Yet another school shooting

[Jimmy Higgins]

Attacking the NRA about this is wrong--the NRA's lobbying budget is small. It's just they say what tens of millions of gun owners think.

QFT

 

[Horatio Parker]

I agree with David Leonhardt in today's New York Times, The Truth About the Florida School Shooting.

He says,

Here's the truth, the kids killed in Florida yesterday, had the misfortune of growing up - of trying to grow up - in a country that didn't care enough about their lives.

May we honor them with an anger that does not cease until the unnecessary deaths of children do.

You know I grew up in Miami during the HEIGHT of the Cocaine Wars. We had shootouts constantly. We had race riots. We had massive immigration when Castro emptied his jails/mental hospitals. Guess what? I NEVER EVER ONCE FELT THREATENED IN SCHOOL. NEVER.

We had race riots in my high school, which I used as an excuse to take a vacation, riding around with my newly acquired older girlfriend with a car. People beaten, but no one killed. I never felt threatened in the way I imagine students do now, that a crazy stranger would walk up and shoot me, never entered my mind.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

PARKLAND, Fla. — The leader of a white supremacist group said on Thursday that the suspected gunman in one of the deadliest school shootings in modern American history was a member of his group and had participated in paramilitary drills.

Jordan Jereb, the leader of a group called Republic of Florida, told The Associated Press that he didn’t know Nikolas Cruz personally and that “he acted on his own behalf of what he just did and he’s solely responsible for what he just did.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-shooting.html

Opps, sorry, Underseer, wherever you are. Republic of Florida is not a white supremacist group. They are "a white civil rights organization fighting for white identitarian politics."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-school-shooting-suspect/story?id=53092753

 

[braces_for_impact]

 

[Malintent]

solution to gun problem...

You can't take their guns... but you can change the penalty for the smallest gun-related violation of law to a life sentence... or death.

Keep your guns.... but a mistake will land you in jail for the rest of your life, if you're lucky enough to not get executed. Your choice. If you handle the gun carefully and safely enough, you PROBABLY will stay out of jail... if it's worth it, then fine.

another idea....

handguns and automatic rifles are not "firearms" (change the definition). Call them "explosive-based weapons", or some other thing.
They are no longer covered under the 2nd amendment. Anyone that wants a "firearm" may have one... but they will have to smelt their own musket balls and make their own black powder.

 

[Elixir]

The Pug Congress will do nothing about gun control - we all know that.
But maybe they'd be okay with requiring every 8-9th grader to pass a CLS (Combat Life Saver) course.
Might save a few lives...

 

[coloradoatheist]

solution to gun problem...

You can't take their guns... but you can change the penalty for the smallest gun-related violation of law to a life sentence... or death.

Keep your guns.... but a mistake will land you in jail for the rest of your life, if you're lucky enough to not get executed. Your choice. If you handle the gun carefully and safely enough, you PROBABLY will stay out of jail... if it's worth it, then fine.

another idea....

handguns and automatic rifles are not "firearms" (change the definition). Call them "explosive-based weapons", or some other thing.
They are no longer covered under the 2nd amendment. Anyone that wants a "firearm" may have one... but they will have to smelt their own musket balls and make their own black powder.

Won't work, the Supreme Court will say no. If people want to do something it's time to use the second means to create a Constitutional Amendment. Get the state legislatures to call a Constitutional convention. People should do what the Tea Party did, start an anti-gun party.

 

[Elixir]

Attacking the NRA about this is wrong--the NRA's lobbying budget is small. It's just they say what tens of millions of gun owners think.

Well sure, their lobbying budget might be small, but their campaign contributions amount to billions and billions of rubles.

 

[TSwizzle]

Won't work, the Supreme Court will say no. If people want to do something it's time to use the second means to create a Constitutional Amendment. Get the state legislatures to call a Constitutional convention. People should do what the Tea Party did, start an anti-gun party.

I don't think anything less than a change to the constitution will have any meaningful impact on the problem.

 

[Elixir]

I don't think anything less than a change to the constitution will have any meaningful impact on the problem.

Do you think the пистолет lobby is going to allow that any time in the next hundred years?

 

[Vork]

Won't work, the Supreme Court will say no. If people want to do something it's time to use the second means to create a Constitutional Amendment. Get the state legislatures to call a Constitutional convention. People should do what the Tea Party did, start an anti-gun party.

I don't think anything less than a change to the constitution will have any meaningful impact on the problem.

And you aren't going to get a super-majority to change the constitution on guns, anymore than you could get a super-majority to change abortion laws. (Although weapons are genuinely protected by the constitution, unlike abortion which is never mentioned I'm pretty sure.)

 

[coloradoatheist]

I don't think anything less than a change to the constitution will have any meaningful impact on the problem.

Do you think the пистолет lobby is going to allow that any time in the next hundred years?

If enough people support the changes then it can be done. Start a political party for anti-guns. The Tea Party put a dent in the Republicans. The lobbying effort goes only as far as they are supported by the voting base.

 

[Copernicus]

The Constitution does not prohibit gun control laws or even limited types of gun ownership bans. The barriers are all political, not legal. Unfortunately, the court system is dominated by a pro-gun SCOTUS that will seek creatve ways to block some practical gun control measures. For example, they have now ruled that gun ownership is protected if the purpose is home defense, even though the purpose made explicit in constitutional language is militia duty.

 

[Vork]

Hypothetically, what if banning all violent entertainment such as movies, tv shows, and video games, could save thousands of lives by creating a more peaceful culture? Would you give up free speech in entertainment (really strict censorship of films etc) to save the lives of innocent victims?

Speaking personally, I'm not sure I would give up such a right, even if it's saving tens of thousands of lives over the years. I would probably say we have to find a different way to lower crime. And I'm only even talking about entertainment. Not restrictions on political, religious, philosophical debate. Serious free speech stuff. I'm just talking about the ability to go to the cinema and watch the latest comic book movies or whatever.

I don't think I would give that up to save lives... Should people give up rights of self-defence to save lives?

 

[Copernicus]

Vork, nobody is proposing to ban your right to own a gun for the purpose of militia training. Your able-bodied presence might be needed to put down another Whisky Rebellion, slave uprising, or Indian attack.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The Constitution does not prohibit gun control laws or even limited types of gun ownership bans. The barriers are all political, not legal. Unfortunately, the court system is dominated by a pro-gun SCOTUS that will seek creatve ways to block some practical gun control measures. For example, they have now ruled that gun ownership is protected if the purpose is home defense, even though the purpose made explicit in constitutional language is militia duty.

By ruling it home protection they can limit more weapons though. In a miliitia any weapon can go. An AK that was used is a standard military weapon. If enough people do really want it changed, then a Constitutional amendment clearing statement what needs to be changed needs to be done.

 

[TSwizzle]

And you aren't going to get a super-majority to change the constitution on guns,

I agree it is unlikely to actually happen but I feel there is at least enough outrage to get the ball rolling and kick up a stink to get some practicable changes made.

 

[Elixir]

I don't think anything less than a change to the constitution will have any meaningful impact on the problem.

Do you think the пистолет lobby is going to allow that any time in the next hundred years?

If enough people support the changes then it can be done. Start a political party for anti-guns. The Tea Party put a dent in the Republicans. The lobbying effort goes only as far as they are supported by the voting base.

Since when did you become a starry-eyed idealist? Current public sentiment (as dubiously measured by people who do that) was reported this morning at 94-95% in favor of overhauling gun laws, and 4% against. But when it comes to November in even-numbered years, they send people to Washington who will never get it done. Why? Well, they voted for whoever they voted for because the gun lobby told them to, and/or very effectively vilified anyone who might have gotten it done,
Get money out of politics, get rid of Citizens United, and I believe it could be done.

 

[coloradoatheist]

If enough people support the changes then it can be done. Start a political party for anti-guns. The Tea Party put a dent in the Republicans. The lobbying effort goes only as far as they are supported by the voting base.

Since when did you become a starry-eyed idealist? Current public sentiment (as dubiously measured by people who do that) was reported this morning at 94-95% in favor of overhauling gun laws, and 4% against. But when it comes to November in even-numbered years, they send people to Washington who will never get it done. Why? Well, they voted for whoever they voted for because the gun lobby told them to, and/or very effectively vilified anyone who might have gotten it done,
Get money out of politics, get rid of Citizens United, and I believe it could be done.

Because somebody can't just vote a one issue when they choose a party in our system. If it has 90%+ then putting in a party that supports it should be easy..

 

[TSwizzle]

The Constitution does not prohibit gun control laws or even limited types of gun ownership bans. The barriers are all political, not legal. Unfortunately, the court system is dominated by a pro-gun SCOTUS that will seek creatve ways to block some practical gun control measures. For example, they have now ruled that gun ownership is protected if the purpose is home defense, even though the purpose made explicit in constitutional language is militia duty.

I'm ok with gun ownership for home defense for now. But I am positive nobody needs an AR-15 for home defense. These types of weapons of mass destruction have to be removed from public circulation. I think we all agree there is no silver bullet to the problem of deaths through gun violence but at least start hacking at these mass shootings and get heavy duty weapons out of the hands of the general public. Fucking about with laws about magazines and fully automatic this and bumper stock that gets us nowhere. The problem appears to be getting worse and nothing is being done. That is a scandal.