Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Texas Church Shooting: Forget Prayers, Send More Guns: Or else, Tryanny?

Texas Church Shooting: Forget Prayers, Send More Guns: Or else, Tryanny? (Page 7)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Even if we enacted some form of gun control and sat back and just waited for any of these things to happen, it's not as if the gazillion trillion guns will just vanish - they'll still be out there. It will not be hard for the population to put together an armed rebellion.

Although, again, why would they have to? There are so many other ways to remove leaders. I keep on coming back to terrorism, for example. If there are 300 million guns out there and you could kill a leader with 20 (which I don't think is a stretch), why are you so fussed about the millions and millions of other guns?

Would you say there are too many guns out there if that number was 500 million? Is there a number that you would think is too excessive?
As I’ve noted before, be as restrictive with handguns as you want. They kill more people than longarms by more than an order of magnitude, and I would presume it’s the same with injury. There is not an argument for handguns being an effective weapon against tyranny. The most I’ll do here is note if the idea won’t work, such as what we have in Illinois, where they’re restricted, while they’re not in all the surrounding states.

If citizens are given free access to longarms, the number of longarms in circulation is not controllable. There is no way to avoid it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 27, 2017, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
First off, these are some good examples. However, right off the bat:

I believe that easily applies to Russia and the Philippines. (I'd also argue Russia was barely a democracy to begin with).

Turkey is an interesting proposition. Erdogan is moving towards an authoritarian theocracy but a sizable portion of the population wants this. Stranger still, the failed coup of the military was aimed at trying maintain that democracy. That's some amazing irony.

Venezuela: By far the best example. I have a feeling Maduro won't be in power that much longer, though. The entire country is going to shit and nobody supports him. But hey, I could be wrong and we could end up with another Syria.

Still, I want you to note the pattern here: These are not first world countries. These are not Western European countries – our closest analog.
This opinion is hugely unpopular, especially with the Euros, but what’s keeping Western democracy afloat is NATO. Force these countries to defend themselves and watch them all embrace their inner nastiness.

I think it’s hard to say whether the people in Russia or the Philippines support the government because people who don’t end up dead.

My understanding is it’s SOP in Turkey is for leaders to let a coup be attempted every 20 years or so in a bid to consolidate power.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 27, 2017 at 02:09 PM. )
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2018, 03:24 PM
 
If we go by the rate of public shootings happening in the US, this thread should have been bumped every few days since January.

This week, it is Florida. 17 deaths, including a football coach who pushed a girl out of the way of fire.

What's odd about this one is the shooter was captured alive.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nati...L9I/story.html
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2018, 06:07 PM
 
Sorry, which of the 18 school shootings this year are you talking about again, Andi?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2018, 06:55 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2018, 10:57 PM
 
I find myself avoiding the news since this issue is defacto tyranny of the minority, but the trend I'm noticing is we're seeing new avenues of criticism from the public each time, trying to find resonance within society to get some ****ing change.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 08:30 AM
 
Yeah, I wonder if this is finally the straw that broke the camel's back? How are you feeling, subego, if you don't mind me asking?

The rhetoric that an 18 year can't buy a beer but can buy an AR-15 in Florida is pretty powerful rhetoric. My position remains: I can't predict with certainty what the outcomes will be of trying x or y, but we need to try something as of yesterday. Doing nothing is just not an option any longer.

Here are possible things that could be tried (in no particular order). Shit over the effectiveness of these if you want, but at this point even if the impact is just ever so slightly positive it's something to build upon, and it's better than nothing.

- voluntary buy-back of AR-15s
- restoration of Obama regulation relating to the sale of weapons to the mentally ill
- bring on the red tape: more rigorous background checks, registration (so long as we have the systems in place to do something useful with this data)
- higher age requirements
- ban the sale at gun shows
- tax the sale of bullets
- ban contributions and lobbying from the NRA

Time to do *something* other than just offering prayers. We can send prayers to those hopefully sketchy individuals that are upset about losing their guns.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 11:11 AM
 
I'm with you on most those things except the legal age. Someone can vote and join the army, they should be able to do other adult things such as buy liquor, rent a car, and even a buy a gun. There are plenty of responsible non-crazy 19yr olds.

In this case, the people he was living with probably didn't know him well enough to gauge the crazy, or put it at the feet of "he just lost his mother give him time to recover."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yeah, I wonder if this is finally the straw that broke the camel's back? How are you feeling, subego, if you don't mind me asking?
As a policy, out of respect, I try to wait a week after an event like this before mouthing-off, but since you asked...

Mass shootings aren’t the problem. Handguns are.

Directing all the emotion at the thing which isn’t the problem will have predictable results.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 12:11 PM
 
How about more aggressive mental evaluations of our kids? Weed out the wack jobs.

The problem is how to keep guns out of the hands of wack jobs, criminals, and terrorists without infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners.
Trying to screw with our rights is just plain old liberal stupidity.
Why not heavily regulate abortions, since lefties are always whining about taking guns away for the sake of the children.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 12:47 PM
 
The first two sentences make sense there, and could be part of an interesting conversation, but then you devolve into meaningless baaaah-baah-blaming of liberals.

This is the part of the argument where I'm supposed to say "conservatives only care about children in the womb", right? Or, conservatives care more about their guns than other people's children? Or, conservatives get more upset about their gun restrictions than people being killed?

At least you didn't offer meaningless thoughts and prayers.

Subego, why handguns as the problem, not all guns? this shooter used an AR-15. Not a handgun, and apparently easier to get in FL than a handgun.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 01:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
How about more aggressive mental evaluations of our kids? Weed out the wack jobs.
How do we go about identifying a wack job. Anyone who expresses violent thoughts toward other? Like the ones who want to stand liberals in front of a firing squad for treason? There goes the InfoWars audience.

How about anyone being treated for depression? That would, in effect, end up being close to a national gun ban, given how many people in the US are being treated for depression. But a huge number of people go undiagnosed and untreated, and the healthcare system in the US isn't terribly proactive in identifying these people. Nor does it make getting treatment easy or affordable.

There are also the people who don't fit into either group, but could legitimately (at least to some) be classified as wack jobs. The Bundy clan, for instance. Just try taking their guns.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 01:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Subego, why handguns as the problem, not all guns? this shooter used an AR-15. Not a handgun, and apparently easier to get in FL than a handgun.
Because handguns are responsible for death or injury by firearm over all other types in a 10:1 ratio.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 02:30 PM
 
Interesting... that statistic probably includes a lot of regular crime and domestic violence, not just these mass acts of terror.

also interesting, this column by a vet:
https://agingmillennialengineer.word...i-like-guns-2/
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 02:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Interesting... that statistic probably includes a lot of regular crime and domestic violence
Well, of course. Mass shootings account for a fraction of a percent of people killed or injured with firearms.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 02:52 PM
 
Also... your link gets censored into a 404.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 02:53 PM
 
replace the **** with the fword , you know the one.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 02:57 PM
 
Yup. Full-auto.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, of course. Mass shootings account for a fraction of a percent of people killed or injured with firearms.
Mass shootings are not responsible for the majority of firearm-related deaths, but they're still a horrific problem that seems unique to the US among developed nations and one that's worth addressing.

If you want to lower the statistic of firearm-related homicides, you go after handguns, and you address gang violence.

If you want to lower the frequency and severity of children being murdered by unhinged lunatics in their schools, you pursue a different course of action.

Both are worth addressing.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, of course. Mass shootings account for a fraction of a percent of people killed or injured with firearms.
Mass shootings are a symptom of a larger underlying disease, and the frequency of mass shootings in the US compared to other industrialized nations is a good indicator that the US has a gun problem. Hence, mass shootings are a condensation point for discussion and simply saying “it's just a small percentage, we shouldn't overreact” is missing the sign of the times.

Gun laws have gone in the exact opposite direction, where it has become easier to buy guns, restrictions to let people with mental health problems buy guns have been lifted, mental health has been defunded, terrorism task forces to deal with white nationalists have been disbanded, … And because the NRA has morphed from a gun owners association to a gun manufacturers association, there hasn't been anyone reasonable to talk to in the gun community to iron out compromises.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
How about more aggressive mental evaluations of our kids? Weed out the wack jobs.
If the US had universal health care coverage, you wouldn't just have screenings, but more importantly treatment. Instead, mental health programs are being cut left and right.

If you think mental health is an issue, put your money where your mouth is and urge your Congressperson to fund the necessary programs. Push them to change gun laws so that people who are diagnosed with dangerous mental health issues may not own guns until they have healed.
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Why not heavily regulate abortions, since lefties are always whining about taking guns away for the sake of the children.
Don't deflect from the topic at hand.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2018, 08:59 PM
 
Badkosh: why the **** does this have to be about liberals and conservatives and their politics? Why can't it just be about doing something about children being murdered?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Both are worth addressing.
Agreed.

The question is in what proportion.

Due to the horrific nature of mass shootings, if we were to set the proportion based solely on the small incidence rate, it wouldn’t be the proper course of action.

Likewise, because about 100 times more people die because of handguns, it the improper course of action to put 90 or so percent of the focus on mass shootings.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Agreed.

The question is in what proportion.

Due to the horrific nature of mass shootings, if we were to set the proportion based solely on the small incidence rate, it wouldn’t be the proper course of action.

Likewise, because about 100 times more people die because of handguns, it the improper course of action to put 90 or so percent of the focus on mass shootings.

You are leaving out the emotional component of this. We aren't robots, we don't deal with all of our problems in proportion to their statistical probability of occurrence.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 06:06 PM
 
Umm... I said “[d]ue to the horrific nature of mass shootings, if we were to set the proportion based solely on the small incidence rate, it wouldn’t be the proper course of action.” [emphasis added]
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 06:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Umm... I said “[d]ue to the horrific nature of mass shootings, if we were to set the proportion based solely on the small incidence rate, it wouldn’t be the proper course of action.” [emphasis added]
You are forgetting about positive correlations with other gun-related incidents. If you enforce that guns be properly registered, gun owners properly educated (depending on weapons type) and be held responsible in case e. g. a gun goes missing, then that would reduce not just mass shootings, but gun suicides and other gun crimes.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Badkosh: why the **** does this have to be about liberals and conservatives and their politics? Why can't it just be about doing something about children being murdered?
Because conservatives love it when children get murdered. As long as they've been squeezed through a cervix first.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Umm... I said “[d]ue to the horrific nature of mass shootings, if we were to set the proportion based solely on the small incidence rate, it wouldn’t be the proper course of action.” [emphasis added]
As relatively small as the rate of mass shootings is compared to all shootings, its often infinitely higher than the rate of mass shootings in similarly developed nations. I'd also suggest that gun lovers compare the legislative response employed in the face of terrorist incidents which are far less common than mass shootings.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 06:50 PM
 
I think a change of tactics is needed. Instead of going after the politicians who will always side with money and votes, its time to go after the NRA without mercy. Expose their activity, leak the communications between their lobbyists and politicians and in the media paint them as directly responsible for the lives of these kids in exchange for power and profit. Destroy their reputation, maybe establish a competitor to attack their subscription rates. Their influence can be reduced.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 07:57 PM
 
I've been trying not to care about this because nothing will be done, but I'm compelled to chime on one point.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, of course. Mass shootings account for a fraction of a percent of people killed or injured with firearms.
It's not completely about mass shootings. Mass shootings are the impetus by which some common sense gun control can get enacted.

Aside from votes, money, and 'freedom', the other reason people are against gun control is they're afraid it will work. If it it can be shown to work, then minds can change.

So banning assault rifles may not make a dent in the overall numbers, but if it shows that gun control can work in one area, well that becomes something you can run on. Something you can point to.

(In addition to, you know, how the entire world doesn't have this problem)
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 09:43 PM
 
Why are people responding to my statement keeping the response to mass shootings in line with the incidence rate is incorrect with examples of how it’s incorrect... as if I need to be convinced of the statement I just made?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2018, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why are people responding to my statement keeping the response to mass shootings in line with the incidence rate is incorrect with examples of how it’s incorrect... as if I need to be convinced of the statement I just made?
Everyone's hackles are up because we're having the same futile argument for the umpteenth time?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 02:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So banning assault rifles may not make a dent in the overall numbers, but if it shows that gun control can work in one area, well that becomes something you can run on. Something you can point to.
When you say 'area' you mean a subset of guns right? Not a geographical area?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 12:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Aside from votes, money, and 'freedom', the other reason people are against gun control is they're afraid it will work. If it it can be shown to work, then minds can change.

So banning assault rifles may not make a dent in the overall numbers, but if it shows that gun control can work in one area, well that becomes something you can run on. Something you can point to.
I think the issue behind this is a "slippery slope" argument - "if we give up an inch in gun control, they're going to end up taking all of our guns away."

During the last election cycle, my never-owned-more-than-a-Daisy-bb-gun dad talked about buying a handgun, because as soon as Hillary got elected, she was going to take away everyone's guns. "You realize they said that about Obama, and that during his time in office more guns and ammo were sold than practically ever before, right?" I replied. "Yes, but this time it's for real," he tells me.

I think I've said this before, but it seems like a gun owner's greatest fear, and the reason they believe they are most likely to need a gun, is to protect themselves from the government coming to steal their guns.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
"You realize they said that about Obama
There’s a local radio show I listen to where the host tries to stay away from politics. He’s in the “I don’t want to lose half my listeners” camp.

When it comes to stuff like this, he can’t help himself.

“Can we just admit the whole Obama’s a Muslim, sharia law, take our guns away thing never actually happened?”
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think the issue behind this is a "slippery slope" argument - "if we give up an inch in gun control, they're going to end up taking all of our guns away."
It's important to keep in mind that “slippery slope” is literally a logical fallacy and not an argument.
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
During the last election cycle, my never-owned-more-than-a-Daisy-bb-gun dad talked about buying a handgun, because as soon as Hillary got elected, she was going to take away everyone's guns. "You realize they said that about Obama, and that during his time in office more guns and ammo were sold than practically ever before, right?" I replied. "Yes, but this time it's for real," he tells me.
I recently read that quite a few gun manufacturers are in financial trouble, because Trump got elected: without the scare mongering about “Hillary coming to your house to take your gun away” their sales declined.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think the issue behind this is a "slippery slope" argument - "if we give up an inch in gun control, they're going to end up taking all of our guns away."
I mean, that could be the logical end if banning guns does stop gun crimes. Like anything else, there could be a healthy balance between the two. Aside from the slippery slope argument, it turns into paranoia about the government. We also can't have good gun regulation because Big Brother! (Same reason we don't have universal IDs)


Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
During the last election cycle, my never-owned-more-than-a-Daisy-bb-gun dad talked about buying a handgun, because as soon as Hillary got elected, she was going to take away everyone's guns. "You realize they said that about Obama, and that during his time in office more guns and ammo were sold than practically ever before, right?" I replied. "Yes, but this time it's for real," he tells me.
I may be missing the point of the anecdote but it almost sounds like he wanted only to have it. Unless he thought he'd be out there fighting to keep the 2nd with it.


Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I think I've said this before, but it seems like a gun owner's greatest fear, and the reason they believe they are most likely to need a gun, is to protect themselves from the government coming to steal their guns.
That's a fear cultivated and exploited by the NRA. It's used to sell guns.

If strict gun regulations come to pass, I think it, like UHC, would be the result of partisan resistance to more moderate solutions, like the ACA. It's a perfect representation of the problem with polarization.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 08:06 PM
 
https://twitter.com/AustinOnSocial/s...71702003728384
I saw this image of Rep. Mike Bost delivering Trump a bag of 'thoughts and prayers' and thought it was satire or The Onion.

Nope, this really happened.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 08:52 PM
 
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 09:54 PM
 
You know, I'm not as bothered by this as you'd expect because the honesty is refreshing, even if the perspective is grotesque.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2018, 10:02 PM
 
One thing I forgot ask: Is there something 2nd amendmenters can point to that was terrible about the assault weapons ban?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 01:29 AM
 
Wut!?!? I am … speechless. Who thought this was a good idea? Why are they smiling? Why is Trump the recipient of the prayers? What is he going to do with the prayers?

(That's the most disturbing thing of the Trump presidency, Trump completely effed my bs sensor.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
One thing I forgot ask: Is there something 2nd amendmenters can point to that was terrible about the assault weapons ban?
I intend to revisit the law, just haven’t gotten around to it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2018, 02:36 PM
 
As a set of rules I guess it’s okay. It looks like it wouldn’t stop me from getting what is for all intents and purposes a M16, so I don’t feel like I should complain.

The 94 law was “set of rules, plus whatever we feel like banning”. That last part has potential to be a problem.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2018, 06:11 PM
 
I put two and two together on why this is happening.

The obvious point: This is the worst school shooting since Sandy Hook
The subtler point: The victims are old enough to share the experience in a meaningful way
The catalyst: Polarization/Energized population since the presidential election

Of course it dripped down to the kids as well. If they've been paying attention to the politics for the past year they've seen marches, protests, and campaigns, and not without success. Why wouldn't they emulate that behavior?

I'm probably overstating things, but we really are in a mini-60s. Even the kids are revolting against the status quo.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2018, 06:16 PM
 


When you need a cheat sheet to fake empathy
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2018, 06:26 PM
 
when people say "i hear you" it makes me want to say "i punch you" because that is so vacuous and non-meaningful.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2018, 08:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
One thing I forgot ask: Is there something 2nd amendmenters can point to that was terrible about the assault weapons ban?
The biggest issue was it was based on a made up idea. So called "assault weapons" were legal, semiautomatic firearms that shared only a cosmetic similarity to actual assault weapons, which by definition are fully automatic. The second biggest issue was that it was written by people who lacked the most rudimentary understanding of firearms in general, let alone how firearms work, which led to a lot of fluff and nonsense in the text of the statute. The third, but most damning, was that it focused on mere cosmetic features that had nothing to do with how the weapon worked. For example, most AR-15 type rifles fell under the ban, yet the Mini-14, which looks like a "traditional" rifle did not, yet the only real difference between the two is the outward appearance.

And it was essentially a failure on an epic scale. Neither side of today's debate can claim anything truly substantial politically about the effectiveness or lack thereof of the 1994 ban, though both have tried. However, since it was primarily enacted to quell "mass shootings," it failed at that completely. So-called mass shootings occurred at exactly the same rate during the 1994-2004 ban as before the ban.

To me - as a (hopefully) scientific thinker, this says that the idea of banning the hardware used in these events wasn't the correct direction to take. And examining the events both during and since the expiration of that ban points to something very important. These events have been primarily focused on people who were alienated by specific groups - or in specific settings - to such an extent that the perpetrators felt that their exceptional violence was warranted.

Let's be clear: you don't make a person a "school shooter" by telling him his haircut is bad. It takes a lot of problems, piled on top of problems. Cruz in Florida had been expelled for his behavioral problems. In the (distant) past, kids with behavioral problems would be routed to a number of different tracks to address their behavioral issues. Kids that were only disruptive usually learned through classical conditioning that disrupting the class meant unpleasant stuff like special assignments, in-school detention, and consequences at home. Today schools have to focus so strictly on standardized test performance that they don't have the resources to even try to redirect disruptive kids. They don't even bother to teach cursive, which is an important neurodevelopmental skill that translates to development of almost every other motor skill a person has.

So if we look at these events sanely, it is easy to see that there are several issues. How does a 19 year old kid get his hands on a firearm that costs hundreds of dollars? How does the school system not plainly see that specific kids are becoming more and more alienated and disruptive - or the system sees this but does nothing useful about it? Why do we guard sporting events and political candidates with armed law enforcement officers, but proudly label schools as "gun free zones," essentially labeling them as "victim zones"?

I don't think anything like a ban on scary looking firearms (which is all the 1994 ban was, and all that Ms. Feinstein is suggesting now) will impact the frequency or severity of these events. I think we need to do something about how we vet purchasers of any firearm. For example, the NICS should have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter, but Virginia law kept the guy's shrinks from submitting their assessments of how he was a danger to himself and others.

As far as I can see from available data, the National Instant Background Check System does not receive all of the specific information it is supposed to get on individuals from ANY of the 50 states, and many do not provide this information in a timely manner. If we fixed this, by itself, we might be able to short-stop future shootings by blocking the shooter from buying a weapon in the first place. Fixing NICS is a start, it's practical, and it shouldn't cause anyone on either side of the debate to flinch too much.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2018, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post


When you need a cheat sheet to fake empathy



Apparently needs a cheat sheet to remember which president he is.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2018, 10:40 PM
 
I'll thank you for the serious reply, gh. I'll follow up with some questions later.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,