Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[TomC]

I'm personally sick to death how arms dealers... I'm sorry, gun shops, are completely and utterly without any liability when selling weapons to a person that then murders a bunch of people.

If we ended that ridiculous waiver of liability, arms dealers would be a lot more careful who they sell to.

^THAT

The entire fucking supply chain is exempt from liability, from the manufacturers to the murderers, from the laundered Russian influence-buying "donor" cash to the teen who just wants to go out with a bang... it all works together.
Such a thing of beauty.
[/QUOTE]

Ironic isn't it?

According to Texan state law, at the time of the Uvalde massacre, someone can sue the Uber driver who took your daughter to an abortion clinic. They can sue for $10K, and cannot be countersued.

But they can't sue the guy who sold Ramos the weapons.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

There is going to be March For Our Lives rallies tomorrow in over 400 cities across the country.

March For Our Lives

Join the movement.

marchforourlives.com

 

[bilby]

Let's look at the deadliest massacres in the US.

9 massacres involved the deaths of 20 or more people. 6 involved semi-automatic rifles. That'd be 2/3's.

And if we look at the mass murders of 10 or more people since 2010, 11 of those 16 tragedies involved semi-automatic rifles. That'd be greater than 2/3's.

Can we please at least try to prevent a large percentage of massacres? I mean, stopping one massacre that'd scar the lives of 10 or 20 families directly and dozens more indirectly... I mean isn't that worth doing? Are we seriously going to say no because of paranoia?

And why should we suppose that would be the result? Remove the best tool for the job and the result is the use of a lesser tool, not stopping things entirely.

Says the person who repeatedly tells us (in other contexts) not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[Swammerdami]

This article outlines a common-sense approach to reducing or eliminating mass shootings in schools. He achieves this by embracing American values, and NOT with pansy-wansy liberal solutions like psychiatry. Since he carefully considers the details of his plan, it wouldn't do him justice to excerpt from this intelligent and well-articulated solution.

 

[ZiprHead]

I love Katie P.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Vast majority of gun homicides are perpetrated by handguns, not rifles of any kind. And scary "assault weapons" are a subset of rifles.
Even when we limit ourselves to "mass shootings", handguns predominate.

I have never understood this "reasoning": Handguns kill more people than long guns, so there's no point in banning assault rifles.

Do semi-automatic pistols kill more than revolvers? Then we should never ban wheel guns.

Suppose that there are fewer killings in February than in any other month. Does that mean murder should be legal in February?

I'll save Derec a rejoinder by reminding gun-obsessed of the Slippery Slope! Slippery Slope! Slippery Slope!!!!

The D's want to make a tiny dent in the murder rate by upping the assault weapon age to 21, but this is of course just posturing: such a measure cannot pass in Amerikka. But if the incoming QOPAnon class has a spasm of sanity might the age be pushed to 19? Slippery Slope!! Perhaps Amerikkans should pre-empt that now by removing ALL age restrictions on gun purchases.

The issue is using people killed by "assault rifles" as evidence for banning them despite the fact that most gun kills are handguns. It's exposing a problem with the argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The entire fucking supply chain is exempt from liability, from the manufacturers to the murderers, from the laundered Russian influence-buying "donor" cash to the teen who just wants to go out with a bang... it all works together.
Such a thing of beauty.

And how about liability for car makers for all the auto accidents?

Seriously, Loren?
Accidents now? Try again.

The point is we don't sue manufacturers for the misuse of their products.

 

[TomC]

The point is we don't sue manufacturers for the misuse of their products.

Another point is that shooting people with those weapons isn't misuse. It's exactly what the weapons were designed to accomplish. Mass shootings of human beings.

Not elk hunting or tree trimming or any other nonsense. What Ramos did was use the weapon exactly as it was designed to function.

That's completely different from a car accident.

That's not hard to understand.
Tom

 

[RVonse]

This shooting will probably fade from public consciousness even more quickly than Sandy Hook, which made a big splash.

Well the shooter wasn’t white so I do expect the story to fade rather quickly. Or a weird narrative about white oppression starting this young man on his path to death and destruction.

The reason it will fade quickly without even interrupting a republican lawmaker's lunch is because the victims weren't white.

aa

Race isn't an issue. The Las Vegas massacre involved a country music festival. The Church shooting... that was Texas too, killed over 20 people (white people). Nothing from the GOP.

Republicans sat down and crafted 2 bi-partisan bills with democrats after Sandy Hook (I know, they were both defeated - but at least they tried). I promise, this group of republicans does not see an american tragedy. They are probably still wondering how all those kids got out of the separation camps at the border.

aa

Irregardless what side you happen to be with the issue of buying firearms.....if you want it to be more difficult to purchase a firearm it will have to be more difficult to buy a politician. Congress is run by money and not talk.

 

[laughing dog]

The issue is using people killed by "assault rifles" as evidence for banning them despite the fact that most gun kills are handguns. It's exposing a problem with the argument.

Since the argument is that banning assault weapons should reduce the killings due to assault weapons, the only problem exposed by your response is your knee jerk regurgitation of NRA bullsit.

 

[Copernicus]

The issue is using people killed by "assault rifles" as evidence for banning them despite the fact that most gun kills are handguns. It's exposing a problem with the argument.

Since the argument is that banning assault weapons should reduce the killings due to assault weapons, the only problem exposed by your response is your knee jerk regurgitation of NRA bullsit.

And it isn't just about banning the type of weapons favored by mass shooters. The gun lobby opposes any modifications to guns or restrictions that would make them less convenient to commit mass murder--for example, a ban on large capacity magazines, limitations on ammunition sales, raising the age of legal purchase, waiting periods, mandatory training, registration and licensing, etc. The idea is to keep the market for purchase of these weapons as large as possible, because it is the gun manufacturers who benefit from lack of regulation. It isn't just about an individual's right to own a gun, although the manufacturers want it framed that way in public debates.

 

[Elixir]

The entire fucking supply chain is exempt from liability, from the manufacturers to the murderers, from the laundered Russian influence-buying "donor" cash to the teen who just wants to go out with a bang... it all works together.
Such a thing of beauty.

And how about liability for car makers for all the auto accidents?

Seriously, Loren?
Accidents now? Try again.

The point is we don't sue manufacturers for the misuse of their products.

Misuse?
Killing people with a product designed and built to kill people is not an off-label use.

 

[Elixir]

Irregardless

Seriously?

 

[Rhea]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

500,000 guns stolen every year. Wow. Who lets this happen?

Stolen guns contribute to the number of gun-related deaths. Experts estimate that about 500,000 guns are stolen each year. Surveys of adult and juvenile criminals indicate that thefts are a significant source of guns used in crime. Roughly one-third of the guns used by armed felons are obtained directly through theft. Many guns illegally sold to criminals on the street have been stolen from homes. Research on the guns used in crime demonstrates that many are no more than a few years old. Requiring all guns to be personalized could, therefore, limit the availability of usable guns to adult and juvenile criminals in the illegal gun market.

Aside from the technology that would make a stolen gun useless, why are we not prosecuting people whose guns are so easy to steal? 500,000 !?

But back to design changes:

Another intervention is now being developed: the personalized gun, a weapon that will operate only for the authorized user. Personalized guns could reduce the likelihood of many gun-related injuries to children as well as adults. They could be especially effective in preventing youth suicides and unintentional shootings by young children. Personalized guns could also reduce gun violence by making the many firearms that are stolen and later used in crime useless to criminals. Law enforcement officers, who are at risk of having their handgun taken from them and being shot by it, would be safer with a personalized gun.

I know those who reflexively shout “no changes” think that biometrics will keep them from being the hero in their own story, but imagine if the accidental shooting were able to stop. And those stolen guns - that article says most are 2 years old or less (500,000 stolen weapons every year!!!). Imagine if they were just hunks of metal instead.

And imagine if no cop ever again had to worry about being shot with their own gun.


There are disturbing papers written about how people who worked to design safer guns were targeted by fun fetishists and manfucaturers for their inventions.


This is what public research could accomplish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

 

[Jarhyn]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

Heh, a "jammer". You realize the technology required to do that ya? To get in the way of an immediate signal, something as close as a wristband or ring?

Do you understand how much energy it takes to jam a signal (especially a NFC device, like a ring)? "The bad guys" who bring a jammer with them are soldiers or mercenaries. And the jammer usually lives in a fucking truck because it's that much hardware.

And even then it might not do shit for a NFC.

Who is pissing off government entities badly enough that they bring a CREW device? Or maybe you watch too many movies.

 

[Swammerdami]

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?
. . .
You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up.

The only time my phone failed to respond to my fingerprint was when I forgot to take a glove off!

And the fingerprint is MUCH MUCH faster than unlocking a cabinet.

No, I do not particularly support fingerprint locks on guns. I just get tired of all the "Nope. Cain't do it. God-given freeedumb. Best solution is giving every white American a Glock 19 on his twelfth birthday."

 

[Jarhyn]

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?
. . .
You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up.

The only time my phone failed to respond to my fingerprint was when I forgot to take a glove off!

And the fingerprint is MUCH MUCH faster than unlocking a cabinet.

No, I do not particularly support fingerprint locks on guns. I just get tired of all the "Nope. Cain't do it. God-given freeedumb. Best solution is giving every white American a Glock 19 on his twelfth birthday."

A better model is an NFC ring with a trap switch.

Essentially, you put on the ring and that pushes down a leaf switch (think, the switch in your fridge that turns the lights on/off), and then you use your phone to activate it.

The switch flips out if you take it off, and it stops working until you pair it with your phone again.

It would be something like school ring sized, and quite frankly, I would honestly prefer that insofar as then it would be clear who was so psychotic as to own and potentially carry a gun, and unlike every other open carry, this one would not call out for theft.

It would rightly terrify people, but the fact is people have a right to be terrified that you would bring a gun around!

Then, instead of a fingerprint you just have to have the ring near the handle, maybe within 3 inches?

If someone takes the ring, they still can't use it, because they can't reset the mechanism once it's been triggered.

The problem here is that then, someone in a household could be a gun owner, and leave the gun about as an abusive threat that produces no challenge to their power because only they can use the weapon.

Honestly, I would rather that instead of personalized weapons, we just have no such awful weapons about.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

Heh, a "jammer". You realize the technology required to do that ya? To get in the way of an immediate signal, something as close as a wristband or ring?

Do you understand how much energy it takes to jam a signal (especially a NFC device, like a ring)? "The bad guys" who bring a jammer with them are soldiers or mercenaries. And the jammer usually lives in a fucking truck because it's that much hardware.

And even then it might not do shit for a NFC.

Who is pissing off government entities badly enough that they bring a CREW device? Or maybe you watch too many movies.

You realize how little energy a NFC device puts out? You don't need a big jammer to saturate the receiver.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?
. . .
You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up.

The only time my phone failed to respond to my fingerprint was when I forgot to take a glove off!

And the fingerprint is MUCH MUCH faster than unlocking a cabinet.

No, I do not particularly support fingerprint locks on guns. I just get tired of all the "Nope. Cain't do it. God-given freeedumb. Best solution is giving every white American a Glock 19 on his twelfth birthday."

You've never had your finger a bit off center? Never not left it on long enough? (More of an issue now that I have a scanner in the screen rather than on the back.)

As for unlocking a cabinet--I was picturing someone drawing a gun. That gives less than 1 second for a radio approach and even less than that for a fingerprint scanner.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?
. . .
You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up.

The only time my phone failed to respond to my fingerprint was when I forgot to take a glove off!

And the fingerprint is MUCH MUCH faster than unlocking a cabinet.

No, I do not particularly support fingerprint locks on guns. I just get tired of all the "Nope. Cain't do it. God-given freeedumb. Best solution is giving every white American a Glock 19 on his twelfth birthday."

A better model is an NFC ring with a trap switch.

Essentially, you put on the ring and that pushes down a leaf switch (think, the switch in your fridge that turns the lights on/off), and then you use your phone to activate it.

The switch flips out if you take it off, and it stops working until you pair it with your phone again.

It would be something like school ring sized, and quite frankly, I would honestly prefer that insofar as then it would be clear who was so psychotic as to own and potentially carry a gun, and unlike every other open carry, this one would not call out for theft.

It would rightly terrify people, but the fact is people have a right to be terrified that you would bring a gun around!

Then, instead of a fingerprint you just have to have the ring near the handle, maybe within 3 inches?

If someone takes the ring, they still can't use it, because they can't reset the mechanism once it's been triggered.

The problem here is that then, someone in a household could be a gun owner, and leave the gun about as an abusive threat that produces no challenge to their power because only they can use the weapon.

Honestly, I would rather that instead of personalized weapons, we just have no such awful weapons about.

That's not the part of the system I have a problem with--what I'm questioning is the communication between ring and gun when the gun is drawn.

 

[bigfield]

If you can't get people to voluntarily secure their guns in a locked cabinet or safe, and you can't make laws to prosecute gun owners who fail to secure their weapons, then you aren't ever going to get people to accept access controls built into the guns themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

There is no perfect solution for any social issue. All policies have costs. Rational adults who are serious about policy issues understand there are always tradeoffs. Your responses neglect any possible tradeoff when it comes to the issue of gun violence and what to do about it. Your responses focus solely on your perceived costs without any recognition of the benefits.

Look at your responses above. Bringing up the issue of dead batteries as a serious problem is ludicrous. And the jammer issue - are you seriously claiming that every "bad guy" would have a jammer? And if jammers were a real issue, then people would come up with jammers for jammers.

Really, your responses seem to come right out of some NRA handbook.

 

[Jarhyn]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

Heh, a "jammer". You realize the technology required to do that ya? To get in the way of an immediate signal, something as close as a wristband or ring?

Do you understand how much energy it takes to jam a signal (especially a NFC device, like a ring)? "The bad guys" who bring a jammer with them are soldiers or mercenaries. And the jammer usually lives in a fucking truck because it's that much hardware.

And even then it might not do shit for a NFC.

Who is pissing off government entities badly enough that they bring a CREW device? Or maybe you watch too many movies.

You realize how little energy a NFC device puts out? You don't need a big jammer to saturate the receiver.

Yes you do, because the jammer has to put out exponentially more energy due to falloff and band saturation.

To jam a signal, you have to make broad spectrum noise (the device you are trying to jam is usually on a set of frequencies, and while it only needs power for one of them the jammer needs power and transmission width to transmit on all of them simultaneously.

Secondly, the reason NFC are so low power is because they have very low range because they communicate via an induction field.

So, to jam a NFC chip, you need to put out enough power to generate an induction field across the entire gap to power the NFC on ALL of those frequencies.

You would essentially need to be setting off an EMP, as I understand it.

The technology to jam a low power key fob from being able to talk to an IED weighs more than I do and sucks down enough power to cook anyone dumb enough to touch that antenna.

 

[Rhea]

Loren you are far too ready to give up trying. Remember when everyone was terrified of drive-by-wire because “what would happen if the electronics failed!? This is life or death!!” And how many cars now have mechanical linkages to brakes and accelerator?

It is far less “cant do it” than you think and if there are any gaps then the legislation should be to fund public research into closing the gaps so that the gun cabal can’t interfere. Not to throw your hands on the air and say we’re not capable of addressing this carnage.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What if we ban guns and let people purchase NFTs of guns?

 

[Jarhyn]

What if we ban guns and let people purchase NFTs of guns?

Or, use the NFT ownership as a registration for the gun, and require a verification on the block chain to confirm initial activation of the physical credential.

Pinned/activated 2FA is way more reliable, fool proof, and ready than biometrics anyway.

An additional requirement to regularly present the weapon to the application directly to keep it functional would allow insurance to track, and present rates accordingly on responsibility of the owner. If the system detects non-functioning of the mechanism, it can alert, or the owner can face rate hikes for loss or theft.

 

[Copernicus]

We also need to push for making guns safer.

Making Guns Safer

The technology now exists to make guns that only authorized users can operate. These safer guns could cut gun-related deaths and injuries.

issues.org

The technology does not exist.

You could perfectly well make a range gun that would only fire if it was in the hands of it's proper owner. You can't make a gun that will only fire in the hands of the proper own but will reliably fire in the hands of the proper owner.

There are two basic approaches:

1) Fingerprint reader. A lot of phones have fingerprint recognition these days--and I'm sure everyone who has one has had non-reads with a fair amount of frequency. And it takes time--time you likely won't have in an emergency. And what if your finger is injured? Your gun is now useless. And what if the battery is dead?

Privately owned guns are seldom used in emergencies. You are letting your fears feed a fantasy of being defenseless while under attack and having to use the gun to save your life. Very few people carry guns around for that purpose, and violent attackers tend to be good at surprising their victims before they can use their quick draw skills. Your injured finger scenario would not apply unless it were injured in such a way to screw up the use of a fingerprint reader but not guns without fingerprint readers. Dead batteries can be a problem for military equipment, too, but responsible gun owners would surely be diligent enough to replace batteries as needed, especially if they are as paranoid and fearful as many seem to be.

2) Broadcast token of some kind. The bad guys will bring a jammer. You also have the issue of dead batteries.

Such systems will stop kids from firing a gun, but do basically nothing about criminal use. You stop kids from firing a gun by locking them up. The bad guys will defeat the system--a speed bump for them, not a roadblock.

Yes, secure storage of privately-owned weapons should be a federal law. It only makes sense. I would agree that dead batteries could be an unexpected disappointment to the less responsible gun owners, especially the ones who are careless about securely storing weapons, cleaning them, and knowing where they are at all times. Gun ownership should be like owning a pet. The owner has responsibilities. Some bad guys can be truly resourceful in overcoming problems, but the goal here is to cut down on the number of deaths from gun-related injuries, even if they can't all be stopped.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you can't get people to voluntarily secure their guns in a locked cabinet or safe, and you can't make laws to prosecute gun owners who fail to secure their weapons, then you aren't ever going to get people to accept access controls built into the guns themselves.

A big problem with the secure-your-guns measures is that the left always tries to go too far--mandating storage requirements that are simply impossible for many people. Only mandate simple locks--not big gun safes that need to be on solid ground and bolted down. (Something unavailable to anyone not living on the lowest level of their building, or with a crawl space under their floor.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Look at your responses above. Bringing up the issue of dead batteries as a serious problem is ludicrous. And the jammer issue - are you seriously claiming that every "bad guy" would have a jammer? And if jammers were a real issue, then people would come up with jammers for jammers.

Really, your responses seem to come right out of some NRA handbook.

Jam a jammer?? That doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[bigfield]

If you can't get people to voluntarily secure their guns in a locked cabinet or safe, and you can't make laws to prosecute gun owners who fail to secure their weapons, then you aren't ever going to get people to accept access controls built into the guns themselves.

A big problem with the secure-your-guns measures is that the left always tries to go too far--mandating storage requirements that are simply impossible for many people. Only mandate simple locks--not big gun safes that need to be on solid ground and bolted down. (Something unavailable to anyone not living on the lowest level of their building, or with a crawl space under their floor.)

This claim that the left always mandates gun safes seems like total bullshit.

 

[laughing dog]

Look at your responses above. Bringing up the issue of dead batteries as a serious problem is ludicrous. And the jammer issue - are you seriously claiming that every "bad guy" would have a jammer? And if jammers were a real issue, then people would come up with jammers for jammers.

Really, your responses seem to come right out of some NRA handbook.

Jam a jammer?? That doesn't pass the laugh test.

Way to focus on the bark on the trees instead of the forest.

There is no reason to think every bad actor will have a jammer, so why even would even bring up such a silly "rebuttal"? If those finger locks save more deaths and destruction than they cause, then they are a good idea. For some reason, you fixate on the notion that any proposal must be a panacea instead of a net improvement. Do you have any evidence or logic to suggest such locks will not be a net benefit. Because if you do not, then your response is simply another example of kneejerk NRA crapola.

 

[Hermit]

If you can't get people to voluntarily secure their guns in a locked cabinet or safe, and you can't make laws to prosecute gun owners who fail to secure their weapons, then you aren't ever going to get people to accept access controls built into the guns themselves.

A big problem with the secure-your-guns measures is that the left always tries to go too far--mandating storage requirements that are simply impossible for many people. Only mandate simple locks--not big gun safes that need to be on solid ground and bolted down. (Something unavailable to anyone not living on the lowest level of their building, or with a crawl space under their floor.)

Gun safes are mandatory in Australia. They do not necessarily need to be bolted down. Everyone of the millions of Australians who have a privately owned, registered firearm stores it one - either at home, at a rifle range or another location. An 8 gun safe with a 2mm thick steel body and 3mm door measuring 360x1500x340mm weighs 55kg, so delivery to upper floors is not a problem. I know because I delivered a dozen or more of them.

In Australia it's a case of no safe storage, no gun. It's a bit like mandatory helmets for motorbike riders; If you claim you can't wear one - say for medical reasons - you can't ride a bike. Works for millions of Australians.

This claim that the left always mandates gun safes seems like total bullshit.

Yes and no. Gun safes are mandatory in Australia, but the mandate was introduced by a very conservative government.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look at your responses above. Bringing up the issue of dead batteries as a serious problem is ludicrous. And the jammer issue - are you seriously claiming that every "bad guy" would have a jammer? And if jammers were a real issue, then people would come up with jammers for jammers.

Really, your responses seem to come right out of some NRA handbook.

Jam a jammer?? That doesn't pass the laugh test.

So, a jammer to jam a jammer requires a laugh test, but we don't have any test for purchasing an AR-15, regardless if someone is until 21.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you can't get people to voluntarily secure their guns in a locked cabinet or safe, and you can't make laws to prosecute gun owners who fail to secure their weapons, then you aren't ever going to get people to accept access controls built into the guns themselves.

A big problem with the secure-your-guns measures is that the left always tries to go too far--mandating storage requirements that are simply impossible for many people. Only mandate simple locks--not big gun safes that need to be on solid ground and bolted down. (Something unavailable to anyone not living on the lowest level of their building, or with a crawl space under their floor.)

It's easy enough to bolt a locking gun rack to the wall, and you can do it in any residence.

if jammers were a real issue, then people would come up with jammers for jammers.

So, the solution to a jammer is to use a device that talks on a number of different protocols, or at a range that can't be "talked over".

Think of a rock concert or sports game. You can't hear your friend talking right next to you, right until he leans in close and says it right at your ear.

As to different protocols, If your device only works to block one of the frequencies, you just switch to a frequency channel the other can't get into. It does not matter if the stadium is loud in audible frequencies and silent in ultrasonics, if you can only speak and hear ultrasound.

If you would like, I could describe the theory of electronic warfare and radio signal technology. It's fascinating!

 

[Toni]

If you can't get people to voluntarily secure their guns in a locked cabinet or safe, and you can't make laws to prosecute gun owners who fail to secure their weapons, then you aren't ever going to get people to accept access controls built into the guns themselves.

A big problem with the secure-your-guns measures is that the left always tries to go too far--mandating storage requirements that are simply impossible for many people. Only mandate simple locks--not big gun safes that need to be on solid ground and bolted down. (Something unavailable to anyone not living on the lowest level of their building, or with a crawl space under their floor.)

Why bring up a big gun safe that for some reason you believe needs to be bolted to the floor? Not all gun safes need to be large or need to be bolted to the floor. For instance, a small hand gun would not need a big safe requiring bolting to the floor.

 

[steve_bank]

Yet another school closure around here over a bomb threat. Yesterday a kid in a school parking lot started shooting at cars.

Anybody really think it is just about availability of guns?

The proposed legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.

Shootings have been way up in Seattle so far this year.

 

[bigfield]

Anybody really think it is just about availability of guns?

No, but it's by far the most important factor, making every other factor insignificant in comparison.

I totally understand the desire to want to focus on something besides the difficult political problem of reducing gun access, but it's nothing more than a coping mechanism. Either you take away guns or the gun violence carries on forever.

 

[Elixir]

Anybody really think it is just about availability of guns?

No, but it's by far the most important factor, making every other factor insignificant in comparison.

Indeed, it seems to dwarf all other factors if you look country by country at gun deaths.
But it’s an intractable problem because guns=money for the GOP. So every single “solution” has to also be a way to sell more guns or the GOP nixes it. Whether it’s “Seize the ghost guns (so they need to buy new ones)” or “buy guns for all the teachers” or “more armed guards in schools”…. EVERY right wing measure in response to the problem of ubiquitous guns, is MORE GUNS.
Yet, even the Dems sit back and pretend this isn’t 100% about the RW cash cow and their laundered Russian Rubles. Why?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet another school closure around here over a bomb threat. Yesterday a kid in a school parking lot started shooting at cars. Anybody really think it is just about availability of guns?

Anyone can call in a threat. That requires a phone. Actual bombs in schools, extraordinarily rare.

The proposed legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.

Shootings have been way up in Seattle so far this year.

But still historically low. You keep screaming the sky is falling. Meanwhile a bunch of children died in a classroom, and the GOP doesn't want to address it for fear of angering the NRA.

Can we at least stop mass slaughters? Is this really that much to ask?

 

[bigfield]

Anybody really think it is just about availability of guns?

No, but it's by far the most important factor, making every other factor insignificant in comparison.

Indeed, it seems to dwarf all other factors if you look country by country at gun deaths.
But it’s an intractable problem because guns=money for the GOP. So every single “solution” has to also be a way to sell more guns or the GOP nixes it. Whether it’s “Seize the ghost guns (so they need to buy new ones)” or “buy guns for all the teachers” or “more armed guards in schools”…. EVERY right wing measure in response to the problem of ubiquitous guns, is MORE GUNS.
Yet, even the Dems sit back and pretend this isn’t 100% about the RW cash cow and their laundered Russian Rubles. Why?

The Dems are one half of a two-party system. They need to choose policies that win them votes and not the GOP.

The Dems probably believe that offering policies to ban guns would increase the GOP's vote more than their own, so they won't do it.

Many more children will be murdered in their classrooms before banning guns becomes a net vote winner for the Democrats. And even then, probably only in a few states.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Privately owned guns are seldom used in emergencies. You are letting your fears feed a fantasy of being defenseless while under attack and having to use the gun to save your life. Very few people carry guns around for that purpose, and violent attackers tend to be good at surprising their victims before they can use their quick draw skills. Your injured finger scenario would not apply unless it were injured in such a way to screw up the use of a fingerprint reader but not guns without fingerprint readers. Dead batteries can be a problem for military equipment, too, but responsible gun owners would surely be diligent enough to replace batteries as needed, especially if they are as paranoid and fearful as many seem to be.

For most people the risk is minimal, but for some people it's a very real issue. Got a stalker ex after you??

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And then to lose those seats... and then SCOTUS takes a hedge trimmer to the legislation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Privately owned guns are seldom used in emergencies. You are letting your fears feed a fantasy of being defenseless while under attack and having to use the gun to save your life. Very few people carry guns around for that purpose, and violent attackers tend to be good at surprising their victims before they can use their quick draw skills. Your injured finger scenario would not apply unless it were injured in such a way to screw up the use of a fingerprint reader but not guns without fingerprint readers. Dead batteries can be a problem for military equipment, too, but responsible gun owners would surely be diligent enough to replace batteries as needed, especially if they are as paranoid and fearful as many seem to be.

For most people the risk is minimal, but for some people it's a very real issue. Got a stalker ex after you??

...armed with a gun. Seriously, making that argument? His constitutional right to gun ownership... to murder his ex. Gawd bless America and save us from the Liberals.

 

[Elixir]

The Dems probably believe that offering policies to ban guns would increase the GOP's vote more than their own, so they won't do it.

That is the nut of it, isn't it?
Seems that in one way or another, most of our current ills are caused by or exacerbated by the twin evil lies:

* money is speech, and
* Corporations are people

Sorry for waxing totally partisan, but we on the left predicted this outcome from those determinations. Those on the right were also aware of the likely result, but it was to their political benefit, so damn the welfare of the Country.

 

[Copernicus]

Privately owned guns are seldom used in emergencies. You are letting your fears feed a fantasy of being defenseless while under attack and having to use the gun to save your life. Very few people carry guns around for that purpose, and violent attackers tend to be good at surprising their victims before they can use their quick draw skills. Your injured finger scenario would not apply unless it were injured in such a way to screw up the use of a fingerprint reader but not guns without fingerprint readers. Dead batteries can be a problem for military equipment, too, but responsible gun owners would surely be diligent enough to replace batteries as needed, especially if they are as paranoid and fearful as many seem to be.

For most people the risk is minimal, but for some people it's a very real issue. Got a stalker ex after you??

I see your point. A gun would be much easier to get than a restraining order, and probably a lot cheaper. Of course, there is the expense of the body armor to consider, in case the person being stalked wants to make a trip to buy groceries. Clearly, you have had more experience being stalked by exes than I have, so you would know how very effective guns can be in such a situation.

 

[steve_bank]

Another shooting in the area last night out in the streets.

Now it is the extreme left making death threats against COTUS.

 

[steve_bank]

Yet another school closure around here over a bomb threat. Yesterday a kid in a school parking lot started shooting at cars. Anybody really think it is just about availability of guns?

Anyone can call in a threat. That requires a phone. Actual bombs in schools, extraordinarily rare.

The proposed legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.

Shootings have been way up in Seattle so far this year.

But still historically low. You keep screaming the sky is falling. Meanwhile a bunch of children died in a classroom, and the GOP doesn't want to address it for fear of angering the NRA.

Can we at least stop mass slaughters? Is this really that much to ask?

My point is culture. Our new mayor appears capable. For once a politician who says he is not going to fix violence overnight that has grown over decades. He talks about the root source, socical and economic conditions.

It is not 'historically low'. Certainly not in King county, Seattle, and Washington. Similar reports from elsewhere.

It is not whether a bomb threat to a scj=hol is real or not, it is about the rise in thrats and actual school violence.

If I use your reasoning you are more likely to be killed or injured by a drunk driver than by a mas shooting, therefore mass shootings are not really a problem.

Culture has gotten crude and coarse. It is on TV, in movies, and in music.

I hear it around Seattle on the streets. A tone of violence has crept into speech. Not just the crazies, regular people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yet another school closure around here over a bomb threat. Yesterday a kid in a school parking lot started shooting at cars. Anybody really think it is just about availability of guns?

Anyone can call in a threat. That requires a phone. Actual bombs in schools, extraordinarily rare.

The proposed legislation is not worth the paper it is written on.

Shootings have been way up in Seattle so far this year.

But still historically low. You keep screaming the sky is falling. Meanwhile a bunch of children died in a classroom, and the GOP doesn't want to address it for fear of angering the NRA.

Can we at least stop mass slaughters? Is this really that much to ask?

My point is culture. Our new mayor appears capable. For once a politician who says he is not going to fix violence overnight that has grown over decades. He talks about the root source, socical and economic conditions.

It is not 'historically low'. Certainly not in King county, Seattle, and Washington. Similar reports from elsewhere.

I just reviewed a lot of stats, and you are correct that crime is rising in Seattle. (2020 Statewide stats / 1984 - 2011 stats (Excel))

Indeed, Seattle appears to be bucking the trend of overall crime declines.

If I use your reasoning you are more likely to be killed or injured by a drunk driver than by a mas shooting, therefore mass shootings are not really a problem.


Culture has gotten crude and coarse. It is on TV, in movies, and in music.

Then why did crime in Seattle drop by more than half between 1984 and 2011? Numbers below are for Seattle PD.

Violent crimes went from 14.1 per 1,000 people in 1984 to 6.0 per 1,000 people in 2011.
Property crimes went from 105.3 per 1,000 people in 1984 to 52.1 per 1,000 people in 2011.

Culture didn't just go all "crude" since 2011.

 

[Jarhyn]

Privately owned guns are seldom used in emergencies. You are letting your fears feed a fantasy of being defenseless while under attack and having to use the gun to save your life. Very few people carry guns around for that purpose, and violent attackers tend to be good at surprising their victims before they can use their quick draw skills. Your injured finger scenario would not apply unless it were injured in such a way to screw up the use of a fingerprint reader but not guns without fingerprint readers. Dead batteries can be a problem for military equipment, too, but responsible gun owners would surely be diligent enough to replace batteries as needed, especially if they are as paranoid and fearful as many seem to be.

For most people the risk is minimal, but for some people it's a very real issue. Got a stalker ex after you??

The fact is, I expect people have not messed with me more on account of the fact that I carry a stick than for the fact that I might be carrying a gun they can't see and thus I can't access quickly.

If you have a real issue with being attacked immediately, it's way better to have even a simple walking cane. Having to dick around to get something when someone you didn't notice before is already moving in, is a losing proposal.

And people can see the potential weapon, and at the same time it does not invite theft because it isn't a fucking gun.

Guns help surprisingly little.

Sometimes the better solution is in fact the less violent one.

Still, I generally avoid situations where people would mess with me in the first place.