Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Elixir]

I tire of the ‘it won’t solve all gun violence therefore we shouldn’t address it’. Much like the absurdity of not requiring seatbelts because people can still die in car accidents.

A lot of things could be done that would reduce firearms fatalities, but won't be done because people politicians fear loss of campaign funds.
Simply cooling the political climate a little bit would probably save hundreds of lives over the next year. Just killing Trump would save a few dozen at least, since he is the main point of political violence and general unease. But that won't get done unless nature intervenes, and neither will an assault weapons ban or anything else that would have the direct effect of reducing the average American's ability to kill tens or hundreds of people within seconds or minutes. Conservative 'Murkins like having that ability, and the Republican Party relies heavily upon their spending to ensure it.
The best effort that can be made to save American lives from the ubiquity of guns, is probably mental health related, since most gun deaths are suicides anyhow. Meanwhile we will just have to let RW wackos and other crazies run amok and kill a handful here, a dozen there, or a hundred people over there, and call it the price of freedumb. B'cuz we are NOT going to do the sensible thing, the right thing, and take away and outlaw private ownership of semi-automatic weapons.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I tire of the ‘it won’t solve all gun violence therefore we shouldn’t address it’. Much like the absurdity of not requiring seatbelts because people can still die in car accidents.

A single state’s abortion ban won’t stop all abortions but that doesn’t seem to stop the Republicans from enacting them.

With abortions they *do* believe (or at least state a belief) that limiting and/or impeding legal access will reduce the number of incidents but then they use the exact opposite logic when it comes to guns.

 

[southernhybrid]

One of the biggest problems is that too many conservatives believe that any rational gun control laws mean the libs are trying to take away all of. their guns. My husband was friends with a gun nut who always voted for the Republicans due to this belief. He eventually convinced him that Dems didn't want to take everyone guns away, they just wanted guns to be something that only rational adults could own. The guy started voting for Dems, but sadly he died a few years later of heart failure. There are plenty of gun owners who are liberals, including the one I'm married to for one. I hate guns myself but realize that we're never going to get rid of them, but I'd love to see some rational gun legislation that would decrease gun deaths and injuries. Most gun owners actually support more gun control, but the crazies on the far right have such a gun fetish, they aren't going to try to pass any legislation.

We currently have over 400 million guns in the US, more than one for each person. That's crazy! I read this morning that Black women are the most recent demographic who are buying guns. They are simply afraid due to all the other guns around. I hope they receive good training if they feel they must own a gun because it's so common have one's gun used against them.

The shooting in Atlanta last night, that Derec and I mentioned in an earlier post, involved a several people but it was a 12 year old who died.

When it comes to assault weapons, sure it's true that banning them won't lower the death rate from guns by much. It's just that mass shooters can shoot dozens of people with an assault rifle instead of usually far less with a hand gun. WTF does anyone need with such a weapon, outside of war? Those guns belong in museums as an example of how nutty our American gun culture has become. They don't belong in anyone's hands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We can use the misleading nature of that graphic to talk about the actual information we can use. One important data point is that white people in poverty kill each other with guns at the same rate as Black people in poverty.

I think you have to control for population density to get this. I agree with the basic concept, though.

So clearly, fixing the poverty is a strongly correlated opportunity! And the fact that systems have been in place to create and perpetuate Black poverty gives us a terrific starting point.

But we shouldn't do anything about white poverty?! It self-perpetuates, also.

It's just the cycle of poverty is a very hard problem to crack. Blaming racism provides an easy out, that doesn't make it the solution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm "gifting" what I think is a really good article that contains ways to help reduce gun violence. Of course, implementing these things won't be easy, and they won't prevent all or even most gun deaths, but I think they are all good suggestions. I hope at least a few of you will take the time to read the link and give your opinions. The article was updated from a 2018 one. it's long so I'll only post part of the intro.

https://wapo.st/3ASGNZl

For far too long, those who oppose gun reforms have said that nothing can be done to stem the violence.


Those claims are demonstrably wrong. Research on gun violence is notoriously underfunded, but the data we do have shows that well-designed gun laws informed by science can save lives.

Point #1--ban semi-auto. Oops, that's the vast majority of guns out there. Revolvers also have the same rate of fire, just smaller magazines and slower reloads.

Point #2--age 21. Note the conditions--legally owned firearm. That's not most guns used in crime. And even then it's only 17%. In other words, this is small potatoes.

Point #3--stop the flow of guns. They're looking at countries, but try a better data set: states. There's an inverse relationship between guns and crime.
Point #3B--gun buybacks. Political show, meaningless. They're using Australia's forced buyback for data--and even that had no overall effect on the murder rate. The trend line continues to decline, their gun taking is irrelevant.

Point #4--bulk purchases. Two problems come to mind: Casualty losses (you're replacing a group of guns that were stolen/destroyed) and estate sales (can't buy all the guns in an estate.) I think it needs some refinement.
Point #4B--holding dealers accountable. In other words, the regulators aren't doing their jobs. Note the outliers, look at them and see if they're actually miscreants or just outliers. Look at what has happened with the crackdown on pill mill docs--they're actually nailing the chronic pain docs and that's lead to a lot of suicides without any proof the docs did wrong.

Point #5--background checks. This actually enjoys broad support if it's not made intrusive, but the left is continually shooting itself in the foot here by trying to go too far. I've already addressed this one.

Point #6--the 72 hour time limit. On this one I'm going to take a hard no. The regulators need to get off their asses and fix whatever's slowing things down. Government slowness is a big problem in society in general, Congress showed unusual intelligence in putting the time limit into the measure to keep it from intruding in this case. I think a lot more interactions with the government should have such clocks on them.
Point #6B--domestic violence. If you're going to do that you need to beef up the ability to deal with such cases. Otherwise you get what happened here--prosecutors undercharge to avoid triggering it because they simply didn't have the resources and courtrooms to deal with it. Passing a law and not providing the means to deal with it if anything makes matters worse.
Point #6C--waiting periods. Note that they are only addressing suicide here, they're irrelevant to crime. And note that this basically becomes moot if you go with the gun license approach I favor.
Point #6D--mental health data. Leaking that into the system means many people will avoid getting help in the first place. Only the most serious cases should go into the system.
Point #6E--red flag laws. Some big gotchas here. The concept looks good on it's face, but it can be used for retaliation (the flagged person should have recourse if they can show it's false reporting) and in many places temporarily seize becomes de-facto confiscate. (By the time you get them back you owe more for the storage than they're worth.) And the data looks utterly bogus--averted 21 potential mass shootings? Little numbers problem there.

I do pretty much agree with their final approach, though. Replace our current system with a gun license approach. I would make an exception for directly supervised use, though--so long as the supervisor is licensed the shooter doesn't have to be.

 

[bilby]

Point #1--ban semi-auto. Oops, that's the vast majority of guns out there. Revolvers also have the same rate of fire, just smaller magazines and slower reloads.

That's not "oops". It's the fucking point.

You can't reduce the number of guns out there, without reducing the number of guns out there.

Also, civilised nations rarely permit the widespread ownership and carrying of handguns; Such weapons are pretty much useless for shooting anything other than human beings and paper gun-range targets, so in the civilised world, only cops and security forces have permission to use them outside specialised sporting facilities.

This turns out to be an utterly trivial infringement on personal freedom, of the kind that no sane person resiles from. Like paying taxes, or not dropping litter, or wearing clothes, freedom from such things is simply not a freedom worth risking lives to defend.

Of necessity, all societies must balance the diametrically opposed ideas of freedom and law. When it comes to carrying handguns in public, sane societies choose law over freedom.

 

[bilby]

Point #2--age 21. Note the conditions--legally owned firearm. That's not most guns used in crime. And even then it's only 17%. In other words, this is small potatoes.

Then it won't be a big deal to implement it, will it?

A moment ago you were opposing a measure on the grounds that it would be too widely effective. Now you're opposing another measure on the exact opposite grounds - it's almost as though your stated reasons for objecting are based not in any overarching moral position, but rather on what you think might be the most effective way to silence your opponents.

 

[bilby]

Point #3--stop the flow of guns. They're looking at countries, but try a better data set: states. There's an inverse relationship between guns and crime.

Why is your proposed data set "better"?

What is better about it, other than its pointing at your preferred conclusions?

This looks like cherry-picking to me.

 

[bilby]

Point #4--bulk purchases. Two problems come to mind: Casualty losses (you're replacing a group of guns that were stolen/destroyed) and estate sales (can't buy all the guns in an estate.) I think it needs some refinement.

Why would failing to replace stolen or destroyed guns be a bad thing?

Why would anyone need to buy all the guns in an estate? The owner is dead, destroy the damn guns. They're more of a nuisance than an asset.

 

[bilby]

Point #4B--holding dealers accountable. In other words, the regulators aren't doing their jobs.

No shit.

Better enforcement and auditing is essential. Detailed and accurate licensing and ownership checks need to occur at all points in a well regulated system.

 

[bilby]

Point #5--background checks. This actually enjoys broad support if it's not made intrusive, but the left is continually shooting itself in the foot here by trying to go too far.

Too far? Gun ownership needs to become a privilege, not a right. That you're steeped in an obscene culture where the opposite view is fetishised doesn't make it less obscene.

Nobody in the USA seems interested in going anywhere close to far enough.

 

[bilby]

Point #6--the 72 hour time limit. On this one I'm going to take a hard no. The regulators need to get off their asses and fix whatever's slowing things down.

I agree. Frivolous applications to own a gun that has no real purpose - sport, hunting, or vermin control - should be denied quickly and without delay.

Applications to own a gun for personal protection or home defence should be automatically refused, not least because guns are absolutely unfit for these purposes, and anyone deluded enough not to understand that is not someone who should be trusted to have a gun license at all.

If you're planning to shoot inert targets, game animals, or pest animals, then perhaps you might be a fit person to own a firearm. If you're planning to shoot at humans, then you had better be joining the armed forces or the police. And if you aren't planning to shoot at all, you don't need a real gun at all.

I know you will argue that my reasonable suggestions are complete impossible to implement, because politics. But that's not actually true - 95% of humanity has done it, and there's nothing special about US public opinion in this regard. Where politics is directly antithetical to public opinion, politics can go fuck itself.

The problem is a tiny but cashed-up and vocal minority. In any kind of democracy, that's not a sufficient barrier to cause sane people to simply give up.

 

[bilby]

I do pretty much agree with their final approach, though. Replace our current system with a gun license approach.

Licensing isn't an alternative to those other things, it's the mechanism that underpins them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Point #4B--holding dealers accountable. In other words, the regulators aren't doing their jobs. Note the outliers, look at them and see if they're actually miscreants or just outliers. Look at what has happened with the crackdown on pill mill docs--they're actually nailing the chronic pain docs and that's lead to a lot of suicides without any proof the docs did wrong.

I don't want to go after anyone. I want the guy selling people guns to be fucking certain that the person they are selling to isn't intent on murder a dozen people. Putting liability on the dealer makes the dealer have skin in the game, his skin. So the idea is that a dealer is less likely to just sell to anyone.

Of course, being against this isn't about legal liability. It has fuck all to do with that. It has to do with the situation that if a guns dealer is liable for a mass murder committed by a person he just sold guns to... he is less likely to sell guns, which will mean less profit. And the gun lobby can't have that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Point #5--background checks. This actually enjoys broad support if it's not made intrusive, but the left is continually shooting itself in the foot here by trying to go too far.

Too far? Gun ownership needs to become a privilege, not a right. That you're steeped in an obscene culture where the opposite view is fetishised doesn't make it less obscene.

Nobody in the USA seems interested in going anywhere close to far enough.

Privilege means that the wealthy and connected get guns, everyone else doesn't. Note that what their history is like isn't that relevant, plenty of mobsters getting gun permits in such places.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Point #4B--holding dealers accountable. In other words, the regulators aren't doing their jobs. Note the outliers, look at them and see if they're actually miscreants or just outliers. Look at what has happened with the crackdown on pill mill docs--they're actually nailing the chronic pain docs and that's lead to a lot of suicides without any proof the docs did wrong.

I don't want to go after anyone. I want the guy selling people guns to be fucking certain that the person they are selling to isn't intent on murder a dozen people. Putting liability on the dealer makes the dealer have skin in the game, his skin. So the idea is that a dealer is less likely to just sell to anyone.

Of course, being against this isn't about legal liability. It has fuck all to do with that. It has to do with the situation that if a guns dealer is liable for a mass murder committed by a person he just sold guns to... he is less likely to sell guns, which will mean less profit. And the gun lobby can't have that.

You're setting an impossible burden.

 

[bilby]

Point #5--background checks. This actually enjoys broad support if it's not made intrusive, but the left is continually shooting itself in the foot here by trying to go too far.

Too far? Gun ownership needs to become a privilege, not a right. That you're steeped in an obscene culture where the opposite view is fetishised doesn't make it less obscene.

Nobody in the USA seems interested in going anywhere close to far enough.

Privilege means that the wealthy and connected get guns, everyone else doesn't. Note that what their history is like isn't that relevant, plenty of mobsters getting gun permits in such places.

That's not what it means, unless you craft the system to achieve that goal.

Privilege means that those who can demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that they can be trusted with guns get guns, and nobody else does.

Note that this deprives many people, who are blameless and harmless, but who cannot demonstrate that fact, of the ability to own a gun; And note also that this is a price well worth paying to save lives.

 

[bilby]

Point #4B--holding dealers accountable. In other words, the regulators aren't doing their jobs. Note the outliers, look at them and see if they're actually miscreants or just outliers. Look at what has happened with the crackdown on pill mill docs--they're actually nailing the chronic pain docs and that's lead to a lot of suicides without any proof the docs did wrong.

I don't want to go after anyone. I want the guy selling people guns to be fucking certain that the person they are selling to isn't intent on murder a dozen people. Putting liability on the dealer makes the dealer have skin in the game, his skin. So the idea is that a dealer is less likely to just sell to anyone.

Of course, being against this isn't about legal liability. It has fuck all to do with that. It has to do with the situation that if a guns dealer is liable for a mass murder committed by a person he just sold guns to... he is less likely to sell guns, which will mean less profit. And the gun lobby can't have that.

You're setting an impossible burden.

Oh, no!

Anyway, if it becomes unprofitable to deal in guns, because of impossible burdens placed on gun dealers, then perhaps those dealers can stop selling guns, and sell ice cream, or shoes, or bicycles, or, well, whatever else they like.

The destruction of the businesses of gun makers and gun dealers isn't a disaster, even for those makers and dealers, unless they're shit at business to begin with.

It certainly isn't the existential threat to the USofA that the gun lobby would have us believe.

And it would be a positive boon for the average American.

 

[Derec]

I agree. Frivolous applications to own a gun that has no real purpose - sport, hunting, or vermin control - should be denied quickly and without delay.
Applications to own a gun for personal protection or home defence should be automatically refused, not least because guns are absolutely unfit for these purposes, and anyone deluded enough not to understand that is not someone who should be trusted to have a gun license at all.

That's bullshit. There are numerous cases where homeowners have defended themselves successfully from home invaders using firearms.
Example: Suspect faces murder charge 18 months after homeowner shot at him, intruders
There are more recent examples of course, but this one happened a) in my neck of the woods and b) there is video
There are also numerous cases of shopkeepers defending themselves from robbers. For example this.
Lastly, customers can also defend a business from armed robbers and the like. Example. I eat there sometimes, btw.

Now of course, people like you have sympathy with robbers, burglars etc. "How he gonna get his money?" and similar nonsense. That does not change the fact that firearms are effective in defense against these thugs.

 

[Derec]

Why would anyone need to buy all the guns in an estate? The owner is dead, destroy the damn guns. They're more of a nuisance than an asset.

Surely, the heirs should be the ones to decide what to do with these assets. Not some extremist from Australia.