Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Jimmy Higgins]

Based on what I'm reading, it doesn't appear that this legislation would actually do anything, even if it did pass. And then this SCOTUS would kill it. We should still try, despite SCOTUS, but the GOP is full of shit on action here.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Klebold and Harris had pipe bombs. The illegality didn't stop them.

You are saying what? I assume you mean that we should be able to buy pipe bombs like we do guns?

The point was a comment that if they didn't have guns they probably would have had more pipe bombs. Someone pointed out that pipe bombs are illegal--and I was pointing out that that didn't stop them. The illegality of pipe bombs didn't stop them.

So we should be able to buy pipe bombs, Right? That's what you are saying, that people will make them anyway even if illegal. So they should be legal, that's your point. Making them illegal didn't stop people from having them. I want to buy pipe bombs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As many of us have tried to tell you, the problem in the US is that the majority of guns in the hands of criminals started out as legally purchased guns. Legal guns are the main source of criminal guns. It doesn't matter whether they are "missing" vs "stolen". The point is: rampant legal gun purchases are the root cause of criminal use. Any attempt to solve the problem by increasing the number of legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is just going to drive up the supply for criminals.

Only relevant if you intend to basically ban guns.

How do you figure that? Anything that deters casual same-day purchases would be a huge step forward. Registration, licensing, mandatory training, and insurance for gun owners would also tend to deter casual purchases. Bans on large capacity magazines are a no-brainer. There are lots of things that you can do short of a ban on guns, which is a rather obvious straw man argument on your part. Why do you oppose these measures and insist that it is all about banning guns? Compromises are possible, but compromise is unthinkable for your side of the argument. All you seem willing to consider are strengthening mental health services (always a good idea) and maybe a little more background checking? Those aren't serious proposals, and they won't have any noticeable affect on the level of gun-injuries that Americans suffer.

You aren't establishing that deterring same-day purchases will have much effect at all.

The problem I see is trying to do something without actually considering whether the proposed action will help. Hint: Most things done in response to a major event do not actually work. That's how we got the abomination of the Patriot act.

X happens, people trot out things on their wish list that they can pretend will help with X and sometimes the pressure to do something gets them passed. Almost never are they actually relevant.

 

[bleubird]

Manchin wants to raise age to 21 for gun purchases, doesn't see need for AR-15s

Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia voiced his support Monday for raising the age to 21 for purchasing semi-automatic weapons and questioned why individuals need to own high-powered AR-15-style weapons, putting him at odds with Republicans who are resisting imposing any restrictions on access to...

www.cnn.com

Is this an opening for something,or just posturing?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We have a traffic problem. Let's solve it by banning cars. People can make do with trucks fine.

Not that canard again. Nobody is proposing a blanket ban on all firearms. The campaigns are about gun control, where firearms specifically designed to kill people are to be banned and people with a criminal record or mental problems are not allowed to own any of the others.

Note what I was referring to--an objection to semi-auto firearms. My point is that semi-auto (and effectively semi-auto) guns are to all guns as cars are to traffic.

Your reference to cars is still a canard. Cars are not primarily designed to kill humans. Semi-automatic assault style rifles and handguns are.

Which completely does not address the issue.

It's not as though that is very different from motor vehicles. You need to qualify for a drivers license to operate one in public, the motor vehicle has to be registered to an owner, and it has to meet safety standards. You'll never be permitted to drive around in a privately owned tank or howitzer.

I have no problem with gun licenses so long as it's a shall-issue system. I think it would be a lot better than background checks at the point of sale.

"Shall issue" ensures the US will be incapable of ridding itself of both the unacceptably high murder rate in general and the bizarrely high incidence of mass shootings in particular. As I mentioned here, for every murder in Australia there are 6.9 in the US. The difference is chiefly due to Australia's gun regulations. Hand guns are illegal since the end of WWII and semi-automatic firearms since 1996. The latter also almost halved the number of mass killings. Both make this statement of yours:

If it's not shall-issue you get a system where the connected and those who will pay bribes are the only ones that get guns. That doesn't produce a good outcome.

I think you’re wrong, Loren. Regulation of firearms reduced the number of gun homicides and suicides when it was put into effect.

People keep claiming this about Australia's actions--but the murder rate doesn't show it.

I do expect there is some effect on suicide

spectacularly wrong.

However, to nitpick: It's perfectly legal to drive around in a privately owned tank. You can't take it on public roads (there's no way to make a tank roadworthy--visibility stinks) but so long as you're on private property with the owner's permission, go ahead--there are no restrictions. Now, the tank guns are another matter--they're way beyond .50 cal and thus highly restricted. You can't drive a howitzer in the first place, they have no engines. Being above .50 cal they are likewise highly restricted, but they are not prohibited. There is fully operational artillery in civilian hands--and not just as showpieces. The one I'm aware of around here is I believe a 105mm recoilless rifle rather than a howitzer, but the concept is the same--fully operational with live rounds. The ski lodge occasionally lobs a round into the mountains to trigger avalanches.

We're talking about the regulation of vehicles on public roads, right? Well, I was anyway, when I listed how they were regulated and how their operators had to qualify to use them.

I thought we were talking about possession of them.

And meet the M109 howitzer.

Produced since 1963 there are thousands of them all over the world. Norway just donated 20 units to Ukraine.

Ok, I thought they had a different name when self-propelled rather than towed.

 

[southernhybrid]

After reading the article in the link, I'm going to post, I think the situation is hopeless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ng-assault-weapon-sales-georgia-gun-industry/

Yet at a gun store in Georgia, AR-15s are flying off the shelves, with customers lining up outside in anticipation of getting their hands on more firepower. To some of those shoppers, the very fact that such shootings appear to be on the rise — and are the focus of the media and politicians — is encouragement to arm up further.
Which is exactly how the gun industry apparently wants it to be.
This Georgia store is of interest because a local TV news crew aired an extraordinary segment over the weekend on its sales. The report captures in a very dark way the degree to which a maximally armed society is the industry’s barely disguised goal, and why some in the industry see fomenting social antagonism and division as key to pushing us further down that perilous path.

This store is located in a small city, right outside of Atlanta. In fact, it's considered part of the Atlanta metro area. Apparently, gun manufacturers jump for. joy whenever there is talk of trying to pass more effective gun control legislation. They are doing a great job of scaring people into thinking that they need AR-15s to protect their homes from mobs.

Sales of assault-style rifles have tripled since last week at this Adventure Outdoors store in Smyrna, Ga., according to the report. Gun sales overall at the store are up 30 percent, and after President Biden delivered a speech Thursday calling for more gun safety laws, the buying of AR-15s spiked.

“Folks were waiting at the door to purchase AR-15s,” a store manager says in the report, which was first flagged by Ron Filipkowski, a lawyer who closely tracks the right.
The manager also says customers should consider AR-15s precisely because they are semiautomatic. “If you deal with a mob of people possibly trying to take over your home,” he says, “to protect your family, you’ll want as much firepower as you can get.”

My country is sick and I don't see things getting any better, at least not in what's left of my lifetime.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yup. Not only are they out getting guns, they are idiots.

Americans Rush to Buy AR-15s After Shooting

AUSTIN, TX -- Weeks after the tragic massacre at an elementary school, sales in the AR-15, a weapon used in both the latest mass killings in Oklahoma and Texas, have gone up notable. When asked why they were purchasing the weapon, people noted that the AR-15 provided the best defense at home...

iidb.org

 

[Patooka]

Man, it's going to be interesting when all these gun nut fanbois start wanting the Sig Spear, or something cheaper but looks like an XM-5 so when they do their cosplay, it's with a weapon designed to penetrate body armour.

 

[Copernicus]

As many of us have tried to tell you, the problem in the US is that the majority of guns in the hands of criminals started out as legally purchased guns. Legal guns are the main source of criminal guns. It doesn't matter whether they are "missing" vs "stolen". The point is: rampant legal gun purchases are the root cause of criminal use. Any attempt to solve the problem by increasing the number of legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens is just going to drive up the supply for criminals.

Only relevant if you intend to basically ban guns.

How do you figure that? Anything that deters casual same-day purchases would be a huge step forward. Registration, licensing, mandatory training, and insurance for gun owners would also tend to deter casual purchases. Bans on large capacity magazines are a no-brainer. There are lots of things that you can do short of a ban on guns, which is a rather obvious straw man argument on your part. Why do you oppose these measures and insist that it is all about banning guns? Compromises are possible, but compromise is unthinkable for your side of the argument. All you seem willing to consider are strengthening mental health services (always a good idea) and maybe a little more background checking? Those aren't serious proposals, and they won't have any noticeable affect on the level of gun-injuries that Americans suffer.

You aren't establishing that deterring same-day purchases will have much effect at all.

Well, it certainly would have had an effect on the Oklahoma mass shooting in that hospital. The deranged murderer bought two weapons hours before the massacre. Even if only a few murders are prevented, a cooling off period would be worth having, and it would give authorities time to do a proper background check, given that such checks generally take at least one to three days to complete. But I agree that a waiting period alone is unlikely to change much. Coupled with one or more of the other measures--registration, licensing, mandatory training, insurance, and a ban on large capacity magazines--we would not be having same day purchases except for people who had pre-qualified. In any case, I asked you why you opposed those measures, and you ducked the question. Just repeating your previous stance ad nauseam does not refute anything I said.

The problem I see is trying to do something without actually considering whether the proposed action will help. Hint: Most things done in response to a major event do not actually work. That's how we got the abomination of the Patriot act.

The problem is not my failure to consider whether my proposals would work, but your failure to address the arguments that they would work. The Patriot Act is not what we are discussing here, and your broad generalization that "most things done in response to a major event do not actually work" is just handwaving, not a refutation. You are not actually coming up with any proposed solutions, just turning a blind eye to the mountain of gun-related deaths and injuries we suffer daily in America but not in countries with stricter gun safety regulations.

X happens, people trot out things on their wish list that they can pretend will help with X and sometimes the pressure to do something gets them passed. Almost never are they actually relevant.

These vague and unsupported generalizations don't actually convince anyone except people who are already convinced of your position.

 

[Swammerdami]

Delighted to learn from Uvalde that their duties include neither protecting nor serving, police in Tempe, Arizona watch a man drown:

“I’m going to drown. I’m going to drown,” Bickings said.

“No, you’re not,” replied one of the officers.

When Bickings told officers for a second time that he was drowning and was not able to swim back to the bridge’s pylon, a different officer replied: “OK, I’m not jumping in after you.”

As Bickings was drowning, Bickings’ partner became increasingly distressed, begging officers to save her husband. At one point, an officer tells Bickings’ partner to get off the bridge and threatens to put her in a police car.

“If you don’t calm down, I’m going to put you in my car,” the officer said.

Bickings’ partner continues pressing the officers to jump into the water and rescue Bickings, with officers replying that a boat is on the way.

“No, no, no,” said Bickings’ partner. “Fuckin’ swim.”

“You’re not helping,” replies the officer who threatened to detain her previously.

The same officer repeatedly tells Bickings’ partner to “stop talking” and later shushes her as she watches Bickings drown.

“I’m just distraught because he’s drowning right in front of you and you won’t help,” said Bickings’ partner, who added that officers were being aggressive towards her.

A different officer notes that Bickings had not come up from underneath the water for 30 seconds.

“He’s everything I got,” said Bickings’ partner. “I can’t lose him, he’s going to die.”

Bickings was later pulled from the water about 11.30am on 28 May. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Tempe case is bizarre. It involves what sounds like a mentally ill person who is trolling the police. And then claims he can’t swim after wading out into the water. The whole thing is documented.

This isn’t a case of someone fell into the water and needed help.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Tempe case is bizarre. It involves what sounds like a mentally ill person who is trolling the police. And then claims he can’t swim after wading out into the water. The whole thing is documented.

This isn’t a case of someone fell into the water and needed help.

True. Mental illness most certainly caused the drowning, not officer misconduct.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Tempe case is bizarre. It involves what sounds like a mentally ill person who is trolling the police. And then claims he can’t swim after wading out into the water. The whole thing is documented.

This isn’t a case of someone fell into the water and needed help.

Yeah, this appears to be a suicide and I'm not going to fault the officers here--going in after him is going to be extremely dangerous. That's a job for a boat or a rescue team with flotation equipment. If there's a rope or something buoyant, throw them, but don't get within arm's reach of a conscious, drowning person unless you damn well know what you're doing.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Tempe case is bizarre. It involves what sounds like a mentally ill person who is trolling the police. And then claims he can’t swim after wading out into the water. The whole thing is documented.

This isn’t a case of someone fell into the water and needed help.

True. Mental illness most certainly caused the drowning, not officer misconduct.

What? Cops aren't supposed to help the mentally ill?

I guess they could have just shot him.

 

[ZiprHead]

Hey, somebody made a meme.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Tempe case is bizarre. It involves what sounds like a mentally ill person who is trolling the police. And then claims he can’t swim after wading out into the water. The whole thing is documented.

This isn’t a case of someone fell into the water and needed help.

Yeah, this appears to be a suicide and I'm not going to fault the officers here--going in after him is going to be extremely dangerous. That's a job for a boat or a rescue team with flotation equipment. If there's a rope or something buoyant, throw them, but don't get within arm's reach of a conscious, drowning person unless you damn well know what you're doing.

Yeah, I never said it was a suicide. Mental health was the issue and the cops were being trolled by him until they didn’t realize he was in danger.

 

[blastula]

The video was cut short so we can't really know if police could have or should have tried to save him.

 

[Copernicus]

Lifeguards are trained to approach drowning people cautiously, because drowners tend to grab and cling out of desperation. They can easily drag the rescuer under with them. Rescuers have to grab them from behind with one arm across the chest, well out of reach of flailing arms. And that is without being weighed down with wet clothing, shoes, and equipment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lifeguards are trained to approach drowning people cautiously, because drowners tend to grab and cling out of desperation. They can easily drag the rescuer under with them. Rescuers have to grab them from behind with one arm across the chest, well out of reach of flailing arms. And that is without being weighed down with wet clothing, shoes, and equipment.

Elsewhere I ran into a guy very skilled in such matters--and he said that he wouldn't have gone in. Approach someone who is drowning and they'll climb up you, pushing you underwater.

 

[ZiprHead]

Daniel Defense is the Firearms store that sold Ramos his gun. This was posted 8 days before the shooting.