand gun. And the distributors who sell many hundereds of guns to a little shop on the border of Illinois will be flagged (and how!) just like the opioid drug stores, so that multiple retailers will be stopped. 10K-100K guns stopped. And the manufacturers who sell suspicious numbers of weapons to certain distributors will be held accountable and flagged (and how!) stopping millions of guns bound for straw sales and street corner distribution. This accounts for the VAST majority of illegal guns used in crimes.
2. “their ownership is known and controlled - no more stolen guns” This means that gun owners are held accountable for having their guns stolen. They have to self-decalare that they have laid eyes on their guns and still have them, every year would be prudent. If that gun is used in a crime they have to answer for how it was able to be stolen. THis acccounts for 10-15% of guns used in crimes, which is small but significant.

That's not going to stand up in court--you can't hold people accountable for their property after it's stolen.

As for the comparison to the opioid crisis--note that the crackdown is not accomplishing the supposed objectives, it's primary effect is to make life miserable for chronic pain patients and it has lead to many suicides. You're proposing to double down on error.

The only way to stop the theft is to remove them all--which is the intent.

Wrong. Street guns have a pretty short life, because hanging onto it after a crime is risky. Not as risky as it is in other countries who do a better job, but it’s risky. GUn gets used in a crime, it gets ditched. Stop the flow of illegal guns and the number of guns in the wild drops fast.

It only gets ditched if it's actually fired and even then it can be ditched by selling it to another criminal who doesn't know it's history.

Name them. Name these forces. I call bullshit. It’s a very small number of people. The majority of Americans favor gun control;

1. Monitoring sales
2. Mandatory background checks on every single sale from any source
3. Regular verification that a gun is still in the posession of its owner
4. Heavy penalties for illegal carry
5. No open carry or concealed carry

I other words; use them in your home of for hunting, be responsible and be accountable.

Few would object to your #1.
Your #2 is why locally background checks polled 90+% but the ballot measure that tried to go too far voted only 50%.
#3 is completely unreasonable.
#4 is situational--most illegal carry is completely harmless, either people not thinking about it when entering a place where it's illegal, or not knowing it's illegal in the particular place. (And, yes, it's quite possible to be ignorant of that. Consider a law that prohibits carry where alcohol is sold--when you walk into the business do you know if it sells alcohol??? A bar, certainly, but if alcohol is a small part of their business you very well might not know it.)
#5, I believe most will disagree with no concealed carry.

 

[Shadowy Man]

In reality going after assault weapons is an attempt to chip away at guns very much like the eternal efforts from the right to undermine abortion.

Just as most people would agree that abortion should have some restrictions so do people agree that guns should have some restriction. Both currently do. What we can’t seem to have is a good faith discussion about where to draw the lines of regulation. At some points the needs of public health can outweigh the rights of the individual and we have made those decisions on many subjects before.

And we already did--machine guns, things over .50 caliber and disguised guns are highly restricted.

That’s your opinion where the line should be drawn but there are other opinions to be had. Since they disagree with yours they’re probably wrong. But they’re there.

The point is you're ignoring that an agreement was reached, you are pretending there was nothing when in reality you're trying to get a second bite at the apple. That's usually a Republican tactic but whoever is doing it it means honest negotiation isn't possible.

So we are only allowed a single chance to negotiate policy? Then it’s set forever? That isn’t how things work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mass shootings are less than 1% of murders. Most murders are committed with ordinary handguns.

So let's get ordinary handguns off the street too.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy who goes into the rough inner city neighborhoods saying, "Ok, everyone, hand 'em over". Good luck with that.

That's the only way to accomplish it???

Well, no. I was being a little facetious. But the point remains. How are are going to get them to just turn over their handguns?

No questions asked buy backs would be a start. Huge penalties imposed after the buy backs.

Maybe the Aussies here can explain how they accomplished it.

Accomplished what? The murder rate was declining, it continued to decline. Block out the blip around the law change and there's no sign that they accomplished anything. They used to talk about there being no mass shootings since but that is no longer true.

 

[Elixir]

Another 3 dead children at a Christian School in Nashville.
It's a school for pre-K to 6th grade... the shooter is among the dead but I can't find any information on the shooter's age, weaponry or anything else. Kinda weird.

 

[Derec]

Another 3 dead children at a Christian School in Nashville.
It's a school for pre-K to 6th grade... the shooter is among the dead but I can't find any information on the shooter's age, weaponry or anything else. Kinda weird.

Not really that weird. Such details usually get released a bit later, not immediately.

 

[TomC]

Another 3 dead children at a Christian School in Nashville.
It's a school for pre-K to 6th grade... the shooter is among the dead but I can't find any information on the shooter's age, weaponry or anything else. Kinda weird.

Not really that weird. Such details usually get released a bit later, not immediately.

To me, the weird part is K-6 students shooting each other.
YMMV
Tom