[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, why don't we start this off with this David Frum article?

Mind-numbing tragedy. Rule whatever violation. Discuss.

[finboy]

My response to Frum:

Can we complain about the idiots who blame guns for violence by the mentally ill, obscuring the real issues? Can we complain about the folks who inevitably politicize any gun event without ever considering how many deaths responsible gun ownership prevents each year? Can we name and "out" the politicians who count on campaign donations stemming from a sick person's outburst?

[Shaddim]

Schools need better security. I walked into my nephew's school a few weeks ago, through a side door, and no one met me, challenged me, or said a word. I just walked in and sat next to him in a crowded lunch area. I was wearing a .357.

<-- reserve county deputy

Yes, my badge was visible, but still... definitely something I bringing up to the county commission.

[P]

Originally Posted by finboy 

My response to Frum:
Can we complain about the idiots who blame guns for violence by the mentally ill, obscuring the real issues? Can we complain about the folks who inevitably politicize any gun event without ever considering how many deaths responsible gun ownership prevents each year? Can we name and "out" the politicians who count on campaign donations stemming from a sick person's outburst?

Lack of gun control does not cause events like this, but it makes them worse when they do happen. We'll see how legal all those weapons were, but it seems the shooter had a short assault carbine - semiauto only, however - and two handguns, and from what I hear, all those were completely legal to buy. How is that not politics?

But don't worry, I'm sure someone will discover how the shooter once played GTA III at a friends house about a decade ago and blame computer games for everything.

[Shaddim]

Oh, and before I catch a lot of crap, I am a deputy in this county.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by P 

Lack of gun control does not cause events like this, but it makes them worse when they do happen. We'll see how legal all those weapons were, but it seems the shooter had a short assault carbine - semiauto only, however - and two handguns, and from what I hear, all those were completely legal to buy. How is that not politics?
But don't worry, I'm sure someone will discover how the shooter once played GTA III at a friends house about a decade ago and blame computer games for everything.

This wasn't an issue 25 years ago, I used to walk the halls of my HS with a cased .22 rifle (JROTC rifle team), I had a 12ga shotgun in my car trunk (I often went hunting after school). I got into fights, just about all boys did, but we never considered going postal. When did things change? How did society change?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by finboy 

Can we complain about the idiots who blame guns for violence by the mentally ill, obscuring the real issues?

Guns don't cause violence or killing, they make it easier and more efficient. This is not something you can dispute otherwise armies wouldn't use them.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Can we complain about the folks who inevitably politicize any gun event without ever considering how many deaths responsible gun ownership prevents each year?

I think you just did.

Originally Posted by finboy 

Can we name and "out" the politicians who count on campaign donations stemming from a sick person's outburst?

This sounds a lot like politicising a gun event (without considering deaths "prevented" by gun ownership).

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Schools need better security. I walked into my nephew's school a few weeks ago, through a side door, and no one met me, challenged me, or said a word. I just walked in and sat next to him in a crowded lunch area. I was wearing a .357.
<-- reserve county deputy
Yes, my badge was visible, but still... definitely something I bringing up to the county commission.

Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need better security though?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This wasn't an issue 25 years ago, I used to walk the halls of my HS with a cased .22 rifle (JROTC rifle team), I had a 12ga shotgun in my car trunk (I often went hunting after school). I got into fights, just about all boys did, but we never considered going postal. When did things change? How did society change?

Children today are far more indulged than they used to be and an increasingly litigious society has fostered the habit of shifting blame and therefore responsibility to someone else at every opportunity. Thats my guess anyway.

People are referring to the 20 year old shooter as an adult and legally speaking thats correct but I suspect he was anything but adult emotionally. Its a tricky comparison to make but I find it tough to imagine that many 20 year olds of today are as mature or stable as the teenagers who exaggerated their ages to fight in WW1 or 2.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need better security though?

Firearms can't be made illegal in the USA. Aside from the 2nd Amendment, which won't be changed because they'll never have the number of states necessary to ratify, there are 100s of millions of rifles, pistols, and shotguns out there in the public's hands. Villains won't give them up, and law-abiding citizens shouldn't be made to.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Wouldn't it be nice if they didn't need better security though?

Of course.

That being said, my old schools are all locked down like prisons.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Firearms can't be made illegal in the USA. Aside from the 2nd Amendment, which won't be changed because they'll never have the number of states necessary to ratify, there are 100s of millions of rifles, pistols, and shotguns out there in the public's hands. Villains won't give them up, and law-abiding citizens shouldn't be made to.

Ignoring for now the huge leap you're making to assume I'm saying firearms should be made illegal, here is the thing that the gun lovers miss every. single. time. this. happens:

These gun rampages are not committed by 'villains' or criminals. They are committed by ordinary people who have broken, or by people who were always a little unstable and finally snapped. The simple fact remains that if the law abiding folks did all give up their guns, these events would decrease in frequency.

Culturally speaking, the UK is about as close to the US as anywhere (except maybe Canada). Our population is 70 million, yours is 300 or so. We have gun crime. Robbery, murder, etc etc, but school massacres and rampage killings have happened maybe 3 or 4 times during my 32 years. Most of us can remember the names of the schools involved because they are so few and the outcry so great in their aftermath. As I understand it, we don't even hear about all these types of events that occur in the US, only the worst of them. You've had 3 or 4 this year alone IIRC and thats just the ones we've heard about. The simple maths should tell you that reducing the number of guns will help to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

My suggestion is to start by massively taxing firearms. thousands of percent. At least you will start to remove them from the hands of people who aren't smart enough to earn the cash to buy them. This should satisfy your precious 2nd amendment and those who believe the government will need to be overthrown any day will just have to work harder to fund their neurosis.

[P]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This wasn't an issue 25 years ago, I used to walk the halls of my HS with a cased .22 rifle (JROTC rifle team), I had a 12ga shotgun in my car trunk (I often went hunting after school). I got into fights, just about all boys did, but we never considered going postal. When did things change? How did society change?

Interesting question for psychologist or sociologist or something, but the fact remains that that's the world we live in. And a hunting rifle is still very different from what is essentially a submachine gun.

[Dork.]

Gun Control will no doubt get talked about in the coming weeks and months. But a debate we should be having today is how badly the media ****ed this one up (and are continuing to do so, and they don't even care). I gave up cable and watching the 24-hour news cycle a long time ago, but this morning I am reading about how many media outlets incorrectly reported the identity of the shooter, claiming it was his older brother who wasn't even in town at the time, and how there were incorrect reports that their father was killed as well. (Granted, it appears that the shooter may have been carrying his older brother's ID with him, but still, the confusion is easily verified.) Some newspeople also appear to be harassing families of victims (and also families of children who survived, but are no doubt traumatized), trying to get interviews to feed the 24-hour news cycle. (If I lost a kid in this fashion, and a newsperson asked me for a comment, all they would get is a finger.)

I understand that it's a terrible tragedy and we all want to know information about it, if for no other reason than to attempt to make some sense of it all. And I understand that the traditional media is competing with social media that is much more immediate, and has no obligation to be correct. But can't people in the media ****ing verify their shit before broadcasting it to the world? And I mean independently verify it, not just play a game of telephone and report something because their competition did. I would argue that if the big-M Media wants to differentiate itself from twitter, it can do that by verifying shit before airing it. But I'm afraid that they are treating this like another installment of a reality show, and that really pisses me off.

[lpkmckenna]

I agree, the media has behaved very callously towards victims and their families.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

My suggestion is to start by massively taxing firearms. thousands of percent. At least you will start to remove them from the hands of people who aren't smart enough to earn the cash to buy them. This should satisfy your precious 2nd amendment and those who believe the government will need to be overthrown any day will just have to work harder to fund their neurosis.

Then, like imposing an expensive form of insurance or bond, you're creating another class division. It won't slow me down from buying a new pistol, but it'll stop the average Joe in his tracks. Wealthy people get guns, poor people don't. Think that won't blow up in our faces?

[Spheric Harlot]

Probably not.

There's a hell of a lot fewer rich people in America than poor people.

Unless of course you mean that this is precisely the situation that existing redneck gun-owners would consider their "well-regulated militia" duty (regulated, my ass) is designed for and take to arms to usurp the socialist dictatorship?

[Salty]

For everyone who wants to blame the mentally ill. A mentally ill person has many uses and in many cases functions just fine in society even if they do have access to guns, there's only a few mentally ill people comparatively that it wouldn't be safe to give a gun to. However the number of people who don't have a recognized mental illness who think that having machines built solely for the purpose of killing, is ever going to help prevent violence ... now that's delusion on a level that demands a diagnosis. Since we've already stated that mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, I'd like all of you who can't understand why everyone having a gun is a bad idea, to please hand me your fire arms, you're clearly not mentally balanced enough to own them.

[subego]

Has many uses?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Probably not.
There's a hell of a lot fewer rich people in America than poor people.
Unless of course you mean that this is precisely the situation that existing redneck gun-owners would consider their "well-regulated militia" duty (regulated, my ass) is designed for and take to arms to usurp the socialist dictatorship?

Of course it would, you're creating another point of inequality, making the financial "elite" the only folks able to own or carry a firearm. It'll be like in the middle ages when only nobles could afford swords and armor, and if a peasant was caught such a thing, it was automatically assumed that they'd stolen it. There are over 3 million millionaires in the USA, which works out to a little over 1% of the population, and owning and wearing a guns would become a fashion accessory, to show off that they can afford them.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then, like imposing an expensive form of insurance or bond, you're creating another class division. It won't slow me down from buying a new pistol, but it'll stop the average Joe in his tracks. Wealthy people get guns, poor people don't. Think that won't blow up in our faces?

How many of these massacre killers are rich?

People like you will just have to buy even more and hand them out when the revolution comes.

[Spheric Harlot]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of course it would, you're creating another point of inequality, making the financial "elite" the only folks able to own or carry a firearm. It'll be like in the middle ages when only nobles could afford swords and armor, and if a peasant was caught such a thing, it was automatically assumed that they'd stolen it. There are over 3 million millionaires in the USA, which works out to a little over 1% of the population, and owning and wearing a guns would become a fashion accessory, to show off that they can afford them.

Why is this a problem?

It reduces the number of weapons around, and limits them to the hands of people who can afford them, but who also stand a lot more to lose.

I don't believe heavy taxation is necessarily the answer, though. Mandatory training, psychological profiling, background checks, secured/unloaded transport, and secure lock-up at all times will be enough to make quite a difference.
There will also no longer be any question of "fashion accessory", as the right to carry a loaded weapon would simply not exist for anyone not involved in actual law enforcement or security industries.

Question still being how to get there from here.

[pooka]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Why is this a problem?

If Sean Penn can have one, I want one.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How many of these massacre killers are rich?

How many rich people have to worry about home invasions because they live in a shit neighborhood where the police don't come?

[Waragainstsleep]

The whole home defence argument is essentially "I need one because everyone else has one".
The criminals who the pro-gun people claim will get their hands on guns one way or another, are mostly not buying them legally I'll bet. They are stealing them from people who do, or perhaps they are buying them under the table from those who have bought them legally or from gun merchants looking to make a little extra. If you are planning to shoot someone, or even allowing for it, you don't want the gun to be registered to you do you?

The point is the supply of guns for criminals is coming mostly from weapons that were once upon a time purchased legally. If you want to get them out of criminal hands, you need to stem the supply. Its not rocket science.

If the only argument against revoking ownership is that there are too many guns in the wild, then what is needed is a transition plan that will prevent a period of gun killings getting even worse until they can be removed from public hands.

Putting a large tax on them is a start as it will drive up the price of black market weapons as well. The insurance idea is not a bad one. Maybe there should be a law that says if a gun is used to commit a crime, then the last legal owner should be held partially responsible? A big fine or a sentence, or both.
Longer sentences for possessing illegal firearms, or for selling them illegally.

All guns sold should have ballistics data on file, that would drive the prices up too.

Over here, to obtain a gun licence you have to have your gun cabinet inspected by a police officer. The police also have the right to come back at any time to check your guns are properly secured where they should be. Can't imagine that rule would go down too well over there though.

[subego]

People don't want to amend the Constitution. That's not rocket science either.

[Spheric Harlot]

The Constitution calls for "well-regulated militia".

They are anything BUT.

Additional requirements and regulations like those described above should be perfectly constitutional, in fact, MORE SO than the current, wildly unregulated, situation.

[RobOnTheCape]

Though it's unlikely the 2nd Amendment will ever be overturned, what can be legislated is what type of guns can be bought. No automatic weapons, no handguns. Hunters get to hunt, and people get to defend their homes. People would like a handgun or Uzi, but they don't need one for what they intend them for.


The handgun issue aside, why is American society like this? I see these posts about a lack of God in our society, or in our schools, yet Japan is Buddhist, they do not believe in God, and yet they had 11 deaths due to guns last year. When living there some time ago I saw TV shows on regular networks which would never get played here off of cable, violent video games, manga and the like, but again, a fraction of the violence we have here in the US.

I have no ideas why, but would love to hear a few.

[Waragainstsleep]

I think there is a lot or pent up frustration due to repressed homosexuality.

[Spheric Harlot]

In Japan? Or in the US?

Japan is FAR more liberal about homosexual relations (hush, hush, but tolerated) historically.


So, I guess we can infer that God doesn't hate homosexuals, *he hates REPRESSED homosexuals.

(I read somewhere a long time ago that the original definition of "sin" was "to be untrue to thyself", rather than "untrue to G*d". Can't remember what the basis for that quote was, though. Never saw it scientifically/historically attributed.)

[P]

Originally Posted by RobOnTheCape 

Though it's unlikely the 2nd Amendment will ever be overturned, what can be legislated is what type of guns can be bought. No automatic weapons, no handguns. Hunters get to hunt, and people get to defend their homes. People would like a handgun or Uzi, but they don't need one for what they intend them for.

Strictly speaking a constitutional amendment cannot be overturned, it can only be interpreted - but you are right, the interpretation of the Second Amendment is unlikely to change any time soon. Assault Weapons Bans were not overturned by SCOTUS, however - the Federal one just expired - so there is nothing stopping legislators from introducing them again. Not that I believe that one will get past the House, but stranger things have happened.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Look.....there basically is zero, absolutely zilch of an argument to be made that restricting access to guns via various methods does not result in a safer society.

In my opinion, anyway. Someone can make that argument if they like; I'd love to see it. The fact is that AFAIK, every other civilized nation on the earth has a more restrictive gun regime, and the US consistently outnumbers all other nations combined when it comes to gun-related deaths.

[subego]

I thought the point was it results in a more free society.

[Spheric Harlot]

Freedom through intimidation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The Constitution calls for "well-regulated militia".
They are anything BUT.
Additional requirements and regulations like those described above should be perfectly constitutional, in fact, MORE SO than the current, wildly unregulated, situation.

Replace the terms.

"X, being necessary to Y, the right of the people to Z, shall not be infringed."

You parse this to mean the right to Z is dependent on whether you X?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Freedom through intimidation.

Do you mean this rhetorically?

[Spheric Harlot]

Freedom is always freedom until it infringes on somebody else's.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Freedom is always freedom until it infringes on somebody else's.

It's probably not much of a freedom if abusing it doesn't carry some form of downside.

The "price of freedom" isn't just an empty phrase.

[Shaddim]

I know a lot of folks who are very intimidated by police, should we make all officers where pink bunny outfits to make them less so?

The second amendment is the second amendment, it isn't changing, and shouldn't be changed. We need more/better law enforcement domestically and be less involved internationally. Bring the troops home and have them work as police, expanding the scope of the National Guard, at least temporarily. New legislation won't do shit, since we don't even enforce the gun laws we have now.

"Give up your guns, they're illegal to own now!"
"**** you, come get them!"
"Umm... please give up your guns?"
"Seriously? No."
"Well... uh... what now?"

Gun control and weapon bans may work for Europe and other countries, where gun ownership isn't a centuries old, and unbroken, tradition. Here? Not so much.

[Shaddim]

Also, quit giving the ****ing killers air time on TV. Talk about the act and the victims, but for ****'s sake, stop mentioning the shooters. Stop going into details about their lives. Call them "worthless scumbags" on TV and in other media outlets, heap scorn upon them anonymously, make them social pariahs and have their names stricken from public records. That'll fix part of it, right there.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Bring the troops home and have them work as police, expanding the scope of the National Guard, at least temporarily.

Do they have to wear pink bunny outfits?



This is a really bad idea BTW.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Do they have to wear pink bunny outfits?
This is a really bad idea BTW.

I'm not saying cammo-wearing troops running everywhere with military weaponry. Dress them as cops, arm them as cops, but if the shit hits the fan, they're ready to roll.

Bunny outfits? Sure, why not? At least my grandmother won't freak out anymore when a cop looks at her sideways. I dunno why and she can't explain it.

[subego]

Don't you kinda sorta need training to be a cop? It's pretty different from taking and holding ground.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Don't you kinda sorta need training to be a cop? It's pretty different from taking and holding ground.

Sure, they already know how to use weapons, are more physically fit than actual cops, and have experience in crisis situations. Learning ordinances wouldn't take long. MPs could go in right away, but I think the rest could be brought up to speed in 2-3 months.

[subego]

Go into where?

[Shaddim]

Sheriff's departments and police stations. Bring back "beat walking", use them for SWAT and more tactical assignments, freeing up regular cops for school security and the like.

[subego]

That would be an extremely poor use of resources. How often does this happen? How many schools are there?



Though hearing papa Shaddim think about his little Shaddimette's safety is adorable.

Seriously.

[Shaddim]

Huh? Oh, she's not going near a public school. Ever. And she's being home-schooled until she's a teenager. I might as well put my degrees to use.

I wasn't just talking about schools, though my priorities have changed. I'm irritated over poor law enforcement in the US, in general. I believe it's a better use of resources than what those troops are doing right now.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Also, quit giving the ****ing killers air time on TV. Talk about the act and the victims, but for ****'s sake, stop mentioning the shooters. Stop going into details about their lives. Call them "worthless scumbags" on TV and in other media outlets, heap scorn upon them anonymously, make them social pariahs and have their names stricken from public records. That'll fix part of it, right there.

If I were a victim, I'd probably want to be left alone by the media. As in zero coverage. Perhaps there are others who feel differently, but I think a sizable chunk of the victim's families doesn't want their heartbreaking story aired on national TV. On the other hand, of course the public is interested in the »Why«, so it is natural that the media goes through the perp's life with a fine-toothed comb. And again we'll hear the story of the weird, socially awkward and quiet guy at school who had no friends … who wants to be friends with a serial killer anyway?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for more support for the victims, but not via the media and it ought to be long-term.