The News Thread

[Einherjar86]

You guys are both right that it likely wouldn't prevent several of these school shootings. I'm not promoting this as some permanent fix, but I am suggesting that increasing the levels of certification and/or training would have an impact. If nothing else, it would make it more difficult for the people/parents from whom the guns were stolen to acquire said weapons, perhaps even causing them to shrug their shoulders and go "Well, guess I won't bother with trying to get an AR-15, although it's be cool to have one!" Then it wouldn't be available for unlicensed individuals to steal.

Also, I'm aware that school shootings comprise a small percentage of "spree shootings." I'm not advocating for some overhaul here, just measures that would likely have some net effect. The problem isn't that the shooters themselves can too easily purchase the weapon, it's that they can too easily gain illegal access to it.

I don't understand why additional managerial measurements are such a turn-off, especially when it comes to rifles like this. As far as handguns go, those already require significant certification, but I don't know the specifics (a certain number of hours, courses--maybe just one?). At any rate, as far as other weapons are concerned, I'm suggesting it often comes down to personal irresponsibility that might be avoided with additional certification requirements. In other words, people who are too lazy to handle their weapons appropriately may also be too lazy to go through additional hoops to acquire said weapons.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's not the most egregious thing in the world, it's just pointless. Add a bit of red tape to prevent a little proliferation of AR-15s to prevent a modest percentage of AR-15 thefts/misuses to prevent a tiny fraction of all gun homicides. The Cruz guy probably could have been stopped. Omar Mateen had a little bit of a shady history/sparse anger management signs that probably would never make it into a database, but still was a licensed security officer, difficult to stop him. Adam Lanza's mom was reportedly a gun nut that probably wouldn't mind jumping through a few extra hoops to by a semi-auto rifle. Maybe Paddock could have been stopped since apparently he had bipolar disorder, if we want a clean psychological slate to be required for purchasing. Devin Kelley wasn't supposed to be able to buy a gun by laws already on record, but the feds fucked up in their data entry. I didn't know this until just now, but apparently the Farooks not only got their guns because they had a guy straw-purchase for him, but that same guy was also the reason the Farooks could even enter the country, by committing marriage visa fraud as well, so certification would do nothing there as well. Overall, yeah maybe you stop like a dozen shootings a year or so, but nothing really consequential.

Permits are dealt with on a state by state basis. There are many states where you can buy a handgun at Walmart and the process is as simple as showing an ID and perhaps filling out a little paperwork for an instant background check to make sure you're not a felon. The majority of states have shall-issue permits or no restriction when it comes to concealed carry permits, let alone simply buying a handgun.

 

[Dak]

You guys are both right that it likely wouldn't prevent several of these school shootings. I'm not promoting this as some permanent fix, but I am suggesting that increasing the levels of certification and/or training would have an impact. If nothing else, it would make it more difficult for the people/parents from whom the guns were stolen to acquire said weapons, perhaps even causing them to shrug their shoulders and go "Well, guess I won't bother with trying to get an AR-15, although it's be cool to have one!" Then it wouldn't be available for unlicensed individuals to steal.

Also, I'm aware that school shootings comprise a small percentage of "spree shootings." I'm not advocating for some overhaul here, just measures that would likely have some net effect. The problem isn't that the shooters themselves can too easily purchase the weapon, it's that they can too easily gain illegal access to it.

I don't understand why additional managerial measurements are such a turn-off, especially when it comes to rifles like this. As far as handguns go, those already require significant certification, but I don't know the specifics (a certain number of hours, courses--maybe just one?). At any rate, as far as other weapons are concerned, I'm suggesting it often comes down to personal irresponsibility that might be avoided with additional certification requirements. In other words, people who are too lazy to handle their weapons appropriately may also be too lazy to go through additional hoops to acquire said weapons.

I wouldn't be against requiring CCP level training for a first time firearms purchase, but I doubt it would effect "gun deaths" other than maybe a slight drop in suicides by firearm, and maaaaybe accidental deaths by firearms. There are more than 300 million legally owned weapons in this country, and however many more millions in retail/wholesale inventory. No further certifications or training is going to noticeably reduce illegal access. In the last two shootings that made a bunch of headlines, we had two people who either shouldn't have had access based on current regulation, or should have been investigated, and in both cases the government (whether the military or the FBI) failed to do their job.

As far as current regulations go, over the age of 21 in most if not all states there's no additional process for obtaining a handgun beyond the normal background check. I know you live in Mass., which is an outlier in a lot of ways policy wise, including when it comes to gun regulations.

 

[Einherjar86]

I suppose I see those dozen incidents or so that don't happen as a good thing. Maybe this is uninformed, but I think the harder it is for people to acquire guns (legally), the harder it will be for people to steal them, at least over the long term. There will still be an enormous number of guns in the country, so the black market for firearms isn't going away. But legal access in general doesn't strike me as a problem, since this wouldn't be a ban. And at this point, most people who would want to legally own firearms already do (and a lot of them at that).

 

[Dak]

https://www.thenation.com/article/s...dirty-secret-behind-warren-buffetts-billions/

 

[Dak]

https://www.thecut.com/2018/02/florida-school-shooting-survivors-will-lead-nationwide-march.html

Wonderful. Ignorant teens put to work by the idiot mafia.

 

[CF87]

Gun control laws do a back ground check to see if someone has a criminal record or not, someone deemed as mentally ill and someone considered normal are equally capable and do use and shoot people with firearms and equally capable of committing a crime. Not exactly sure at what point does gun control have anything to do with dysfunction,etc... involved with living in a society, not that I care.

 

[arg]

that accent kills me wow

 

[Onder]

Did Trump actually suggest teachers should get guns? It's hard to discern between Reuters and Onion lately.

Anyway, if that's true, I want all teachers on this boards to post selfies with their cannons.

 

[tagradh]

Haha, just saw there was an armed guard at the school anyway but he thought 'fuck this, I'ma sit outside'.


Fuck arming people. Just have AI controlled guns mounted to all the CCTV.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I remember in 3rd grade my teacher told the class that he had a shotgun in his car trunk for emergencies. He was an older guy though and that was in the late 90s; the leftists would never allow teachers to exercise their 2A rights today.

Personally, I think children of all ages should be permitted to concealed-carry, with the onus of competency on the parents providing their guns.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Haha, just saw there was an armed guard at the school anyway but he thought 'fuck this, I'ma sit outside'.

Cops have no legal obligation to protect people.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

that accent kills me wow

CPAC is letting their swastika peek-out a bit by inviting one of these front national cunts.

 

[Onder]

Teachers should learn gang signs and sell crack to kids.

 

[tagradh]

Cops have no legal obligation to protect people.

I didn't read or say cop. I said armed guard. Implying someone whose job was to protect the kids. The definition of a good, and presumably trained, person with a gun. The kind of person that's meant to stop this shit.

But fuck it, give the teachers who don't want guns assault weapons. That'll sort things.

 

[rms]

Cops have no legal obligation to protect people.

I feel like this is incorrect. Cops likely have some sort of legal protection to protect its citizens and defuse hostile/violent situations. So that's just a run around for saying they do in fact have to.

But Tag is referring to this guy, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...urce-officer-never-went-school-during-n850441

and i'm more and more disturbed by the active hypocrisy this school shooting has brought us. These rich kids all thought this could never happen to them, and because of that they didn't care about the previous shootings. I've seen some of these kids and their parents admit this. And yet we're supposed to care, while we ignored others? I wonder if there's anything other than the gun control debate that brings out the worse hypocrisy in American life.

 

[Einherjar86]

Personally, I think children of all ages should be permitted to concealed-carry, with the onus of competency on the parents providing their guns.

It's like the wild west up in here.

Cops have no legal obligation to protect people.

I feel like this is incorrect. Cops likely have some sort of legal protection to protect its citizens and defuse hostile/violent situations. So that's just a run around for saying they do in fact have to.

I assume he's talking about the Supreme Court decision back in '05, in which they decided the police don't have a constitutional duty to protect anyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

[Dak]

I wonder if there's anything other than the gun control debate that brings out the worse hypocrisy in American life.

I'm not sure one can call conflicting thoughts and behaviors due to deep ignorance "hypocrisy".

 

[rms]

not caring about something until it's "in your back yard" is pretty hypocritical, to me

 

[Dak]

not caring about something until it's "in your back yard" is pretty hypocritical, to me

Well some of that can be explained by ignorance right? Until it's in your backyard, we often believe we can afford ignorance.

I regularly torture myself reading all of the stuff I don't agree with, and I'm not sure what's worse in what super frequently comes from the anti-gun camp (and even after all of these years of this stuff coming up from time to time, there's no learning occurring in the interim):

1. A total misunderstanding of firearms, demonstrated by the repetition of either inaccurate, inconsequential, or vague-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness adjectives , descriptions, etc, regarding firearms and munitions.

2. Little to no knowledge of or comprehension of existing gun laws, or of how various gun control policies may or may not be enacted or enforced, or what the ramifications are. This is demonstrated by things like claiming we need laws that we actually already have, advocating for conflicting policies, advocating for policies which would have no effect on problems listed, advocating for total bans (as "sensible"!), etc.

Those two issues describe nearly all of the written material on the subject from that anti-gun position that aren't appeals to emotions or declarations of superior morality.