Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[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.