Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Elixir]

Color me gungrabber.
It’s worse than you depict, Rhea. Recycled parts, 3D printers … there will soon be more “ghost guns” than legal ones on the seedy streets of ‘Murkin cities.
The only solution is to make ALL firearms illegal by default, with exceptions granted only after application, examination and qualification. Kinda like Japan.
And that ain’t gonna happen.
Stay safe y’all - if you can.

 

[Gospel]

My reply addressed Derec's main point, which was that lefty liberal politics was why we didn't hear about it. I disagreed. I didn't miss his point. You missed mine.

I think politics of the news organizations plays a huge role is why certain cases are covered extensively (and excessively) and why others disappear from coverage quickly.
Take Trayvon Martin. The news media yapped about him incessantly for years, and it wasn't because the case had an unusually large body count.

Yeah, it’s because a child was gunned down by two trigger happy cowards wearing badges.

You're getting your cases mixed up.

You're likely right, however I must mention that the community often recalls previous incidents when new ones arise, leading to increased frustration with each case. This is why certain situations may receive more attention than anticipated.

 

[bilby]

When gun control is debated, the argument is always made that nobody is trying to take people's guns away, just institute some common-sense reforms.

No, it isn't. The argument that I presume you are thinking of is that nobody is trying to ban all private gun ownership.

Here you come along and falsify that. Some people (like you) do want to take people's guns away.

Gun control is entirely about taking guns away from people who are not safe or competent to have guns, and about reducing the immediate availability of guns to people who own them, so that they don't use them while in the throes of a short-term mental crisis (eg "road rage").

To conflate, as you do here, "people who are not safe of competent to have guns" with "people in general" is an error; I can see how you might fall into this error, because the subset of "people in general" who are not safe or competent yo have guns is very large. But they're certainly not the same thing.

Even nations with extremely restrictive gun laws still have plenty of firearms in public ownership and regular public use.

They just don't have lots of people being shot dead on a daily basis.

 

[bilby]

a tiny cylinder with 30,000 feet of potential energy

"Feet" are not a unit of energy. Potential or otherwise.

Sure they are, in an environment where a constant acceleration and constant mass can be assumed.

Potential energy is mgh - m is roughly constant for a given instance of an aircraft at a given monent in time (now); g is roughly constant within the range of locations in which an aircraft might reasonably be expected to be found.

So only h (height) is necessary to estimate potential energy. h is a distance; Feet are a unit of distance, and hence imply a particular potential energy for a particular aircraft.

 

[bilby]

The vast majority of guns used in crimes are not owned legally. Thus the laws about who may have one don't have much effect.

The vast majority of guns used in crimes started out (usually very recently) as legally owned guns. Thus laws about who has one, and how they must secure it against theft or misuse, have a massive effect.

The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns know that, in the absence of strict laws about who has one, merely noting their posession of a gun is insufficient to cause either surprise and alarm amongst the public*, or a massive police response to public reports of an armed person*. Thus laws about who has one, and how they must not frighten or intimidate other people by flashing it about in public, also have a massive effect.










* Does not apply to persons with high levels of skin pigmentation.

 

[bilby]

Gun safe--impossible for many.

Then it's a good thing there's no overriding need for a gun.

In the implausible case of a person who really does have such an overriding need, they need to arrange their life so that a gun safe is not only possible, but actual.

One simple option is to have your gun secured at the shooting range where it is most commonly used, if for some reason you are unable to adequately secure it at your home or business.

(By the way: Gun used for self defence--impossible for all. A gun is not a defensive device).

 

[bilby]

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

Apart from literally every single other OECD nation in the entire world.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

a tiny cylinder with 30,000 feet of potential energy

"Feet" are not a unit of energy. Potential or otherwise.

You also tell people "yards" isn't a volume?

 

[bilby]

a tiny cylinder with 30,000 feet of potential energy

"Feet" are not a unit of energy. Potential or otherwise.

You also tell people "yards" isn't a volume?

It's typically around 2.5 imperial pints (ie 50 fl. oz; As we learned in school, a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yard_of_ale

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

Umm...Australia seems like a good example. I mean, if you think American Samoa is a great proxy for the entire US economy, I think when it comes to gun control, Australia is a much more appropriate model.

You mean the Australia where you can't detect any long term alteration in the murder rate due to their gun laws? Murder was declining, it continued to decline. Block out a window around the law change and you just see a gap in the line.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The vast majority of guns used in crimes are not owned legally. Thus the laws about who may have one don't have much effect.

Your math is wrong.
If the vast majority are possessed illegally, then stopping the SOURCE, which at some point was legal, stops the thefts. You can’t steal what people don’t have. And you won’t steal, what people don’t make easy to steal.

If people aren’t allowed to carry guns around in their trucks, guns will not get stolen from their truck.
If people aren’t allowed to own a gun without locking it up, then guns will not get stolen/taken-by-kids from the rack.

While that certainly should be addressed it's not that big a percentage of guns that are stolen.

I do agree that guns should in general be locked up and always should be locked up if children are about. However, the left tries to go overboard on this resulting in nothing being done. (Lock up, yes. Gun safe--impossible for many.)

If people are too fucking inconvenienced to adhere to not leaving their guns around to create the massive stolen gun problem, you think enforcing that and making them secure their guns is “going overboard”. WTF? If that’s their incompetency, then I honestly do not care that owning a gun becomes ”impossible for many” Of those incompetents who are feeding the stolen gun problem.

No, I think requiring them to secure them in gun safes is going overboard. I favor requiring locking up everything except defense weapons in houses with no children (you have an unsecured firearm and you let a child into your property, you're guilty. You're not guilty if a child enters without permission), but I don't think the locking up needs to be able to stand up to more than the simplest tools. You either have tools and time (at which point you can bring in a plasma cutter which will make quick work of any home safe around) or you don't (and the securing doesn't need to stand up to more than curious children.)

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

There is a lot of data, it has been shown to you. Not the least is every other country that does not allow careless gun ownership. Then also US states with good control laws and a distance from states with bad control laws.

But there's little correlation between gun ownership and gun crime in the US. To the extent there is a correlation it's negative.

gun grabber.

??

”Gun Grabber” ???

This is such a weird, reflexive defiance phrase. “Gun Grabber”??

The typical use case for this phrase is
”Anyone who wants to enact any control of gun ownership or storage of any kind is a ‘gun grabber’.”
and also
“Gun Grabbers want a total band on any and all weapons of any kind or circumstance”
and thence
“Any attempt of any kind to make guns safer is EXACTLY the case of a desire for a total ban.”


And that, of course is all emotional bullshit lies.

No. "Gun grabber" refers to those who want to in general remove civilian firearms. The thing is the proposals are about legal guns--and few would have any effect on illegal guns, other than by removing them due to a lack of guns to steal. And that means taking away the civilian guns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

a tiny cylinder with 30,000 feet of potential energy

"Feet" are not a unit of energy. Potential or otherwise.

Sure they are, in an environment where a constant acceleration and constant mass can be assumed.

Potential energy is mgh - m is roughly constant for a given instance of an aircraft at a given monent in time (now); g is roughly constant within the range of locations in which an aircraft might reasonably be expected to be found.

So only h (height) is necessary to estimate potential energy. h is a distance; Feet are a unit of distance, and hence imply a particular potential energy for a particular aircraft.

Roughly constant for a given instance--but there are many instances. And since you would hit at nearly 1,000 mph from such a dive air resistance is clearly going to matter--and the effect is bigger because the plane also has forward airspeed and drag is based on total airspeed (IIRC it goes at the square in that realm, but I am not confident of that once you go supersonic.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The vast majority of guns used in crimes are not owned legally. Thus the laws about who may have one don't have much effect.

The vast majority of guns used in crimes started out (usually very recently) as legally owned guns. Thus laws about who has one, and how they must secure it against theft or misuse, have a massive effect.

The vast majority of criminals with illegal guns know that, in the absence of strict laws about who has one, merely noting their posession of a gun is insufficient to cause either surprise and alarm amongst the public*, or a massive police response to public reports of an armed person*. Thus laws about who has one, and how they must not frighten or intimidate other people by flashing it about in public, also have a massive effect.

* Does not apply to persons with high levels of skin pigmentation.

And your evidence about laws about locking them up drying up criminal guns is? Burglars sometimes even hit gun stores--and they have protection well above what's practical for homeowners.

And the presence of a visible gun doesn't cause alarm because people know it's virtually certainly legally possessed and of peaceful intent. The criminal element does not openly display their weapons other than when actively using them. And a weapon carried on the body is very, very different than a weapon in hand. Every so often I see one of the open carry idiots around here. Occasionally I see an armed hiker. (We are in cat country--they normally leave adult humans alone but I won't fault someone being concerned if they were out at night, and every armed hiker I have seen was clearly planning to spend the night out there.) So what? A gun in the hand is quite another matter, people are going to be calling 911 and seeking to get away--a gun in hand implies a definite possibility that soon bullets will be flying.

And do you not realize that flashing it about to intimidate is a felony unless done for defensive reasons?

 

[Worldtraveller]

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

Umm...Australia seems like a good example. I mean, if you think American Samoa is a great proxy for the entire US economy, I think when it comes to gun control, Australia is a much more appropriate model.

You mean the Australia where you can't detect any long term alteration in the murder rate due to their gun laws? Murder was declining, it continued to decline. Block out a window around the law change and you just see a gap in the line.

I'm not allowed to say you're lying here. But, the statistics certainly indicate that at the least, you're utterly ignorant of reality.

The stats

Port Arthur On a quiet Sunday in late April 1996 a single gunman, armed with military-style semi-automatic weapons shot dead...

www.gunsafetyalliance.org.au

 

[Elixir]

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

Umm...Australia seems like a good example. I mean, if you think American Samoa is a great proxy for the entire US economy, I think when it comes to gun control, Australia is a much more appropriate model.

You mean the Australia where you can't detect any long term alteration in the murder rate due to their gun laws? Murder was declining, it continued to decline. Block out a window around the law change and you just see a gap in the line.

I'm not allowed to say you're lying here. But, the statistics certainly indicate that at the least, you're utterly ignorant of reality.

The stats

Port Arthur On a quiet Sunday in late April 1996 a single gunman, armed with military-style semi-automatic weapons shot dead...

www.gunsafetyalliance.org.au

Even at face value;
In a Country that passed strong gun laws, Loren observed that “Murder was declining, it continued to decline” and meanwhile, in a Country awash in guns with virtually no gun laws, murder was increasing and continued to increase.
^ and THAT is offered as rationale against gun control?
SMH!

 

[Tigers!]

I'm not allowed to say you're lying here.

But you did say it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And note that you are basically assuming gun laws will help--despite no evidence to that effect.

Umm...Australia seems like a good example. I mean, if you think American Samoa is a great proxy for the entire US economy, I think when it comes to gun control, Australia is a much more appropriate model.

You mean the Australia where you can't detect any long term alteration in the murder rate due to their gun laws? Murder was declining, it continued to decline. Block out a window around the law change and you just see a gap in the line.

I'm not allowed to say you're lying here. But, the statistics certainly indicate that at the least, you're utterly ignorant of reality.

The stats

Port Arthur On a quiet Sunday in late April 1996 a single gunman, armed with military-style semi-automatic weapons shot dead...

www.gunsafetyalliance.org.au

No, you failed to understand what I was saying. Your source has three charts, all of which show the same basic pattern--approximately a straight line decline from the start to about 2005. The homicide and total charts are noisier than the suicide chart but follow the same pattern. Your supposed big decline is simply a regression to the mean.

The gun grabbers continually take credit for the decline that was already happening. Their gun grab probably reduced mass shootings (the class of criminal use that often doesn't involve ties to the underworld) but you can't see it in the total murder and suicide data.

 

[Derec]

What "child"? Trayvon was 17.

That makes him a child.

That makes him an almost adult teenager.
Humans do not develop via metamorphosis. It's a continuous development. To pretend that a 17 year old is like a 10 year old is ludicrous.

 

[Derec]

It seems he has confused it with another case. The one where the cops drove up to a kid with a toy gun and immediately shot him.

That makes sense. The description fits Tamir Rice better.
Hey, Hound, at least I have enough respect to learn their names.

 

[Derec]

You have to prove self defense--but more typically to preponderance of the evidence.
It comes down to what happened offscreen--were they reacting to what he did? If so, he probably had unclean hands.

But you cannot just assume "unclean hands". I have not seen any evidence that shows that he probably had "unclean hands". And we also know Joseph Rosenbaum was very angry and aggressive that night. Why do you doubt that he would attack Ritt as well?