Yet another school shooting

[Elixir]

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..

Piece of cake - as long as all they care about is gun control. What if they are also concerned with immigration, education, infrastructure, abortion and "religious freedom"? We know what happens, and it isn't gun control.

 

[Copernicus]

The military has regulated weapon types before. It is up to your state government to specify its needs for local militia training. If it has no militia, it and the federal government have the power to regulate weapon types used for other purposes. The feds have the power to ban automatic weapons, for example.

 

[Vork]

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.

I'm in the UK so have no right. (Although in theory the UK constitution may still include rights to weapons, it isn't really recognized.)

However, I still think it's interesting to ask whether people would give up the right to free speech in entertainment to save lives. If not, then why give up rights to self defence to save lives?

As for the original intended meaning of the constitution, even if it was about militia power, not self-defence (for the sake of argument), well if anything, you should be giving *everyone* military weapons to have a chance of standing up to the US military. You might well need to do that to apply the constitution today...

 

[TV and credit cards]

Instead of telling people what type of guns a person can't have and modifications they can't do, why can't the feds tell people what they can have; a strict list of approved guns for legal sale in the US without modification. Perhaps there's some legal impediment to structuring a law in such a way that it would not stand up in court. It just seems to be and endless game of cat and mouse that the industry invents things like high capacity magazines and bump stocks, etc. and then laws have to be written to outlaw them. My point is to have a strict vetting process where new weapons, ammunition, and accessories have to show utility and be approved beforehand, not chased down and outlawed after society is saturated with this crap.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I'm in the UK so have no right. (Although in theory the UK constitution may still include rights to weapons, it isn't really recognized.)

However, I still think it's interesting to ask whether people would give up the right to free speech in entertainment to save lives. If not, then why give up rights to self defence to save lives?

As for the original intended meaning of the constitution, even if it was about militia power, not self-defence (for the sake of argument), well if anything, you should be giving *everyone* military weapons to have a chance of standing up to the US military. You might well need to do that to apply the constitution today...

We already have given up free speech rights as they apply to endangering others.

The arguments some people make are just so hollow I mistake then for chocolate bunnies.

 

[bilby]

Bah. It's just more hand-wringing and noise until the next one. The only practical solution is to outlaw new sales of semi-auto rifles and all handguns, including spare parts. Current owners would be able to keep what they have, but not be able to sell or devise them to next of kin.

1) This would be considered a taking under the constitution. You want to budget the hundreds of billions to pay for it?

2) By the time those guns wear out new ones will come from 3D printing.

As with virtually everything from the gun-grabbers all you'll do is disarm the law abiding.

It would cut school shootings and the like but the number of people who could no longer defend themselves would probably be greater. It's just they are 1 by 1 and not more than local news.

You are, of course, correct: None of these measures could possibly work. This is why in the United Kingdom, with its draconian gun control laws, criminals are commonly still armed (because the law doesn't affect them), and crimes against the defenseless population are vastly more common than in the USA. And why the gun buyback scheme in Australia after the Port Arthur massacre was completely ineffective in reducing the frequency of mass shootings, but led to an increase in crime, as people were no longer able to defend themselves without their guns.

Oh, wait; That's all COMPLETE BULLSHIT.

It's almost as though your hypotheses were completely and clearly demonstrated to be false by the observed evidence, but that you continue to trot them out as though they had never been challenged.


ETA: In neither the UK nor Australia is it illegal to own a gun for hunting, or for sports such as skeet and target shooting, or for historical reenactment displays, or for pest and vermin control. If you want to hunt deer in Scotland, or roos in the outback, then the law allows you to own and use rifles for this purpose; Or if you want to stop rabbits from eating your lettuces, you can get a shotgun to use for this purpose (unless you have a criminal record, or are mentally unfit).

You need to be licenced, and you are liable to lose your licence, and be heavily fined, if you do not secure your firearms in accordance with strict rules when they are not in use (including when they are being transported to or from the place where they are to be used); And that you are not permitted to cause 'alarm and despondency' by carrying them in such a manner as to attract the attention of the general public to them. 'Self defence' and 'Home defence' are not considered legitimate reasons to request a licence.

You may not own an automatic weapon, nor a weapon with a magazine with a high capacity, without special permission (for example if you curate a military museum). Weapons that are easily concealed ether require similar special permission, or are restricted in where they may be stored and by whom they may be transported - If you are a member of a pistol club, typically your weapons must be securely stored at the club, and can only be removed from the club by a specially authorized person, such as a licenced gunsmith.

If you want to bring mass shooting frequency down to the levels enjoyed by the UK and Australia, it is perfectly possible to do so without banning guns - as those countries have demonstrated.

Another example you could follow is that of the Swiss - they too have laws that allow for ownership of military style weapons, kept in the home, as part of an historical requirement to defend the nation. But they don't have mass shootings, because the ownership of those weapons (which is in many cases mandatory) is (to coin a phrase) 'Well regulated'. The Swiss attitude and laws fit almost perfectly into the full wording of the US Constitution's Second Amendment. The difference is that the Swiss don't ignore the half that they don't feel like living up to.

 

[ZiprHead]

Lying For Jebus

 

[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.

I'm in the UK so have no right. (Although in theory the UK constitution may still include rights to weapons, it isn't really recognized.)

However, I still think it's interesting to ask whether people would give up the right to free speech in entertainment to save lives. If not, then why give up rights to self defence to save lives?

As for the original intended meaning of the constitution, even if it was about militia power, not self-defence (for the sake of argument), well if anything, you should be giving *everyone* military weapons to have a chance of standing up to the US military. You might well need to do that to apply the constitution today...

The origin of the 2nd was originally modeled on Parliament's right to arm a militia to defend its rights against transgressions by the crown. There was a concern about the federal army being used to create a tyranny, but southerners were probably mostly worried that it would not be a reliable defense against potential slave rebellions, always a concern of plantation owners. There was a lot of mistrust that northern abolitionists would stand by pledges not to meddle in their perceived need for slave labor. Southern polititians had blocked efforts in the past to train slaves to fight for the Revolution in exchange for freedom. Such soldiers could have then used their military training against former masters.

The second amendment was never a guarantee of anything but the right to form and train militias in common defense of property and safety.

 

[bilby]

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.

I'm in the UK so have no right. (Although in theory the UK constitution may still include rights to weapons, it isn't really recognized.)

However, I still think it's interesting to ask whether people would give up the right to free speech in entertainment to save lives. If not, then why give up rights to self defence to save lives?

As for the original intended meaning of the constitution, even if it was about militia power, not self-defence (for the sake of argument), well if anything, you should be giving *everyone* military weapons to have a chance of standing up to the US military. You might well need to do that to apply the constitution today...

The origin of the 2nd was originally modeled on Parliament's right to arm a militia to defend its rights against transgressions by the crown. There was a concern about the federal army being used to create a tyranny, but southerners were probably mostly worried that it would not be a reliable defense against potential slave rebellions, always a concern of plantation owners. There was a lot of mistrust that northern abolitionists would stand by pledges not to meddle in their perceived need for slave labor. They had blocked efforts in the past to train slaves to fight for the Revolution in exchange for freedom.

The second amendment was never a guarantee of anything but the right to form and train militias in common defense of property and safety.

As I mentioned above, the Swiss have a similar model, and manage to avoid large numbers of mass shootings by the simple expedient of requiring that people only use their weapons as a part of a disciplined and trained militia.

If only the founding fathers had thought to include some stuff about how the 2nd Amendment applied in the context of 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State'.

Oh well.

 

[Toni]

Some Rightists say Cruz (the FL school shooter) was Antifa, or Muslim, or a Dreamer. Some Liberals say he was alt right. People who knew him say he was weird and depressed. His social media says he had a lot of guns and he killed small animals.

I'm going with the last two. I find those sufficient to explain a mass shooter. And they are things that you can actually check for yourself in the world of real things,

I know that this is way too soon, and not enough is known but I will still go out on a limb and say that gun control (which I heavily favor) is not the first place to lay blame or to look for solutions.

We have a 19 year old boy, adopted and an unknown (to the public or at least to me) age. I am guessing he was not adopted as an infant because every news story talks about his adoptive parents. So, I will assume that he was at least a toddler and possibly school age when he was adopted by who seem to have been good, loving, attentive parents. But some people who are adopted as infants have some issues surrounding adoption and if they were adopted as older children, it is often the case that there has been much trauma in a young child's life prior to whatever circumstances lead to the dissolution of a relationship with the biological parents, whatever those circumstances. So, at a minimum, going into the relationship with his adoptive parents, the kid had already suffered some significant trauma.

His adoptive father dies.

His adoptive mother dies, rather recently.

He lost his girlfriend (not sure how long ago).

He was taken in by a friend's family but that wasn't working out so he asked a different friend's family if he could live there.

He gets kicked out of school for behavior problems (ya think?).

This kid--and I'm sorry, a 19 year old is still more kid than adult, no matter what law says--lost every single anchor he possibly could have had, most of them in a relatively short period of time.

Why did no one reach out, encompass him, envelop him in love and caring and yes, get him into as many services as possible?

Why weren't there more services for this kid?


I was 49, long married, with my children grown or mostly grown when I lost both my parents in a relatively short period of time--over the course of a summer, actually.

What did it feel like to this adult, in a long stable relationship, with a good job, economic stability, great health care, a home, family and friends who love me to lose both my parents so quickly?

It felt as though I had been dragged through a field of barbed wire, embedded with shards of glass, then dragged through battery acid. I had a loving husband, children old enough and together enough to be supportive and to share my grief, friends- some decades long friendships, siblings and other family to lean on. But that's what it felt like. I swear every single nerve ending in my body and my mind was raw with pain. For weeks. Eventually the battery acid feeling subsided to just something like alcohol on an open wound, and then to some mild acid like vinegar. But that took weeks and months and I had friends, family, a job: all the support in the world.

This kid lost everything.

People just talk about how weird he was.

Yeah, I know I'm the only person in this world who feels for this kid's pain and wants to know what we are going to do to stop school shootings.

We need to start dealing with this before anyone even thinks that a possible solution to whatever bad things they are feeling and experiencing gets resolved with a gun or twenty.

 

[RavenSky]

I live about 4 miles from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland where the shooting took place. Needless to say everyone is pretty shook up.

My facebook feed is flooded with comments about the event. A lot of my friends live in Parkland. Some of my friends went to that high school and some had/have kids there. One of the kids that I know witnessed the shooting
and is understandably hysterical.

I had the pleasure of hearing folks last night blame liberals for not allowing faculty to carry guns.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/pa...r-neighbor-police-called-house-30-times-2013/

“Did anyone ever report this kind of behavior to the police, to the local authorities?” Scuitto asked her.

“Absolutely,” Roxburgh replied. “I’d heard from other neighbors who had reported that behavior to the authorities that they had been called out to that house over 30 times” before she moved away from the neighborhood in 2013.

----

This punk kid was a violent asshole. Despite this, he was allowed to legally buy his AR-15. I think I see part of our problem here. Thoughts and prayers are useless verbiage from useless politicians.

 

[RavenSky]

Some Rightists say Cruz (the FL school shooter) was Antifa, or Muslim, or a Dreamer.

These people are dumb fucks or trolls. Even a cursory check of known facts shows all of those claims are bullshit.

Some Liberals say he was alt right.

based on a photo circulating of a masked man wearing a MAGA hat... also dumb fucks who really need to wait until they have verified facts.

People who knew him say he was weird and depressed. His social media says he had a lot of guns and he killed small animals.

I'm going with the last two. I find those sufficient to explain a mass shooter. And they are things that you can actually check for yourself in the world of real things,

yep

 

[RavenSky]

Numerous fatalities are being stated. We lost. That simple. The NRA won, we lost, and all of the mass murder victims are are lost.

But you know... terrorism and shit. We need to stay on top of that.

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.

balony

60% of Americans want stronger gun laws.
96% want background checks on ALL gun sales
75% want a 30-day waiting period
70% want all guns registered with local police.

So unless you are trying to claim that the NRA have virtually no members, you are wrong

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

[RavenSky]

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.

I've notice a few Congress critters calling the AR-15's "war equipment" instead of "guns". I like that. Change the narrative.

 

[RavenSky]

Some Rightists say Cruz (the FL school shooter) was Antifa, or Muslim, or a Dreamer. Some Liberals say he was alt right. People who knew him say he was weird and depressed. His social media says he had a lot of guns and he killed small animals.

I'm going with the last two. I find those sufficient to explain a mass shooter. And they are things that you can actually check for yourself in the world of real things,

I know that this is way too soon, and not enough is known but I will still go out on a limb and say that gun control (which I heavily favor) is not the first place to lay blame or to look for solutions.

We have a 19 year old boy, adopted and an unknown (to the public or at least to me) age. I am guessing he was not adopted as an infant because every news story talks about his adoptive parents. So, I will assume that he was at least a toddler and possibly school age when he was adopted by who seem to have been good, loving, attentive parents. But some people who are adopted as infants have some issues surrounding adoption and if they were adopted as older children, it is often the case that there has been much trauma in a young child's life prior to whatever circumstances lead to the dissolution of a relationship with the biological parents, whatever those circumstances. So, at a minimum, going into the relationship with his adoptive parents, the kid had already suffered some significant trauma.

His adoptive father dies.

His adoptive mother dies, rather recently.

He lost his girlfriend (not sure how long ago).

He was taken in by a friend's family but that wasn't working out so he asked a different friend's family if he could live there.

He gets kicked out of school for behavior problems (ya think?).

This kid--and I'm sorry, a 19 year old is still more kid than adult, no matter what law says--lost every single anchor he possibly could have had, most of them in a relatively short period of time.

Why did no one reach out, encompass him, envelop him in love and caring and yes, get him into as many services as possible?

Why weren't there more services for this kid?


I was 49, long married, with my children grown or mostly grown when I lost both my parents in a relatively short period of time--over the course of a summer, actually.

What did it feel like to this adult, in a long stable relationship, with a good job, economic stability, great health care, a home, family and friends who love me to lose both my parents so quickly?

It felt as though I had been dragged through a field of barbed wire, embedded with shards of glass, then dragged through battery acid. I had a loving husband, children old enough and together enough to be supportive and to share my grief, friends- some decades long friendships, siblings and other family to lean on. But that's what it felt like. I swear every single nerve ending in my body and my mind was raw with pain. For weeks. Eventually the battery acid feeling subsided to just something like alcohol on an open wound, and then to some mild acid like vinegar. But that took weeks and months and I had friends, family, a job: all the support in the world.

This kid lost everything.

People just talk about how weird he was.

Yeah, I know I'm the only person in this world who feels for this kid's pain and wants to know what we are going to do to stop school shootings.

We need to start dealing with this before anyone even thinks that a possible solution to whatever bad things they are feeling and experiencing gets resolved with a gun or twenty.

You're not the only person. My daughter and I were having this discussion almost exactly word for word this morning.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Please present disinterested evidence that press coverage of school shootings helps angry youths to get a gun and kill people at school.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. While you might be able to take away the guns you aren't going to be able to take away all the weapons. We aren't going to take away all the cars!

However, going after the motivation doesn't require removing all the weapons.

Look later in the thread, you'll find an example of what I have in mind actually working.

 

[bilby]

Please present disinterested evidence that press coverage of school shootings helps angry youths to get a gun and kill people at school.

You're focusing on the wrong thing. While you might be able to take away the guns you aren't going to be able to take away all the weapons. We aren't going to take away all the cars!

However, going after the motivation doesn't require removing all the weapons.

Look later in the thread, you'll find an example of what I have in mind actually working.

You are so right. If guns are unavailable, these attacks will take place using other weapons. That's why there are dozens of deadly knife and vehicular attacks on British, Canadian, French, German and Australian schools each year.

Oh, wait.

Shit.

Your hypotheses really don't stand up well to even the slightest scrutiny, do they. And yet you keep on trotting them out...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

So millions of gun owners are ok with people on the terrorist watch list freely being able to buy guns?

So discrimination is fine if you're not the target?

We have this notion of innocent until proven guilty. Most of the people on the terrorist watch list are completely innocent.

The system is also totally fucked up. The odds are my wife will get extra checks when boarding a flight to the US--something is obviously flagging her (And they are singling her out--a couple of years ago we were with some of her relatives--she got the SSSS, they didn't.) However, when boarding a flight here in the US she's liable to get pre-check--and that certainly wouldn't happen if she was on any watch list.

Because the left won't propose reasonable rules to keep guns out of the hands of crazies. Virtually all gun measures from the left go way too far and provoke a backlash that quite correctly keeps them from passing.

How is universal background checks not reasonable? Can you actually give an example of an unreasonable rule that was actually proposed by legislators, and not point to fearmongering claims the NRA and other gun advocates about what they say the left is making?

Consider what was passed here by initiative in 2016: On the surface, fine. Look at the details and it's not so fine. You can't let even a family member borrow a gun. It also appears to have removed the entirely sensible rule we used to have that you could substitute a CCW permit for the background check. If your intent is to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys that's fine. If your intent is the gun-grabbers's holy grail of a list of privately held guns it's not so good. While the idea had over 80% support the measure just barely passed--because so many people realized it went too far. (And was stupid besides--the Attorney General threw it in the trash because the idiots didn't look at reality and mandated the background checks were to be performed by the FBI. Oops--we have an agreement with the FBI about such background checks going to the state and to the FBI from there. The FBI prefers it that way. The measure requires the impossible.)

Also, look at the crap of putting people's psychiatric records in law enforcement databases. It would be illegal for a doctor to submit records to such a system!