• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

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.
Impossible? Then why in the heck are people allowed to sell these things?

Gun rights activist: I'm sorry that you lost your daughter in that mass shooting, but if we expected all gun dealers to sell only to parties they knew weren't a danger to society, then they wouldn't make enough money to be gun dealers.

Mother: And I thought I knew how awful things could be because my daughter was just murdered. Won't someone think of the gun dealers?!
 
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.
That becomes more difficult to counter when you have Democratic politicians spewing rhetoric like "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47" (Texas governor elect three-time loser β) or "the idea we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It’s just sick. It has no, no social redeeming value. Zero. None. Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturers." (President Biden).

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.
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

We currently have over 400 million guns in the US, more than one for each person. That's crazy!
How much is this number being pulled up by large(ish) gun collections? Now, these collectors are unlikely to use these guns in a crime. I am much more concerned about criminals, esp. gang-members, having easy access to guns.
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.
I hope so too. If for no other reason to prevent tragedies like when small children get their hands on firearms.
Young mother killed after accidentally shot by toddler playing with gun; father in custody
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.
That is very sad. Can't imagine how his parents are feeling. In the reporting I've read they have not clarified who the 12 year old was with, who the shooters were, and how they are all related. They did say the teens (and all those shot were minors) were expelled from Atlantic Station for being unruly and for violating the 3pm curfew (it was 6pm but they still had problems with misbehaving teens). It is obviously bad when teens believe shootouts are a good way to settle disputes. Something needs to be done about that, but it must start at home.

By the way, another case I mentioned, the Gresham Rd. home invasion, has a coda of sorts.
Candlelight vigil for teen shooting victim in DeKalb turns deadly
Somebody shot up the vigil for the 18 year old Taneaious McCune killed during the home invasion (he was one of the perpetrator). Such shoot-ups are relatively common. Usually by members of a rival gang. That's another thing - instead of going after lawful and peaceful gun owners, more needs to be done against these thugs and gangs. But many progressives have a soft spot for them.

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.
That is questionable. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, killed 32 and wounded 17 with a Glock 19 and a Walther P22. Both are handguns and not "assault weapons". If the assault weapon ban is reinstated, any mass shooters can just use handguns. Or handguns and shotguns, like the Columbine shooters (which happened during the assault weapons ban).

WTF does anyone need with such a weapon, outside of war?
Many people just like the way they look. And as far as war and military, AR15s are not used by military. They use e.g. M16s and XM5s, which are assault rifles capable of automatic fire. "Assault weapons" is a much more vague term for certain civilian rifles.
 
Last edited:


When I was growig up in the 60s 50s guns wee easy to get. You could order them mail order for the Sears catalogs. Yet this large scale youth violence did not exist.
In the 50s, 60s there did not seem to be this vast pool of anger, hatred, angst, bitterness etc. that exists now.
That's because back then, the minorities knew thier place.

Glad I could help.
 


When I was growig up in the 60s 50s guns wee easy to get. You could order them mail order for the Sears catalogs. Yet this large scale youth violence did not exist.
In the 50s, 60s there did not seem to be this vast pool of anger, hatred, angst, bitterness etc. that exists now.
That's because back then, the minorities knew thier place.

Glad I could help.
The police also had german shepherds and fire hoses... and courts looking the other way.
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
 
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.
I'm talking about what actually happens.
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
 
There's something called the "weapons effect," a phenomenon first studied in 1967. Researchers Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage found that just the presence of firearms in a room made people take more aggressive actions, administering stronger electric shocks to other study participants. A 1975 study showed that a person drove more aggressively when behind a truck with a gun in a rack than one with no gun – even though logic might caution you about honking your horn at a truck displaying a weapon. People have an evolutionary propensity to identify dangerous items very quickly – and studies show people can identify guns as quickly as snakes. It seems as if weapons trigger the same part of our brain as danger and aggression [source: Bushman]. Another 2006 study showed that gun interaction increased testosterone levels and aggressive behavior in men [source: Klinesmith].
When you think of gun violence, you might picture a criminal wielding a 9 mm pistol at an unsuspecting victim or a homeowner using a shotgun to defend himself from an intruder, but the majority of gun deaths in the U.S. aren't from assaults but people using guns to take their own lives [source: Sapien]. In 2011, the most recent statistical year available, 19,766 people in the U.S. committed suicide with a firearm. Meanwhile, 11,101 committed homicide with a firearm [source: Hoyert and Xu].

In Mindy McCready's case, it's pretty easy to argue that without a gun she might have found some other way to take her life. Police also found bottles of prescription medications in her home [source: People Magazine].

But there is a connection between owning a gun and taking one's own life. A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2004 survey of gun violence research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that gun owners who committed suicide were more likely to use their guns rather than other methods, like pills. A 1992 study cited in the CDC survey discovered that people with a gun in the home were five times more likely to commit suicide overall. And a large-scale, national 2003 study found that access to a gun made a person more than three times more likely to commit suicide than someone without firearms [source: Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow].
It's pretty clear that owning a gun puts you at higher risk for harming yourself, but what about harming others?

A lot of the government-funded research on gun violence comes from the early to mid-1990s. That's because in 1996, the National Rifle Association successfully lobbied Congress to cut funding for gun violence studies. But before that, the CDC found that having a gun in the home made homicide about three times more likely for family members in that house [source: Sapien]. This jibes with a 1992 study, which found that family disputes that turned violent were three times more likely to result in death when a firearm was present versus other weapons [source: Saltzman].

Most homicides aren't carefully planned events. Instead, an argument with a friend or family member -- maybe over money or infidelity -- turns violent. Add a gun to the mix and the chances of death are greater than say, using a baseball or a knife.
Republicans wonder why society has gotten so violent. It's because they've flooded society with guns.
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
They’re already upset they can’t have machine guns?

They don’t understand the slippery slope logical fallacy?
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.
They are in the other 95% of the world.

Apparently, everyone is unreasonable except the USA. :rolleyesa:
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
Also: this isn’t an answer to my question. Do you think banning fully automatic guns is an unreasonable idea?
 
Gun ownership needs to become a privilege, not a right.
That idea, phrased like that, scares the shit out of Republicans reliant upon NRA funds. But it is what's needed.
All purchases, public and private should be tracked and registered. There should be a 21 year age requirement for purchases, competency tests to pass before qualifying and renewals required - just like drivers licenses.

Cars are not even purpose-built for killing.
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
They’re already upset they can’t have machine guns?

They don’t understand the slippery slope logical fallacy?
You're showing they're right about the slippery slope.
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
Also: this isn’t an answer to my question. Do you think banning fully automatic guns is an unreasonable idea?
I'd be a bit more liberal about them than the current system.

The current level of background checking seems to work--AFIAK we have a total of one crime committed with a legal full-auto weapon and it was against property. I would make two changes: 1) I see no reason to only permit grandfathered weapons. 2) I favor a gun license approach--I would make NFA items a license endorsement.

When you see news articles about misdeeds with machine guns they're either illegal imports or illegal conversions. Whether legal ones are available or not can't change what illegal ones do.
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
They’re already upset they can’t have machine guns?

They don’t understand the slippery slope logical fallacy?
You're showing they're right about the slippery slope.
Then you might not quite understand the slippery slope fallacy as it applies here.

It’s like saying that we can’t allow same-sex marriage because then we will have to allow people to marry their pets.

If you think that fully automatic weapons are reasonable to be banned then you agree that there is a line. We can then in principle have a reasonable debate about where that line should be. But we typically don’t because of cries of slippery slope that shut down reasoned debate.

I personally tend not to like arguments that focus on the words “assault weapons” and would prefer ones that focus on particular characteristics of the weapons that are definable and quantifiable. In the end that makes for a fairer and more enforceable law.
 

When you see news articles about misdeeds with machine guns they're either illegal imports or illegal conversions. Whether legal ones are available or not can't change what illegal ones do.
If fully automatic weapons were legally sold at Walmart we would likely see more crimes committed with them. Very often having something be illegal acts as a substantial barrier to crime.
 
Privilege means that those who can demonstrate clearly and unequivocally that they can be trusted with guns get guns, and nobody else does.

I agree, however judging by how well my state (Florida) does with determining how people can be trusted to drive cars I'm not at all confident they'd do any better with guns.
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
They’re already upset they can’t have machine guns?

They don’t understand the slippery slope logical fallacy?
You're showing they're right about the slippery slope.
Then you might not quite understand the slippery slope fallacy as it applies here.

It’s like saying that we can’t allow same-sex marriage because then we will have to allow people to marry their pets.

If you think that fully automatic weapons are reasonable to be banned then you agree that there is a line. We can then in principle have a reasonable debate about where that line should be. But we typically don’t because of cries of slippery slope that shut down reasoned debate.

I personally tend not to like arguments that focus on the words “assault weapons” and would prefer ones that focus on particular characteristics of the weapons that are definable and quantifiable. In the end that makes for a fairer and more enforceable law.
You are displaying far too much common sense.
If you do not stop you will be banned.
 
I support more serious gun control, as long as it is reasonable. Banning certain types of guns or saying (like bilby) that people should not be allowed to purchase guns for protection are not reasonable ideas.

What about fully automatic guns? Is banning that type a reasonable idea? If so, why not other types?
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
They’re already upset they can’t have machine guns?

They don’t understand the slippery slope logical fallacy?
You're showing they're right about the slippery slope.
Then you might not quite understand the slippery slope fallacy as it applies here.

It’s like saying that we can’t allow same-sex marriage because then we will have to allow people to marry their pets.

If you think that fully automatic weapons are reasonable to be banned then you agree that there is a line. We can then in principle have a reasonable debate about where that line should be. But we typically don’t because of cries of slippery slope that shut down reasoned debate.

I personally tend not to like arguments that focus on the words “assault weapons” and would prefer ones that focus on particular characteristics of the weapons that are definable and quantifiable. In the end that makes for a fairer and more enforceable law.
You are displaying far too much common sense.
If you do not stop you will be banned.
I’ve lasted here for twenty years without being banned. Though my posts are typically innocuous and forgettable.
 
Exhibit A for why gun nuts don't want to give a micron.
They’re already upset they can’t have machine guns?

They don’t understand the slippery slope logical fallacy?
You're showing they're right about the slippery slope.
Then you might not quite understand the slippery slope fallacy as it applies here.

It’s like saying that we can’t allow same-sex marriage because then we will have to allow people to marry their pets.

If you think that fully automatic weapons are reasonable to be banned then you agree that there is a line. We can then in principle have a reasonable debate about where that line should be. But we typically don’t because of cries of slippery slope that shut down reasoned debate.

The problem is that the gun banners keep trying to chip away at guns, the same as the right keeps trying to chip away at abortion.

In both cases a reasonable compromise probably exists but in both cases the other side keeps trying to use the compromise as the starting point to chip away some more.

I personally tend not to like arguments that focus on the words “assault weapons” and would prefer ones that focus on particular characteristics of the weapons that are definable and quantifiable. In the end that makes for a fairer and more enforceable law.

Agreed, "assault weapons" are basically about finding a point to chip at, not about any great difference in capability. Some "assault weapons" have the same core as some hunting rifles.
 
Back
Top Bottom