Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Shadowy Man]

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.

We shouldn't bother putting strong doors on bank vaults, because criminals will just start robbing post offices, or factory payrolls, or armoured cars instead.

And since bank vaults are so rarely robbed compared to other robberies, putting strong doors on them will make virtually no change in the amount of robberies.

 

[Derec]

Definitely not just seeing mass shootings (assuming you mean schools, churches, concerts, malls, movie theaters, etc.) here. But why not start there? Seems like a good place to start: Make it harder for people to get hold of weapons to shoot up elementary schools.

But you were not talking about that. You were talking about banning a class of weapons. For everybody.

Who can be against that?

Because banning AR15s will not work for that purpose. You'd have to ban handguns as well.
And that is just not politically possible.

 

[Derec]

So why do we need assault weapons on the streets? If a 9mm is just as good why do so many want assault weapons? There’s a psychology at work here that needs to be addressed.

Some people like them. Mostly because of their looks. The psychology is similar to why people like Toni and β want to ban so-called "assault weapons". They dislike them emotionally.

But banning so-called "assault weapons" will not accomplish anything, why is why it is stupid to waste time, effort and any political capital on that idée fixe.

 

[Derec]

To me the problem is cultural. Old norms and prohibitions are disappearing.

It definitely is cultural. Also political. When fauxgressive DAs go easy on those committing serious crimes like armed robbery just because they are under 18, that encourages more of it. When fauxgressive mayors like LaToya Cantrell publicly support a teenage carjacker and not his victims, that sends a loud and clear message to all the other teenagers thinking about a career in stealing cars at gunpoint.

 

[Derec]

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?

 

[Derec]

All three lines on that chart were ticking up at the end.

Around 2014, yes. I wonder what was happening in the US around that time ...

 

[Derec]

I notice that chart stops at 2016. Las Vegas happened in 2017.

I posted the chart I found. I wanted to include the time period of the supposed golden age when the "assault weapons" ban was in effect.
I do not expect the relative frequencies of gun crimes using handguns vs. rifles changed much since 2016, do you?
This one is about mass shootings, not all gun crime or all homicides.

Handguns are by far the most frequently used weapon in mass shootings as well.

US mass shootings, 1982–2023: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

First of all, Mother Jones (who came up with that name anyway?) is a far-left rag. But even their data, with too many categories, agree that most mass shootings are done with handguns.

Since 2017, both the numbers of mass shootings and the numbers of victims have gone way up.

I made some charts based on MJ data.

There seems to be an upward trend in incidents, but lately it has been coming down. 2021 seems to be an aberration though.

2017 is definitely an outlier here, due to Las Vegas. And that type of long range shooting is where a rifle is definitely preferable to a handgun, unlike close quarters rampages that most mass shootings are. Note also that the shooter used a now illegal bump stock to make his semiautomatic rifle quasi-automatic.

 

[Derec]

Do you are saying that it is perfectly reasonable to allow the imperfect to stand in the way of the good.

No, I am saying that that the (nearly) useless should not stand in the way of the good.
Wasting political capital on a renewed "assault weapon" ban would be stupid, when other, less intrusive, measures would do much more good.
And one thing we should do is lock up people who use guns in commission of crimes. Even if they are under 18 years old. And stop glorifying gun thugs.
Hagiography: Daunte Wright remembered as ‘prince of Brooklyn Center’
Vs. Reality: Kim Potter trial: Daunte Wright robbery victim recounts 'evil' deed in exclusive first interview

Because there will always be terrible people or just crazy people who do terrible things, who decide to make as many people suffer as possible. We will never be able to stop all of the evil in the world. We must do whatever good is on our power to do.

But we also have limited numbers of things we can do. So let's focus on things that actually would do some good and not just make certain people feel better about themselves.

Restoring the ban is a first step. It’s not the only step. We need to keep moving forward.

It should not be a step at all. It would cost the Dems a lot of political capital and would do (next to) nothing.

And yes, me must do much much much more to help people with mental illness.

I have no issue with that. And if family members let their mentally ill relative have access to guns, they should be liable too. One is reminded of the case of Keaton Otis. Mentally ill, but had a gun. Shot a police officer in the legs during a traffic stop. Other officers returned fire, killing him.

 

[Derec]

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.

It is not a fallacy and I do find it compelling. If banning a certain type of firearm will not improve gun crimes in any significant way (due to criminals using other types of firearms) then restricting freedoms of law-abiding gun owners to own firearms of a certain type is not justified.

 

[bilby]

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.

It is not a fallacy and I do find it compelling. If banning a certain type of firearm will not improve gun crimes in any significant way (due to criminals using other types of firearms) then restricting freedoms of law-abiding gun owners to own firearms of a certain type is not justified.

Sure it is.

In most countries, rifles and shotguns are fairly easy to obtain licenses for.

Handguns, however, are very highly restricted, mainly because they have very few uses that don't entail a human being as their target.

You are right that a ban on some kinds of rifles would have only a small effect (though you are wrong to dismiss it as futile - if you are killed by someone, your family and friends are unlikely to be consoled by the fact that he used a fairly unusual weapon).

But your argument makes very clear that you should, if you are consistent, be lobbying for massive and immediate restrictions on handguns.

Of course, you're not consistent; Instead you switch to a different tactic - claiming that restrictions on handguns are "politically impossible". Well, that's just another way of saying "I don't wanna!". It's not a compelling argument at all.

Everything's "politically impossible", until it isn't. Telling Americans that they can't have handguns, is no more politically impossible than telling them that they can't have slaves was.

That is, it was, until it wasn't.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.

It is not a fallacy and I do find it compelling. If banning a certain type of firearm will not improve gun crimes in any significant way (due to criminals using other types of firearms) then restricting freedoms of law-abiding gun owners to own firearms of a certain type is not justified.

I don’t think simply banning AR-15s alone will do a lot, to that I would agree. Which is why there needs to be a host of common sense gun regulations, which most people actually agree with. Except for Republican politicians who could make that actually happen.

Part of that could be the banning of classes of weapons defined by actual characteristics of the weapons and not looks or emotional attachments.

I’d love to see these conversations happen but alas I think I will have a long time to wait. Politics has become mostly appeals to emotions and not rational discourse.

 

[Patooka]

This whole "you can't ban a specific type of firearm" is a bullshit argument and here's why;

It's already happened.

Saiga-12s have been banned since 2014. And I don't see them being legal anytime soon. So banning a firearm that is popular with the most irresponsible of gun owners and is most likely the type used in mass shootings? Should be a piece of piss.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This whole "you can't ban a specific type of firearm" is a bullshit argument and here's why;

It's already happened.

Saiga-12s have been banned since 2014. And I don't see them being legal anytime soon. So banning a firearm that is popular with the most irresponsible of gun owners and is most likely the type used in mass shootings? Should be a piece of piss.

What is the point in banning that gun? Some people may like it. And any criminal will just find another gun to use anyway. There are so many out there to choose from.

 

[Toni]

Do you are saying that it is perfectly reasonable to allow the imperfect to stand in the way of the good.

No, I am saying that that the (nearly) useless should not stand in the way of the good.
Wasting political capital on a renewed "assault weapon" ban would be stupid, when other, less intrusive, measures would do much more good.
And one thing we should do is lock up people who use guns in commission of crimes. Even if they are under 18 years old. And stop glorifying gun thugs.
Hagiography: Daunte Wright remembered as ‘prince of Brooklyn Center’
Vs. Reality: Kim Potter trial: Daunte Wright robbery victim recounts 'evil' deed in exclusive first interview

Because there will always be terrible people or just crazy people who do terrible things, who decide to make as many people suffer as possible. We will never be able to stop all of the evil in the world. We must do whatever good is on our power to do.

But we also have limited numbers of things we can do. So let's focus on things that actually would do some good and not just make certain people feel better about themselves.

Restoring the ban is a first step. It’s not the only step. We need to keep moving forward.

It should not be a step at all. It would cost the Dems a lot of political capital and would do (next to) nothing.

And yes, me must do much much much more to help people with mental illness.

I have no issue with that. And if family members let their mentally ill relative have access to guns, they should be liable too. One is reminded of the case of Keaton Otis. Mentally ill, but had a gun. Shot a police officer in the legs during a traffic stop. Other officers returned fire, killing him.

Cool, then what are your actual suggestions?

But please note: During the ban, kids deaths in mass shootings declined and increased again when the ban was repealed.

 

[Toni]

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?

Which part WERE accomplished with Glock 19’s? But sure, ban those fuckers as well.

 

[Toni]

Definitely not just seeing mass shootings (assuming you mean schools, churches, concerts, malls, movie theaters, etc.) here. But why not start there? Seems like a good place to start: Make it harder for people to get hold of weapons to shoot up elementary schools.

But you were not talking about that. You were talking about banning a class of weapons. For everybody.

Who can be against that?

Because banning AR15s will not work for that purpose. You'd have to ban handguns as well.
And that is just not politically possible.

Sure I was talking about that—yes, banning classes of weapons for everybody. I don’t actually have a problem with banning handguns. Their only purpose is to kill people.

 

[ZiprHead]

This whole "you can't ban a specific type of firearm" is a bullshit argument and here's why;

It's already happened.

Saiga-12s have been banned since 2014. And I don't see them being legal anytime soon. So banning a firearm that is popular with the most irresponsible of gun owners and is most likely the type used in mass shootings? Should be a piece of piss.

Technically Saigas are just banned from import. If you already owned one no one is going to take it away from you.

 

[ZiprHead]

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?

Which part WERE accomplished with Glock 19’s? But sure, ban those fuckers as well.

The psychology of wielding those types of weapons seems to be discounted quite a bit.

And it doesn't take a genius to know the AR and its high velocity rounds are far more dangerous than a Glock.

 

[Elixir]

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

Which part of Sandy Hook, Parkland or Uvalde could not be accomplished with a couple of Glock 19s?

Which part WERE accomplished with Glock 19’s? But sure, ban those fuckers as well.

I’m fairly certain Derec has never attained any proficiency with either a 19 or an AR. If he had, he’d know how expert you’d have to be to “accomplish” Uvalde, Sandy Hook or Parkland with a Glock.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem is your "concrete" point isn't--you act like we can cleanly divide guns into AR-15 and other.

Quibble quibble

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

We tried it. The gun makers simply made cosmetic changes so their products no longer met the definition. Why should we not expect the same result from trying it again?