Guns

[NeilT]

I don't understand the law of firearms very well. I'm pretty certain the federal government could limit firearms in some ways even if the second amendment limits that limitation, and I'm pretty sure a state might not be able to because of federal preemption, but what would stop a court allowing a private right of action against manufacturers or sellers who sell without concern as to the ultimate use?  Isn't the ultimate use often obvious?

[Limey]

Congress can, of course, limit what weapons can be owned by privy citizens.  You can't buy a fully automatic AR-15, for example.  The gun debate gets dragged (by gun rights activists) to be an "all or nothing" decision, when we already have nuance in this, in order to frighten people into being quiet.  Also, Congress has passed shield laws to protect gun manufacturers (and perhaps sellers, I'm not sure) from lawsuits arising out of the use of their products.

It's also worth remembering that one year ago yesterday, Congress passed, and Trump signed into law, the first meaningful piece of legislation of the Trump presidency.  It was a stand-alone bill to roll back prohibitions on the mentally ill from buying guns.  It was sponsored in the Senate by Chuck Grassley.  ANY Republican talking about mental health instead of gun control needs to be smacked around the face with a rolled up copy of this law.

I have been amazed by these high schoolers from Parkland.  They are savvy social media and, seemingly, old media users, and are doing their vocal best not to allow cowards to get away with the "it's too soon to talk about this" trope.  They are owning the debate and they have the most - only - relevant voices at this moment in time.  Republicans may want to take note that many of them will be of voting age this November, when Florida has the Governor and a U.S. Senator on the ballot.  Many more will be of voting age in 2020 when the President - who won Florida only by about 100,000 votes - will be on the ballot.  These kids are woke as fuck about this, and I hope that their voices remain strong, loud and present.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Except for a BB gun, I don't own any firearms. I guess about 99.99% of gun owners have them for hunting, home invasion defense, and target shooting. I really don't think the gun manufacturers are to blame but in a way they have the same blood on their hands as the makers of liquor, beer, and wine. The number of guns deaths is about the same as people who die in all automobile accidents (not just the drunk driving cases). Think about the huge amount of regulations, laws, and restrictions, that go along with owning and operating an auto. Then contrast that with the ease and availability of gun ownership. Of course, there is nothing in the constitution about driving a vehicle.

I think every state should have extensive background checks. I think everyone should take a shooter safety course and have to pass a test to get a gun ownership license. Perhaps mandatory liability insurance should be required too.

Sadly, as the populations continue to soar, there are that much more fucked up individuals and the likelihood of tragic events is increased. I suspect that bombings will increase too.

[Limey]

Except for a BB gun, I don't own any firearms. I guess about 99.99% of gun owners have them for hunting, home invasion defense, and target shooting. I really don't think the gun manufacturers are to blame but in a way they have the same blood on their hands as the makers of liquor, beer, and wine. The number of guns deaths is about the same as people who die in all automobile accidents (not just the drunk driving cases). Think about the huge amount of regulations, laws, and restrictions, that go along with owning and operating an auto. Then contrast that with the ease and availability of gun ownership. Of course, there is nothing in the constitution about driving a vehicle.

I think every state should have extensive background checks. I think everyone should take a shooter safety course and have to pass a test to get a gun ownership license. Perhaps mandatory liability insurance should be required too.

Sadly, as the populations continue to soar, there are that much more fucked up individuals and the likelihood of tragic events is increased. I suspect that bombings will increase too.

The proportion of households with a gun has been steadily dropping for years, such that two years ago it had fallen to 36%.  This means that the core gun-buying demographic changed from being "Joe Public" to being "Joe Gun Nut".  This is what drives the change in behavior of the NRA, that used to be about sportsmen and sensible gun owners, and is now about protecting and preserving the right of Joe Gun Nut to stockpile as many weapons as he chooses, regardless of the consequences to society at large.

The Onion (I think) has a headline calling on us all to honor the sacrifice of school kids who die to protect our second amendment rights.  In satire, the truth.

[BudGirl]

I have given up FaceBook for Lent because I cannot take reading the "You'll only get my guns when you pry the =m from my cold dead hands." 

Mind you, I was raised in a family with hunters.  My daddy kept one in his truck when he was working cattle (and thankful for that I am since he killed some rattlesnakes).  But, he did not own a single automatic weapon.  Those aren't for sport hunting.  Those are for killing people.  If you can't shoot the animal you are aiming for, you lost.

[Bench]

There is plenty that can be done within the constraints of the Second Amendment, both on the federal,  state, and local levels. 

I think repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (passed in 2005), which confers immunity on gun manufacturers and dealers would be one of the most significant steps.  If gun manufacturers and dealers faced civil liability for their actions they would be motivated to take active steps to prevent negligent gun sales by irresponsible dealers and make innovations which would make their products safer.  They would also probably support a comprehensive system of background checks in order to shield themselves from liability, which is something that very few people are against anyway.  Same with closing the loopholes regarding private sales of guns.

Prohibiting large magazines and things like bump stocks would certainly help mitigate against the mass shootings like Las Vegas, Sandy Hook and Parkland.  Of course the vast majority of gun violence involves handguns and small capacity magazines, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. 

Requiring guns to be stored safely would prevent a significant amount of children being killed by accident, suicide, or using a parent's gun in a school shooting.  This would probably have to go hand in hand with education and outreach associated with required courses and licensing in order to obtain a fire arm in the first place.   

The most important thing is to fund research on what solutions work and can be feasibly implemented.  Currently the CDC is prevented from using its funds to research gun violence as a national health issue and last year the NIH shelved its already meager program studying gun violence and how to prevent it.  Until that's done we're mostly shooting in the dark. 

[Limey]

The most important thing is to fund research on what solutions work and can be feasibly implemented.  Currently the CDC is prevented from using its funds to research gun violence as a national health issue and last year the NIH shelved its already meager program studying gun violence and how to prevent it.  Until that's done we're mostly shooting in the dark.

This is perhaps the most disgusting part of the debate.  The people who use the lack of research as a shield are the same ones preventing research from happening. 

[mrpink]

The number of guns deaths is about the same as people who die in all automobile accidents (not just the drunk driving cases). Think about the huge amount of regulations, laws, and restrictions, that go along with owning and operating an auto. Then contrast that with the ease and availability of gun ownership. Of course, there is nothing in the constitution about driving a vehicle.

That equivalency is only accurate if you include suicides, FYI.  Those account for about 65% of all gun deaths.

[Jacksonian]

Requiring guns to be stored safely would prevent a significant amount of children being killed by accident, suicide, or using a parent's gun in a school shooting.  This would probably have to go hand in hand with education and outreach associated with required courses and licensing in order to obtain a fire arm in the first place.   

The number 1 cause of gun deaths in this country is suicide.  And second place isn't even close.  Mental illness has to be a part of any gun restrictions discussion.  Allowing gun manufacturers and sellers to be liable for suicide isn't an answer.  Requiring a mental health evaluation for all hand gun sales would kill the industry.  That's not going to happen.  Maybe charging parents if access to a gun was effectively not restricted to a child?  But that's just a fragment of the suicides by gun.

[Limey]

As tragic as every suicide is, I think the priority has to be stopping people killing other people over stopping them killing themselves.  Gun control would help the former and perhaps a little of the latter.

However, promoting mental illness background checks as a method of gun control ignores the elephant in the room that people may purchase a gun for legitimate purposes and later fall into mental illness.   Better to keep weapons designed for rapid, mass killing out of the hands of civilians - sane or otherwise. 

It’s worth noting that the recent budget proposal from the Trump administration slashes in half funding for mental health. 

[austro]

Here's my proposal: the owner of record for a firearm is culpable of something similar to manslaughter  if a crime is committed with that firearm (maybe there's a range of charges from contributory negligence to manslaughter, depending upon the severity of the related crime, or maybe we use the mandatory minimum sentencing that Republicans love so much). Yes, that means there's a firearm ownership database somewhere; deal with it. If you own a weapon and it's stolen, you get 30 days to report it to the police. If somebody uses that gun more than 30 days later and you haven't reported it, you're on the hook. If you transfer ownership to somebody else (e.g., grandfather gives his squirrel rifle to his grandson), you get 30 days to update the ownership records, If that other person commits a crime with that transferred weapon and you haven't updated the ownership records, you're on the hook. This would directly address straw purchases and gun show loopholes.

The immediate effect probably wouldn't be great because of the volume of guns already out in the wild that won't be registered to anybody. That's life (and death, unfortunately). But over time many of those guns are going to fall out of circulation, and 20 years from now we would be in a much better situation.

The big changes won't come until our representatives fear the electorate more than they fear the NRA.

[Jacksonian]

As tragic as every suicide is, I think the priority has to be stopping people killing other people over stopping them killing themselves.  Gun control would help the former and perhaps a little of the latter.

However, promoting mental illness background checks as a method of gun control ignores the elephant in the room that people may purchase a gun for legitimate purposes and later fall into mental illness.   Better to keep weapons designed for rapid, mass killing out of the hands of civilians - sane or otherwise. 

It’s worth noting that the recent budget proposal from the Trump administration slashes in half funding for mental health.

A lot of homicides are criminals killing criminals.  What are those numbers?  What are gun death numbers by illegally obtained guns?  Those groups are for the cops not gun control.

[Mr. Happy]

Here's my proposal: the owner of record for a firearm is culpable of something similar to manslaughter  if a crime is committed with that firearm (maybe there's a range of charges from contributory negligence to manslaughter, depending upon the severity of the related crime, or maybe we use the mandatory minimum sentencing that Republicans love so much). Yes, that means there's a firearm ownership database somewhere; deal with it. If you own a weapon and it's stolen, you get 30 days to report it to the police. If somebody uses that gun more than 30 days later and you haven't reported it, you're on the hook. If you transfer ownership to somebody else (e.g., grandfather gives his squirrel rifle to his grandson), you get 30 days to update the ownership records, If that other person commits a crime with that transferred weapon and you haven't updated the ownership records, you're on the hook. This would directly address straw purchases and gun show loopholes.

The immediate effect probably wouldn't be great because of the volume of guns already out in the wild that won't be registered to anybody. That's life (and death, unfortunately). But over time many of those guns are going to fall out of circulation, and 20 years from now we would be in a much better situation.

The big changes won't come until our representatives fear the electorate more than they fear the NRA.

The gun registry idea will never happen. Nor should it because it smacks of totalitarian regimes.

[chuck]

The gun registry idea will never happen. Nor should it because it smacks of totalitarian regimes.

Hey, I'm with you, Sugar Bear. I could never stand to live in the sort of oppressive state that records its citizens' births, deaths, places of residence, income, decides who is able to drive and who isn't, records which vehicle is owned by whom (and, could you believe it, requires that they be insured!), records who is and who isn't eligible to vote and when and where they vote, issues international travel documents and knows when and where they are used.

Why, next thing you know they're going to be trying to control where airplanes fly, or maybe they'll go nuts and start inspecting our food, or god forbid our drugs.

Speaking of drugs, slide down the slippery slope and they'll be telling the boys at the funny farm exactly what brand of straightjacket to use. The horror.

[Fredia]

where I grew up even I shot guns. If you shot something tho you better eat it or it should have been a menace (chicken snake in your hen house, armadillo tearing up things, coyote ) You were taught respect of the weapon and the weight of being responsible for it.  Things have changed   I do not understand how life seems to matter so little to these shooters.  Something has to change.  It almost becomes a catch 22 . You take away the weapons from people and the bad guys will not respect the law and will still have them. 

[Limey]

The gun registry idea will never happen. Nor should it because it smacks of totalitarian regimes.

WTF?

Why does requiring a responsible gun owner to register his/her guns smack to totalitarianism?  That is the sort of purely hyperbolic nonsense that muddies the debate and makes it an all-or-nothing test.

If the gun lobby is going to put this carnage all on the backs of the mentally ill, then the logical progression is that we have to know who has what guns so that, when someone goes off the reservation, we know where to go and what to collect from them.  Responsible gun owners should not have the merest peep of an issue with this because they're...you know...responsible.  If you advocate against sensible gun regulations, then you are - by definition - not being responsible.

[chuck]

I can't believe it. The opportunity to employ the phrase Catch .22 presented itself and it was ignored, spurned, cast aside like so many cold shell casings.

[Navin R Johnson]

Just imagine the extraordinary effects of Obama’s Jade Helm operation, if he had access to a gun registration list!

[Limey]

where I grew up even I shot guns. If you shot something tho you better eat it or it should have been a menace (chicken snake in your hen house, armadillo tearing up things, coyote ) You were taught respect of the weapon and the weight of being responsible for it.  Things have changed   I do not understand how life seems to matter so little to these shooters.  Something has to change.  It almost becomes a catch 22 . You take away the weapons from people and the bad guys will not respect the law and will still have them.

Gun violence has always been here, the AR-15 has not.

[Waldo]

That is the sort of purely hyperbolic nonsense that muddies the debate and makes it an all-or-nothing test.

This could be copied and pasted in response to pretty much any Mr. Happy political post.

[Craig]

I can't believe it. The opportunity to employ the phrase Catch .22 presented itself and it was ignored, spurned, cast aside like so many cold shell casings.

With the AR-15 involved in every mass shooting, the phrase really should be updated to the more accurate "Catch-.223"

[Mr. Happy]

WTF?

Why does requiring a responsible gun owner to register his/her guns smack to totalitarianism?  That is the sort of purely hyperbolic nonsense that muddies the debate and makes it an all-or-nothing test.

If the gun lobby is going to put this carnage all on the backs of the mentally ill, then the logical progression is that we have to know who has what guns so that, when someone goes off the reservation, we know where to go and what to collect from them.  Responsible gun owners should not have the merest peep of an issue with this because they're...you know...responsible.  If you advocate against sensible gun regulations, then you are - by definition - not being responsible.

What, praytell, is sensible? I could agree to register the assault rifles, but not other guns. I don't want, and hope that you don't either, to create a situation down the road where a regime has the ability to go house to house to collect guns. The Democrat Party leaders have made it clear that this is their ultimate aim, which is why it won't happen. The American people won't stand for it.

[Mr. Happy]

This could be copied and pasted in response to pretty much any Mr. Happy political post.

Fuck off, sonny boy. I was writing legislation that was enacted when you were still in diapers.

[Craig]

go house to house to collect guns. The Democrat Party leaders have made it clear that this is their ultimate aim

Citation needed. And bullshit right-wing sources don't count.

[austro]

The Democrat Party leaders have made it clear that this is their ultimate aim, which is why it won't happen.

I'd like to see a credible citation to this effect, because I believe this is one of the "facts" that get promulgated by the NRA to get folks riled up. I don't doubt that there are Democrats with this aim (I probably know a few), but to say that this is the position of Democrat leadership (such as it is) or the party seems like a stretch.

[BudGirl]

Fuck off, sonny boy. I was writing legislation that was enacted when you were still in diapers.

Does not make it good legislation.

[Bench]

What, praytell, is sensible? I could agree to register the assault rifles, but not other guns. I don't want, and hope that you don't either, to create a situation down the road where a regime has the ability to go house to house to collect guns. The Democrat Party leaders have made it clear that this is their ultimate aim, which is why it won't happen. The American people won't stand for it.

This is so ridiculous.  Putting aside that wild untruth about what democrat party leaders have made clear (apparently only to you), that can obviously not happen absent an amendment to the constitution, which you'll have plenty of notice of.

"Why should we try to save people's actual lives if that makes a wildly unlikely scenario not any much more likely?" wonders the person who refuses to travel internationally because every other country is more dangerous than the only one that routinely has mass shootings. 

[NeilT]

The gun registry idea will never happen. Nor should it because it smacks of totalitarian regimes.

I was thinking that really you don't need the government to register guns or so forth, you just need a private cause of action for victims of folks that sell stuff that's going to end up hurting people.  If you sell a 30 shot magazine to somebody who uses it in a school shooting, and that person was notably troubled, then you can get sued, on up to the manufacturer.  I figure that is probably negligent.  But then I find there's a totalitarian regime that prohibits people from bringing that suit and putting the question to a jury of their peers. Government interference in individual rights is deeply troubling.

[Mr. Happy]

I know that I'm outnumbered. Respectfully, you folks are in your own little echo chamber, and I suggest that you're out of touch with the American people. I've stayed out of the Angell thread to give you all a safe space to spew your venom against the President, who, frankly, has been kicking your asses politically because he's in touch with the average American.

Below is taken from a Democrat Party platform. Query why a photo license ID should be required when you fight it for voting? I'd agree on the photo ID for gun purchases if you all would agree to voter ID laws. The background check concerns me because of the subjectivity of it. Who determines that?

The mental health test, while not in the platform below, has been bandied about by Democrats recently, also concerns me. Could I, a recovering drug addict and a bipolar person, buy a gun? Who is mentally ill? I believe that it could be easily politicized by a partisan government. The same for the gun safety test. The Second Amendment doesn't say that you can bear those arms that the government says you can; it says that the right to bear arms can't be infringed. Period.

Democrats passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. We increased federal, state, and local gun crime prosecution by 22 percent since 1992. Now gun crime is down by 35 percent. Now we must do even more. We need mandatory child safety locks. We should require a photo license I.D., a background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun. We support more federal gun prosecutors and giving states and communities another 10,000 prosecutors to fight gun crime. [emphasis added]

Source: 2000 Democratic National Platform as adopted by the DNC , Aug 15, 2000

[chuck]

Fuck off, sonny boy. I was writing legislation that was enacted when you were still in diapers.

You know what, dude? Let's just stop this right here. Waldo does not need nor did he seek my defense. So let me just say that in my limited experience of knowing Waldo, he is 500 times the man you are and will ever be.

[austro]

I appreciate the citation from the platform doc, but I think you forgot to copy the line that said they intended to confiscate everybody's guns.

Seriously, though, I'm sure you're sincere in your belief that the average American shares your positions, just as I'm sincere in my belief that the average American shares mine. Obviously, one of us is wrong. I believe that Republican overreach has awakened a sleeping giant, and that we'll see that this fall in the elections. Then we'll have a better read on the situation.

[chuck]

And I don't know nor do I fucking care what Dave's politics are. By the way.

[homer]

WTF?

Why does requiring a responsible gun owner to register his/her guns smack to totalitarianism?  That is the sort of purely hyperbolic nonsense that muddies the debate and makes it an all-or-nothing test.

If the gun lobby is going to put this carnage all on the backs of the mentally ill, then the logical progression is that we have to know who has what guns so that, when someone goes off the reservation, we know where to go and what to collect from them.  Responsible gun owners should not have the merest peep of an issue with this because they're...you know...responsible.  If you advocate against sensible gun regulations, then you are - by definition - not being responsible.

You cast the half baked idea that a gun registry is the logical progression from placing blame on the mentally ill as 'sensible' and those who would oppose it as 'not being responsible'. I think this is the definition of "purely hyperbolic nonsense that muddies the debate".

[austro]

You cast the half baked idea that a gun registry is the logical progression from placing blame on the mentally ill as 'sensible' and those who would oppose it as 'not being responsible'. I think this is the definition of "purely hyperbolic nonsense that muddies the debate".

What exactly is the issue with knowing whether a mentally ill person has a stockpile of guns?

[homer]

What exactly is the issue with knowing whether a mentally ill person has a stockpile of guns?

How would someone selling a gun know if a potential buyer is mentally ill?

[austro]

How would someone selling a gun know if a potential buyer is mentally ill?

Maybe they ought to be required to make an effort to find out? Or ask some agency whether the potential buyer is fit? Maybe the potential buyer should have to supply a certificate of fitness?

[homer]

Maybe they ought to be required to make an effort to find out? Or ask some agency whether the potential buyer is fit? Maybe the potential buyer should have to supply a certificate of fitness?

The seller should contact the buyer's doctor(s)? A state agency should keep a searchable database of the mentally ill? Who would issue these certificates and what would be the criteria?

[austro]

The seller should contact the buyer's doctor(s)? A state agency should keep a searchable database of the mentally ill? Who would issue these certificates and what would be the criteria?

Put the onus on the purchaser, not the seller. The purchaser needs to obtain a certificate, pursuant to whatever criteria we can mutually decide on.

Look, I don't hate you or Mr. Happy, and I'm not trying to quash your rights. I'm under no illusion that things will magically get better tomorrow. I'm trying to figure out something that will make it so that my grandson doesn't have to worry about his kids getting shot up at school. Something is clearly wrong here, and just saying that it's the price we pay for the 2nd Amendment isn't good enough.

[HudsonHawk]

The Democrat Party leaders have made it clear that this is their ultimate aim, which is why it won't happen. The American people won't stand for it.

Oh please. Knock it off. You do not believe this. You are not that monumentally stupid.

[HudsonHawk]

Put the onus on the purchaser, not the seller. The purchaser needs to obtain a certificate, pursuant to whatever criteria we can mutually decide on

Yeah, that's a really bad idea. One should not have to prove to the government's satisfaction anything before excercising a Constituionally protected right. I don't know the answer, but I know that ain't it.

[HudsonHawk]

The seller should contact the buyer's doctor(s)? A state agency should keep a searchable database of the mentally ill? Who would issue these certificates and what would be the criteria?

The same agency that keeps a database of who can and cannot fly on an airplane?

[austro]

The same agency that keeps a database of who can and cannot fly on an airplane?

Or the same one that keeps track of every cannibis bud from plant to consumer.

[austro]

Yeah, that's a really bad idea. One should not have to prove to the government's satisfaction anything before excercising a Constituionally protected right. I don't know the answer, but I know that ain't it.

Everybody assumes that the words "well-regulated" don't exist. I think it's time to re-visit that assumption.

[Craig]

Everybody assumes that the words "well-regulated" don't exist. I think it's time to re-visit that assumption.

and "militia"

[Lefty]

The Australian NFA seems to me like a great place to start the conversation.  I'd be curious to hear what problems people would have with it.

[Ty in Tampa]

I've stayed out of the Angell thread to give you all a safe space to spew your venom against the President, who, frankly, has been kicking your asses politically because he's in touch with the average American.

Fuck you and your "safe space." Fight like a man! You know you stay out because your "average American" views are batshit crazy...just like Trumps.

[Limey]

What, praytell, is sensible? I could agree to register the assault rifles, but not other guns. I don't want, and hope that you don't either, to create a situation down the road where a regime has the ability to go house to house to collect guns. The Democrat Party leaders have made it clear that this is their ultimate aim, which is why it won't happen. The American people won't stand for it.

The DemocratIC Party (you sound like an idiot when you get it wrong) has said no such thing.  Also, the majority or Americans don’t own guns, so would not be impacted by a House-to-house collection; only 36% (as of 2016 and falling) households have guns. 

So your post is entirely incorrect from facts to grammar. 

[Limey]

One thing that chaps my arse about this is that libertarians should be apoplectic about the shield laws enjoyed by gun manufacturers.  Where’s the libertarianism in that?   I thought the whole idea was that everyone is free to act as they wish but subject to suit if their actions harm others   Once you start ring fencing preferred persons (corporations are people, my friend), libertarianism collapses. 

A tragic irony here is that none of the victims can sue anyone here but, had the gun blown up in the shooter’s face, he’d have a cast iron case against the manufacturer.

[jbm]

Once again, the press misses the low hanging fruit. Registry this, FBI that, social services, bump stocks, etc.  The obvious question that should be pressed and pressed and pressed, until it is adequately answered is why the fuck do people need AR 15s.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Once again, the press misses the low hanging fruit. Registry this, FBI that, social services, bump stocks, etc.  The obvious question that should be pressed and pressed and pressed, until it is adequately answered is why the fuck do people need AR 15s.

No one except psychos needs one. The question is why does someone want one. I'm sure there are many reasons. Hell, there's a part of me, the contrarian, that considered buying one before they do, inevitably, hopefully, make them illegal. Then I realized I would never have any use for one and my only motivation would be to get something I was told I couldn't have. Then I realized that if I got one, since I have no use or need for one, it would just sit locked up until the totalitarian regime came around to collect it, at which time I would realize the futility of not handing it over and I would gladly part with it.

I think a lot of people just don't like being told what to do. Some are just gun enthusiasts gun nuts. Some feel it is somehow starting down a slippery slope of outlawing guns. This doesn't mean they have bad intentions. Doesn't mean they're not misguided either. The problem is that these things are available to people who have bad intentions. That is when the become the most useful. When someone has bad intentions and is serious about carrying them out, they really need an AR15 type rifle. They can't kill efficiently enough with an old revolver and a deer rifle.

[Waldo]

Fuck off, sonny boy. I was writing legislation that was enacted when you were still in diapers.

Classy, I’ve never been on the receiving end of age smack here. Anyway, I hope that legislation was more thought out than a lot of the reactionary stuff you post these days.

We don’t have to agree politically, but if you want to debate a subject then let’s debate the subject based on the facts. A lot of your assertions, both in this thread and on Facebook, are half-true (or worse) strawmen that aren’t at all constructive.

But I suspect you don’t really want to debate.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Yeah, that's a really bad idea. One should not have to prove to the government's satisfaction anything before excercising a Constituionally protected right. I don't know the answer, but I know that ain't it.

There are age requirements. People with certain criminal histories. People who are addicted to, or illegally use, any controlled substance. A fugitive from justice. Someone committed to a mental institution. These are just some of the restrictions that the government imposes to limit who can own a gun.

[Limey]

There are age requirements. People with certain criminal histories. People who are addicted to, or illegally use, any controlled substance. A fugitive from justice. Someone committed to a mental institution. These are just some of the restrictions that the government imposes to limit who can own a gun.

Exactly.  Lines are already drawn, the debate should be about whether they need to be moved and to where.  That debate is never allowed to be had because one side doesn’t want it because they have no rational argument.  The 2nd amendment should never trounce the inalienable right to life. 

[Limey]

It’s ok everyone, Trump knows what the problem is and how to fix it.  Apparently, if the FBI had spent less time investigating him they might not have missed this crazy kid in Florida. 

He said this in a tweet.  Today. 

[Bench]

The seller should contact the buyer's doctor(s)? A state agency should keep a searchable database of the mentally ill? Who would issue these certificates and what would be the criteria?

Maybe it would be best to select a group of people from the overall population to represent the interests of their community members and get them together to critically study the problem, evaluate all the questions and come up with an informed solution.

[chuck]

One of these days, maybe not soon, certainly not soon enough, thoughtful jurists will replace enough of the low rent, thuggish political operatives that make up a significant percentage of the Supreme Court and we can do away with this idiotic myth, laughable on its face, that the Second Amendment somehow bestows upon every redneck the right to drive around in his F-150 with automatic weaponry affixed in his boot, belt and pocket clips. At that point states and municipalities will be able to take whatever steps they feel are necessary to end this madness in their communities.

In the mean time, Republican filth will continue to try to make it as easy as possible to buy any sort of gun one wants, and as hard as possible to vote.

They'll also continue to whore for NRA money, a considerable amount of which, apparently, illegally comes from or came from, you guessed it, Russia! That is fucked up in ways I haven't even begun to contemplate yet.

It's pretty sick to contemplate that Sandy Hook resulted in little more than the thoughts and prayers bullshit these perverted hypocrites drag out every time this happens largely because, I see now in retrospect, there isn't any mobilizable group poised to advocate angrily and determinedly for six year olds. You necks fucked up this time, allowing this to happen to a group of voting age young men and women who, by all appearances, have had quite enough of this goddamned lunacy.

[MusicMan]

As I’ve said before, I believe Sandy Hook ended the gun “debate” in America. As a society, we decided a 50-year old interpretation of the Second Amendment was more valuable than our children’s lives. After that, nothing could move the needle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Limey]

As I’ve said before, I believe Sandy Hook ended the gun “debate” in America. As a society, we decided a 50-year old interpretation of the Second Amendment was more valuable than our children’s lives. After that, nothing could move the needle.

I actually think these Parkland kids can make a difference because, unlike any previous group, they are hard wired into social media.  They spread news far and wide as easily as breathing.  How many fathers are going to fight their precious daughter when she challenges him to a debate about gun violence and how it directly affects her personal safety?  These kids can do what no one else can do: project the emotional side of this debate directly into the homes of gun owners. 

[VirtualBob]

A little study of history would go a long way here.

[VirtualBob]

Yeah, that's a really bad idea. One should not have to prove to the government's satisfaction anything before excercising a Constituionally protected right. I don't know the answer, but I know that ain't it.

Exactly!

[VirtualBob]

The gun registry idea will never happen. Nor should it because it smacks of totalitarian regimes.

Yes.

[Limey]

There’s no prohibition against amending the constitution.  It’s been done dozens of times.  It’s a heavy lift, to be sure, but so was the 13th.  It was also the right thing to do. 

[Aussie Astro]

Once again, the press misses the low hanging fruit. Registry this, FBI that, social services, bump stocks, etc.  The obvious question that should be pressed and pressed and pressed, until it is adequately answered is why the fuck do people need AR 15s.

I think the obvious question is what on earth is motivating people to go on these rampages?

[VirtualBob]

Everybody assumes that the words "well-regulated" don't exist. I think it's time to re-visit that assumption.

In context, the words "well regulated" had to do with how a militia would come together and become an effective force. Gun ownership was widespread at the time and comes into the question of militia because it allowed said militia to be formed from those who needed no training in firearms. And note also that said militia had recently been employed by citizens to resist government tyranny. This was not about protecting hunting rights.

[VirtualBob]

Once again, the press misses the low hanging fruit. Registry this, FBI that, social services, bump stocks, etc.  The obvious question that should be pressed and pressed and pressed, until it is adequately answered is why the fuck do people need AR 15s.

You are correct of course. An AR15 is useless against a well armed government enforcement squad.

[VirtualBob]

There’s no prohibition against amending the constitution.  It’s been done dozens of times.  It’s a heavy lift, to be sure, but so was the 13th.  It was also the right thing to do.

Exactly. We get the government we deserve and if we collectively want to give up a freedom that is misunderstood for a degree of security that is probably less than we anticipate, this is the honest and legal way to do it. Even Tom Paine would agree with the premise here. And precisely because it is a "heavy lift" it would clearly represent our collective (though diverse) voice.

[Bench]

I think the obvious question is what on earth is motivating people to go on these rampages?

I think the question is why are people who are motivated to go on these rampages allowed access to the guns necessary to carry out said rampage?  And I think it's a lot easier to identify the means of carrying out that rampage than it is to identify the person motivated to do it. 

Also, the vast majority of gun deaths don't occur in mass shootings.  Mass shootings are the most visible (and genuinely terrifying) aspect of a larger problem. 

[jbm]

You are correct of course. An AR15 is useless against a well armed government enforcement squad.

Yes, the well armed government goons, the boogie man of the paranoid fringe.

[VirtualBob]

Yes, the well armed government goons, the boogie man of the paranoid fringe.

Being paranoid is not incompatible with being correct. Sometimes it may even qualify as sensible.

[Bench]

Yeah, that's a really bad idea. One should not have to prove to the government's satisfaction anything before excercising a Constituionally protected right. I don't know the answer, but I know that ain't it.

This is why it's such a difficult issue once we actually get past agreeing to address it in the first place.  The second amendment, like the rest of the constitution, is an important aspect of how our society is organized.  The second amendment has to be the central concept around whatever answers there are simply because it exists.  The most annoying aspect of the discussion is when it devolves into "the second amendment is sacred" versus "the second amendment is outdated and stupid." 

The main problem now is that a controlling contingent of government is refusing to consider addressing the issue in the first place, much less trying to solve the actual difficult problem.   

[Limey]

The main problem now is that a controlling contingent of government is refusing to consider addressing the issue in the first place, much less trying to solve the actual difficult problem.   

Worse.  They are refusing to permit study of the problem deliberately so that there can’t be an informed conversation.

[Craig]

Yes, the well armed government goons, the boogie man of the paranoid fringe.

So many "patriots" who have convinced themselves they need all those guns to fight the United States government.

[Bench]

Worse.  They are refusing to permit study of the problem deliberately so that there can’t be an informed conversation.

That's what I mean by addressing the issue in the first place.  Hire experts, fund their studies, listen to their conclusions, make informed decisions. 

[HudsonHawk]

There are age requirements. People with certain criminal histories. People who are addicted to, or illegally use, any controlled substance. A fugitive from justice. Someone committed to a mental institution. These are just some of the restrictions that the government imposes to limit who can own a gun.

There is a huge difference between someone who has been convicted of a crime through legitimate due process and someone being presumed to be a criminal or mentally ill absent some arbitrary satisfactory proof.  Age should be self explanatory. 

I get what you're saying, and I agree that there are already *some* restrictions in place...I'm not arguing that there should be none.  I'm just saying I'm not down with that whole "guilty until proven innocent" line of reasoning. 

[MusicMan]

Being paranoid is not incompatible with being correct. Sometimes it may even qualify as sensible.

If armament against the government is the raison d’etere, how is limitation of any armament legal? Why is my right to build bombs limited?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HudsonHawk]

If armament against the government is the raison d’etere, how is limitation of any armament legal? Why is my right to build bombs limited?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One cannot legitimately argue the absoluteness of the 2nd Amendment *and* that North Korea should not be allowed a nuclear arsenal. 

[VirtualBob]

If armament against the government is the raison d’etere, how is limitation of any armament legal? Why is my right to build bombs limited?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good point.

[Bench]

Query why a photo license ID should be required when you fight it for voting? I'd agree on the photo ID for gun purchases if you all would agree to voter ID laws.

This is a classic example of the bad faith and lack of objectivity in your argument. There have been around 30 to 40 incidents of in person voter fraud in the country this century.  None of those tilted any election, but were all weird one-offs.  Meanwhile in that same time period over 200,000 lives have been ended by guns.  You are comparing a problem that doesn't exist to a literal life and death problem. 

[VirtualBob]

This is a classic example of the bad faith and lack of objectivity in your argument. There have been around 30 to 40 incidents of in person voter fraud in the country this century.  None of those tilted any election, but were all weird one-offs.  Meanwhile in that same time period over 200,000 lives have been ended by guns.  You are comparing a problem that doesn't exist to a literal life and death problem.

Is it a problem that doesn't exist, or a problem we refuse to investigate? How many people with no ID voted fraudulently without being noticed?

[NeilT]

Is it a problem that doesn't exist, or a problem we refuse to investigate? How many people with no ID voted fraudulently without being noticed?

It's a problem that doesn't exist. If there were a problem with massive fraudulent voting in Texas, for instance, do you think it wouldn't have been prosecuted by the State Attorney General?  The last Attorney General was Greg Abbott.

[MusicMan]

Is it a problem that doesn't exist, or a problem we refuse to investigate? How many people with no ID voted fraudulently without being noticed?

The panel put together to investigate the problem disbanded after finding no evidence of a widespread problem.

[Bench]

The panel put together to investigate the problem disbanded after finding no evidence of a widespread problem.

And assuming you're talking about Kobach and company,  that panel was specifically designed to hype up as much of a problem as it could create. 

[Jacksonian]

The main problem now is that a controlling contingent of government is refusing to consider addressing the issue in the first place, much less trying to solve the actual difficult problem.   

Now?  2009 and 2010 existed.

[homer]

The panel put together to investigate the problem disbanded after finding no evidence of a widespread problem.

They didn't even get close to 'findings'.

[Knoxbanedoodle]

Now?  2009 and 2010 existed.

Democrats tried after Sandy Hook. The Republican minority blocked it in the Senate. 

[Bench]

Now?  2009 and 2010 existed.

The Republicans put the kibosh on the CDC's funding of gun violence studies in 1996, if you are looking for a beginning date, but this has been going on for a long time. 

[Jacksonian]

Democrats tried after Sandy Hook. The Republican minority blocked it in the Senate.

Democrats blamed Democrats.  Democrats can't just point fingers elsewhere.  They're large part of why we are where we are.

[Jacksonian]

The Republicans put the kibosh on the CDC's funding of gun violence studies in 1996, if you are looking for a beginning date, but this has been going on for a long time.

Republicans share a lot of blame for not having evolving reasonable policies.  But the Democrats aren't blameless.  And they too need to be called out on it.

[Jacksonian]

Part of the answer has to lie with families.  They have to be willing to turn in their own.  Like this grandmother.  But unlike the Sandy Hook killer's mother who knew something was wrong.

[Knoxbanedoodle]

Democrats blamed Democrats.  Democrats can't just point fingers elsewhere.  They're large part of why we are where we are.

This article was written before Sandy Hook. The Dems went all out after Sandy Hook to pass regulations supported by 90% of the country, and the GOP Senate minority blocked it.

[subnuclear]

Part of the answer has to lie with families.  They have to be willing to turn in their own.  Like this grandmother.  But unlike the Sandy Hook killer's mother who knew something was wrong.

Nidal Hasan was an army psychologist and the other doctors didn't catch it. Too much uncertainty in mental health to really rely on this I would think.

[Jacksonian]

Nidal Hasan was an army psychologist and the other doctors didn't catch it. Too much uncertainty in mental health to really rely on this I would think.

Well, I wrote part of the answer.  I don't think it can be legislated, but it can be encouraged and communities can support those family member who do report their own.

Also, co-workers aren't family.  And I do know that not every family knows their own will go off the rails.

[homer]

This article was written before Sandy Hook. The Dems went all out after Sandy Hook to pass regulations supported by 90% of the country, and the GOP Senate minority blocked it.

90% of the country can't agree on anything.

[VirtualBob]

90% of the country can't agree on anything.

And yet, most of us seem to think that 90% of the country is on our side against a few wrong-wing but jobs on the other side.  How odd.

[VirtualBob]

In case anyone here is still withholding judgment about my sanity, this may decide the case:

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/hollow-soul-bullets.html

If you do click on it, though, do yourself the favor of reading it straight through and pausing to think about it for a moment.

[BudGirl]

In case anyone here is still withholding judgment about my sanity, this may decide the case:

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/hollow-soul-bullets.html

If you do click on it, though, do yourself the favor of reading it straight through and pausing to think about it for a moment.

Reading that all the way through is what got me more upset.  I probably should just delete this post or hope it just gets ignored but I do agree that the breakdown of the family is the cause for many of society's problems.  But, to say that because there is not a dad in the picture is the reason for gun violence in schools is not true.  I'm too lazy to do the research, I'll leave that for Bench would can probably do it much quicker.  I also find this a weak argument because he probably does not want to support through government programs ways to help families. 

I've already stated that I come from a family that he described in his article, but what he did not say is how those rifles are not allowed in schools either.  I had a cousin who got suspended from school (1A school) for having a gun on school property.  And those rifles are not really the issue with gun control.  There should be no reason to make someone wait to attain a weapon.  There is no reason for people needing to protect themselves with the automatic weapons they have.  Oh, but the criminals have them argument is making two wrongs even wronger.

If the author of that article wants to end gun violence by putting God back in school (which is another argument I find useless because I don't remember it being in school when I said the pledge over the PA system in school every morning in 8th grade 30+ years ago).  You want God in school, put it in your kid and guess what?  God goes to school with your kid.

And school nurses have strict guidelines as to the medication kids are given during school hours. 

And so many people forget that the meaning of life is from conception to death.  But hey, if you have to shoot someone to stop them from stealing something out of your car, that is your right.

[NeilT]

In case anyone here is still withholding judgment about my sanity, this may decide the case:

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/hollow-soul-bullets.html

If you do click on it, though, do yourself the favor of reading it straight through and pausing to think about it for a moment.

I guess I'm a bit lost here. Are you saying that at least you're saner than that guy? That doesn't seem like a very high barrier. Is he some kind of Muslim extremist?

[Bench]

I guess I'm a bit lost here. Are you saying that at least you're saner than that guy? That doesn't seem like a very high barrier. Is he some kind of Muslim extremist?

That was my reaction too.  I never questioned VB's sanity before clicking on that link.

[chuck]

That was my reaction too.  I never questioned VB's sanity before clicking on that link.

It's one of the things that makes this debate so challenging. There's a significant group of people tbat would address a public health crisis in part by nodding to this sort of lunatic ranting.

It's impossible to have an adult discussion with this sort of person.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

It's one of the things that makes this debate so challenging. There's a significant group of people tbat would address a public health crisis in part by nodding to this sort of lunatic ranting.

It's impossible to have an adult discussion with this sort of person.

It's not impossible but it is futile.

[Limey]

So, the Parkland kids organized a road trip to Tallahassee to visit with their state legislators to talk about gun control.  They set of earlier today, just after the funerals of three of their classmates, including the youngest victim (14).  While they were on the road, the FL state legislature voted to disallow debate on a gun control bill.  I am looking forward to the footage of the meetings between these two parties, assuming that the elected cowards who voted not to discuss the issue poke their heads out of their offices when the kids show up.

There are many impediments to the prosecution of a sensible discussion on gun control, this type of pure obstructionism is one of them.

[VirtualBob]

That was my reaction too.  I never questioned VB's sanity before clicking on that link.

Just remember - any extreme position has a more extreme position on the far side. :-)

[NeilT]

Just remember - any extreme position has a more extreme position on the far side. :-)

I said at lunch today that we could really solve both the Me Too and the gun problem if we just armed every male with a black powder pistol and reinstated dueling.  I wasn't joking either.

[MusicMan]

I said at lunch today that we could really solve both the Me Too and the gun problem if we just armed every male with a black powder pistol and reinstated dueling.  I wasn't joking either.

Pardon me - are you Aaron Burr, sir?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NeilT]

Pardon me - are you Aaron Burr, sir?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How dare you sir.

[homer]

While they were on the road, the FL state legislature voted to disallow debate on a gun control bill.  I am looking forward to the footage of the meetings between these two parties, assuming that the elected cowards who voted not to discuss the issue poke their heads out of their offices when the kids show up.

There are many impediments to the prosecution of a sensible discussion on gun control, this type of pure obstructionism is one of them.

The bill had not been passed out of the various committees. This was a procedural issue.

[Limey]

The bill had not been passed out of the various committees. This was a procedural issue.

Ah.  Thanks.  Unfortunate timing.

[Ty in Tampa]

The bill had not been passed out of the various committees. This was a procedural issue.

They were able to give considerable time to debating whether porn is a public health risk, though.

[Limey]

They were able to give considerable time to debating whether porn is a public health risk, though.

The Miami Herald reported that the gun bill has been stuck in committee for months.  The Dems move to force debate on the floor was opportunistic for sure, but also born out of necessity. 

The fact that the Republicans decided that they need to study the impact on teenagers of pornography - rather than .223 rounds traveling at 3000 feet per second - just highlighted the absurdity. 

[Bench]

90% of the country can't agree on anything.

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners. Support for gun control on other questions is at its highest level since the Quinnipiac University Poll began focusing on this issue in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre

[chuck]

This was a procedural issue.

Exactly right. "If we allow debate on gun control the NRA will proceed to turn off our spigot."

[Jacksonian]

Exactly right. "If we allow debate on gun control the NRA will proceed to turn off our spigot."

How much money does the NRA actually have?

[Ty in Tampa]

How much money does the NRA actually have?

I think we're about to find out.

[Ty in Tampa]

How much money does the NRA actually have?

At least this much.

[Waldo]

How much money does the NRA actually have?

They spent $5 million in lobbying in 2017 (a 60% increase over 2016).  They spent $54 million on "outside spending" in the 2016 election cycle (double what they spent in the 2014 election cycle), essentially including $37 million worth of Democrat attack ads.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2016

[Limey]

How much money does the NRA actually have?

They spent $30 million on Trump's 2016 campaign.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Most of the money the NRA has comes from the gun manufacturers, not membership fees and dues.

[Bench]

Most of the money the NRA has comes from the gun manufacturers, not membership fees and dues.

It's true constituency. 

[Lefty]

It's true constituency. 

I remember when I was a kid, back in the day, and the NRA was an actual sportsmans' organization.

[Jacksonian]

I remember when I was a kid, back in the day, and the NRA was an actual sportsmans' organization.

I quit them years ago when I realized all the mail I got from them was requests for money to support some legislative action.

[Lefty]

I quit them years ago when I realized all the mail I got from them was requests for money to support some legislative action.

You and me and my extended family.  It was sometime in the 90's iirc.

And we all own guns.

[Limey]

I quit them years ago when I realized all the mail I got from them was requests for money to support some legislative action.

They are already out there opposing the suggestion that the age to buy an AR be raised to 21.  This may be another example of the Trump effect in that his to-the-core awfulness serves to highlight the awfulness of those around him.  Having him out there promoting the NRA's favorite safety blanket theories - like arming teachers - instead of furthering their cause simply highlights how fucking awful they* are.

* "They" meaning the NRA leadership, who sold out rank and file members years ago, turning them into a cudgel on behalf of the gun industry with which to beat wavering politicos.

I hope that this will make the NRA toxic and have members cancelling their subscriptions the same way that AR owners have been sawing them in half on YouTube.

[Bench]

like arming teachers

I can't think of more astonishingly dumb idea than that.  That is so much more aggressively dumb than continuing to do nothing, which is really dumb in itself.  Maybe that's the point.

Gee, how odd it is that the NRA's "solutions" always involve increasing gun sales. 

[chuck]

I can't think of more astonishingly dumb idea than that.  That is so much more aggressively dumb than continuing to do nothing, which is really dumb in itself.  Maybe that's the point.

It would be absolutely hilarious if it weren't a response to the mass murder of children.

[Jacksonian]

I can't think of more astonishingly dumb idea than that.  That is so much more aggressively dumb than continuing to do nothing, which is really dumb in itself.  Maybe that's the point.

Gee, how odd it is that the NRA's "solutions" always involve increasing gun sales.

There is one idea they've thrown out there recently (if they're taking it from another group then I don't know that) that at least on the surface made me think would help is to have security forces in the schools.  Provide on-site protective services at schools.  Every state university in the country has an armed state police force.  Every private university has some kind of protective service as well.  In the absence of any other change I'd like to hear debate on that idea.

[chuck]

Urban high schools invariably have armed security on campus. I think the sane and sensible idea is to figure out how to have fewer guns in immediate proximity to children, not more.

[Jacksonian]

Urban high schools invariably have armed security on campus. I think the sane and sensible idea is to figure out how to have fewer guns in immediate proximity to children, not more.

And in the absence of the kind of gun law changes you'd like to see?  The further in time we get away from the shooting (and assuming there won't be another soon) the less impact it has.  And the less likelihood there will be any substantive gun law changes.

[subnuclear]

Security forces would be very expensive and mostly idle. There is also a legitimate issue whether they would be used to do other things, like correct behavior problems.

A lot of shootings had security presence (like Ft. Hood and Pulse Night Club and the recent hotel shooting), but still the shooter had plenty of time to inflict damage.

Giving qualified teachers some extra money to get training and have some reasonably secure firearm available is not crazy, but most teachers would not be very effective and it's honestly absurdly dangerous to confront the shooters.

[Bench]

A lot of shootings had security presence (like Ft. Hood and Pulse Night Club and the recent hotel shooting), but still the shooter had plenty of time to inflict damage.

That's the issue.  Even in the ideal situation in which the english teacher turned Mrs. Rambo and takes down the shooter (which I think even in the ideal situation is still very low probability outcome), by the time that happens there's already a lot of dead people. 

[homer]

That's the issue.  Even in the ideal situation in which the english teacher turned Mrs. Rambo and takes down the shooter (which I think even in the ideal situation is still very low probability outcome), by the time that happens there's already a lot of dead people. 

Isn't that the same argument made against banning 'assault rifles'?

[subnuclear]

Isn't that the same argument made against banning 'assault rifles'?

Are you saying that it doesn't matter what firearm you use, you are going to kill the same number of people?

[homer]

Are you saying that it doesn't matter what firearm you use, you are going to kill the same number of people?

No. I believe the argument is no matter what firearm is used, some people will get shot.

[subnuclear]

No. I believe the argument is no matter what firearm is used, some people will get shot.

Are these people saying we should do both or neither?

[homer]

Are these people saying we should do both or neither?

I think the implication is that the solution is imperfect. Much like the criticism of arming teachers or other school staff that is made above.

[Bench]

I think the implication is that the solution is imperfect. Much like the criticism of arming teachers or other school staff that is made above.

The difference is between back-end mitigation efforts being presented as front-end solutions.  Obviously murders will still occur regardless of how many laws and regulations are put into effect, but the goal should be to prevent the mass shooting in the first place (school mass shootings being a discrete subset of mass shootings which is a discrete subset of the gun problem).

I get the logic that if someone who kills 17 people is stopped after he kills 8 is better than all 17 people being killed.  That's not why the idea is stupid.  The idea is stupid because that is the very best that it can accomplish while causing a lot more problems.     

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

I don't think arming specific teachers is "stupid" nor do I think it's necessarily an answer. I'm pretty sure what may work for one school wont work for all schools. There is no uniformity among all schools; a single building school has a different problem than a multi-building campus, and so on. However, the knowledge that teachers are armed might be enough to discourage a shooter from entering a school. I don't know. I would really like to know what Aaron Feis, the coach who sacrificed himself, might have done if her were armed.

Edited: to add this story from 2016 in the Washington Post about the Medina IDS policy.

[hostros7]

There are reports and statements from the county sheriff that there was a deputy on the school premises who watched the shooting for four minutes before continuing to do nothing. One event should not determine legal decisions one way or another, but further evidence that men or women with guns on campus are not panaceas.

ETA the link

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-shooting-armed-school-resource-officer-never-went-school-during-n850441

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Limey]

There are reports and statements from the county sheriff that there was a deputy on the school premises who watched the shooting for four minutes before continuing to do nothing. One event should not determine legal decisions one way or another, but further evidence that men or women with guns on campus are not panaceas.

This is now corroborated and the deputy in question has "retired".  He will have to live with his inaction.

Further, Coral Springs County deputies who arrived later on the scene have been reported as saying that there was as many as 4 Broward County deputies already there when they arrived, but none had entered the building.

How can Trump and the NRA continue to push for the arming of teachers when even trained law enforcement will not go up against a shooter armed with a AR (because it's basically suicide to do so when armed only with a handgun)?  Yes, a number of teachers in this shooting and in previous shootings have acted with amazing heroism; but it's one thing to act when confronted with an immediate threat from the shooter and it's quite another to expect a teacher to leave her classroom (70+% of teachers are women) and go hunting.

We don't know what caused the deputy to remain outside the building while the shooting was in progress.  Maybe he'd called for backup and was waiting for it; maybe he did not see an opportunity where he could engage the shooter without further endangering the kids in the building; maybe he just froze under the terrifying firepower of a maniac with an AR.  I'm sure we will find out as the investigation continues.  Regardless, arming teachers is just not a valid and sane suggestion.  It's desperate and weak.

[Limey]

Some facts that destroy Trump's fantasy about a teacher performing a one-shot kill on an active shooter with an AR:

(1)  The kinetic energy of a bullet is 50% of its mass x its velocity squared;
(2)  The muzzle velocity of a 9mm bullet coming out of a handgun is about 1200 ft/second;
(3)  The muzzle velocity of a .223 round coming out of an AR is 3300 ft/second;
(4)  A handgun round will stop when encountering bone and won't break through the skin on the other side of the body;
(5)  An AR round will vaporize bone and leave a massive exit wound on the way out; and
(6)  An AR round creates a ripple through flesh that can destroy organs and rupture arteries even though it does not touch them directly.

This is why an AR is so much more deadly than a handgun.  This is why, when the assault weapons ban came into effect in 1994, mass shootings (of 6 or more people) dropped by half and the death toll dropped by even more (because shootings involving an AR intrinsically involve more death).  When the ban was allowed to expire, the numbers jumped right back up to pre-ban levels.

There's an elephant in this room.  And it's packing an AR.

[Limey]

In addition to the NRA becoming increasingly toxic, Dick's Sporting Goods just announced it will cease selling assault rifles.

[chuck]

.


















Dicks.

[MusicMan]

In addition to the NRA becoming increasingly toxic, Dick's Sporting Goods just announced it will cease selling assault rifles.

Just like they did after Sandy Hook. Then they quietly resumed. Guess what they’ll do this time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hostros7]

From NYT: Breaking News: Walmart, the largest retailer in the United States, said it will stop selling guns and ammunition to anyone under 21.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Limey]

Trump argued the point yesterday that he should be able to confiscate anyone’s guns and worry about due process second.  Amazing. 

[Limey]

Trump argued the point yesterday that he should be able to confiscate anyone’s guns and worry about due process second.  Amazing.

...and today the NRA is proclaiming, after meeting with Trump last night, that Trump is not in favor of gun control.

[Bench]

...and today the NRA is proclaiming, after meeting with Trump last night, that Trump is not in favor of gun control.

The most presidential person since Lincoln. 

[Limey]

The most presidential person since Lincoln.

He's a rudderless ship.  A rudderless ship carrying leaking fissile material with its engines stuck on full and heading directly for [insert major U.S. coastal city of choice here].

[chuck]

He's a rudderless ship.  A rudderless ship carrying leaking fissile material with its engines stuck on full and heading directly for [insert major U.S. coastal city of choice here].

Let's say Palm Beach. Take out Ann Coulter while we're at it.

[Limey]

Let's say Palm Beach. Take out Ann Coulter while we're at it.

And Limpbaugh. 

[chuck]

And Limpbaugh.

He'd see HMS Pussy Grabber steaming towards him and evacuate faster than if it were a fake hurricane.

[NeilT]

Let's say Palm Beach. Take out Ann Coulter while we're at it.

Does Ann Coulter live in Palm Beach? I'm sorry we missed him.

[chuck]

Does Ann Coulter live in Palm Beach? I'm sorry we missed him.

That's where he lives, yes. Not necessarily where he votes.

[Limey]

Florida has just passed a law to raise the age to buy a gun to 21, outlaw bump stocks and make it easier to arm teachers.  The latter is optional, so this is a good trade / start. 

[BUWebguy]

Florida has just passed a law to raise the age to buy a gun to 21, outlaw bump stocks and make it easier to arm teachers.  The latter is optional, so this is a good trade / start. 

And the NRA has already filed suit against it:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/us/nra-sues-florida-gun-law/index.html

[Limey]

And the NRA has already filed suit against it:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/us/nra-sues-florida-gun-law/index.html

The only consistency in the era of Trump is that he continues to force people to show us who they truly are. 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

And the NRA has already filed suit against it:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/us/nra-sues-florida-gun-law/index.html

Used to be the ACLU would rush to do that.

[homer]

The only consistency in the era of Trump is that he continues to force people to show us who they truly are. 

I don't think you or any others in your merry band of haters appear to be forced.

[Limey]

I don't think you or any others in your merry band of haters appear to be forced.

That’s because I’m not pretending to be something I’m not.