Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Loren Pechtel]

Any sensible measure will be attacked from both sides.

'Cause it's not really about doing anything reasonable. It's about hurting your political opponents.

That's the Republican philosophy.

 

[Elixir]

Any sensible measure will be attacked from both sides.

'Cause it's not really about doing anything reasonable. It's about hurting your political opponents.

That's the Republican philosophy.

True. It is hardly surprising that they'd project it on others; they are already in Trump's habit of accusing others of the crimes they are committing. It's to the point where you can tell what crime they are going to commit next because it's what they are accusing Dems of on any given day.

 

[Tigers!]

And meanwhile people are still dying.

 

[Derec]

I agree with Derec.

No, you don't.

Ban handguns too.

That's neither politically feasible nor would it be good policy. Better to license firearms than to ban them.

 

[Derec]

Can you name any bills proposed by pro-gun politicians that attempt to address gun violence by focusing on people?
Are there any Republican mental health initiatives? Anything else?

I can't. But so what? I am not defending them. I am not a Republican.
Just because one side is in the wrong, does not mean the other side is automatically right.
On gun control, both sides are wrong, for different reasons.

It’s easy to say this and not want to address the weapons but it’s another thing to back up that talk with action.

I am not in Congress. I cannot exactly do anything to push forward legislation, like sponsor a bill.
We are all just discussing matters here. Yes, that is easy to do, but that applies to you too.

To get back to the Dems' misguided efforts like the so-called "assault weapons ban", I do not think doing something, anything is necessarily a good thing. Such a ban would use up a lot of political capital and it would, at most, have only a minor benefit. Most likely, it would have no measurable effect on firearm crime. So why waste time and political capital on something like this? Just to "do something", no matter if that something is actually meaningful?

 

[Derec]

Derec intentionally conflates any advocacy for restricting the manufacture and distribution of certain types of long guns, with taking people's guns away, outlawing guns etc..

I am not conflating shit. It's what some Dems (like β) are saying.

It's bad faith discussion. And too bad, since almost all of us, including Derec, seem to agree that requiring training, gun registration and licensing for their use, are good ideas. But since some of us see that as the beginning of sensible reform, Derec seems to view it as a slippery slope that would end in a gunless "nightmare".

I do not see sensible reform as a slippery slope. But many in the Democratic Party do want to ban guns, or at least some guns.

 

[Derec]

Derec thinks you are and that’s why this discussion is so muddled.

He definitely is. He was talking earlier about restricting handgun ownership to things like competition shooting and that use of guns for self defense should not be allowed.

I just want the pro gun people to agree that reasonable regulations shutouts be in place and that firearms whose characteristics are more similar to weapons of war need not be trivially obtainable (if at all).

I agree with you on the first one. I sort of agree with you on the second one in that no firearm should be "trivially available". We part ways in treating semiauto rifles as "weapons of war" subject to bans or unreasonable levels of scrutiny even though handguns are used in a lot more gun crimes than rifles of any kind.

It seems they agree but then again nothing in USA is happening politically in that direction.

And people like β or even Biden are not helping matters either with their pronouncements.

Reasonable gun control advocates often say that nobody wants to take people's guns away. But statements like the above show something different.

 

[Derec]

But it DOES mean we should licence the people who use them, register the equipment they use, and require proficiency testing to get a license, which is forfeited for misbehaviour.

I agree with this as long as regulations are not onerous, i.e. as long as they are there to ensure responsible handing and use of guns and not so strict hardly anybody could comply.
You have also previously stated opposition to use of guns for self defense, only for hunting and things like competition shooting. That is a very significant infringement in my view.

Again, no country in the developed world has banned firearms for private use. They just have strict licensing and registration requirements.

Many countries have banned certain guns. UK allows alows rifles and shotguns for hunting but has outright banned private ownership of handguns except muzzle loaders (LMAO).
And FSM help a poor Brit who is a victim of a home invasion and uses a firearm in self defense. He is liable to serve more time in gaol than the home invader!

And there are anti-gun people in the US who want to ban all, or at least most, guns. See ZiprHead who wants to "ban handguns too".

And nobody is talking about banning firearms from private use in the US.

Define "nobody". Some pople on this thread are.
So are some writers like this one. Or this:
It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them.

Ban guns. All guns. Get rid of guns in homes, and on the streets, and, as much as possible, on police.

That's a lot of nobodies.

 

[bilby]

He was talking earlier about restricting handgun ownership to things like competition shooting and that use of guns for self defense should not be allowed.

It amazes me that anyone could think that this idea is so radical and unreasonable that it needs no further discussion to support its lack of reasonableness.

Why the fuck would anyone in a developed nation want to have a handgun for self defence?

Literally nobody in any developed nation outside the USA finds the prohibition of handguns for this purpose to be so unreasonable as to be obviously wrong without further discussion.

Almost nobody in that population would suggest that it might, in fact, be a wise or sensible thing to allow handguns for this purpose.

Your incredulity is entirely a unilaterally American attitude. And you are wrong - self defence doesn't require handguns, and people in developed nations outside the USA have not had any reason to want them in over a century. Literally nobody in London, or Paris, or Sydney feels unsafe because they can't have a handgun; But many many residents of those cities would hesitate to visit the USA for fear of the handguns that are so ubiquitous there.

 

[Elixir]

Your incredulity is entirely a unilaterally American attitude.

That’s the problem. If we let the NRA, their Russian backers and the great gun manufacturers of the world simply produce as many and as powerful firearms as possible so that EVERYONE can enjoy having more guns than people - then everyone can realize how “onerous” any restriction on the distribution or use of guns really is. Just because some poor fuck in Bangladesh can’t afford an AR15, doesn’t mean everyone in ’Murka shouldn’t have at least one or two of them.

 

[Elixir]

many in the Democratic Party do want to ban guns, or at least some guns.

And you believe .. what? That all weapons should be legal? Just create a licensing structure for ballistic devices, another for explosives (non- nuclear) and another one for nukes, then let the makers and sellers of all weaponry have their field day?
We already see the effects of letting weapons proliferate and it ain’t pretty.

 

[Oleg]

Why the fuck would anyone in a developed nation want to have a handgun for self defence?

 

[Derec]

[Armed robber buying it]

Bilby et al be like ...

 

[Patooka]

Police: Teacher shot by 6-year-old in Virginia classroom

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) — A 6-year-old student shot and wounded a teacher at his school in Virginia during an altercation inside a first-grade classroom Friday, police and school officials in the city of Newport News said.

apnews.com

A 6-year-old student shot and wounded a teacher at his school in Virginia during an altercation inside a first-grade classroom Friday, police and school officials in the city of Newport News said.

But sure, keep blocking any and all gun legislation. Let's see how fucked things can go.

 

[laughing dog]

Why the fuck would anyone in a developed nation want to have a handgun for self defence?

That was not self-defense - he shot the armed robber in the back as the robber was leaving.

 

[Derec]

That was not self-defense - he shot the armed robber in the back as the robber was leaving.

Was he leaving or just turned his back to the armed victim momentarily?

Either way, the armed robber fucked around and found out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

many in the Democratic Party do want to ban guns, or at least some guns.

And you believe .. what? That all weapons should be legal? Just create a licensing structure for ballistic devices, another for explosives (non- nuclear) and another one for nukes, then let the makers and sellers of all weaponry have their field day?
We already see the effects of letting weapons proliferate and it ain’t pretty.

Possession of explosives is legal with proper licensing and doesn't seem to be a problem.

Nukes are another matter--I'd say private ownership should be legal but apply the normal military standards for handling--this makes private possession impossible. That doesn't make ownership moot, though--a private party should be able to buy one and direct the military to where they want the boom. They must ensure that said boom isn't a problem--effectively impossible on Earth but Acme Asteroid Movers should be able to buy nukes for an Orion drive.

 

[Oleg]

That was not self-defense - he shot the armed robber in the back as the robber was leaving.

He held everyone hostage with threat of lethal force. Play stupid games, . . .

 

[Elixir]

He held everyone hostage with threat of lethal force. , . . .

Yeah, try THAT with a knife.

 

[Toni]

many in the Democratic Party do want to ban guns, or at least some guns.

And you believe .. what? That all weapons should be legal? Just create a licensing structure for ballistic devices, another for explosives (non- nuclear) and another one for nukes, then let the makers and sellers of all weaponry have their field day?
We already see the effects of letting weapons proliferate and it ain’t pretty.

Possession of explosives is legal with proper licensing and doesn't seem to be a problem.

Nukes are another matter--I'd say private ownership should be legal but apply the normal military standards for handling--this makes private possession impossible. That doesn't make ownership moot, though--a private party should be able to buy one and direct the military to where they want the boom. They must ensure that said boom isn't a problem--effectively impossible on Earth but Acme Asteroid Movers should be able to buy nukes for an Orion drive.

I think you are out of your ever loving mind. I mean this sincerely but yet in a way that is totally in keeping with all of the TOU of this board and also that would not hurt your feelings but maybe make you think twice about whether it is good idea to give the power to direct the use of a nuclear weapon to.....anyone, much less a private citizen, who, btw, likely voted for Trump at least once.