The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
Correct: if you pick spree shootings, responsible for ~1% of all gun murders, and then pick the deadliest ~1% of spree shootings, responsible for maybe ~10% of all spree shooting deaths, you'll find a bias towards AR-15. Congrats, you've successfully extracted the scariest, most newsworthy form of gun violence, maintaining a public image of doing something about the issue while actually accomplishing very little. I hope Dems continue to fight along those lines because even if they eventually win that battle, they still have hundreds more to fight if they want to really crack down on gun ownership.
How is it not? More stringent vehicle certification against the parents won't stop the occasional 15 year old from going on a joyride.
Einherjar86
Active Member
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.
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
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
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.
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
mentat
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
Active Member
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).
Last edited:
Dak
mentat
Dak
mentat
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.
Wonderful. Ignorant teens put to work by the idiot mafia.
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.
Last edited:
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
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.
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
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,849
- 113
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Onder
Active Member
- Apr 10, 2006
- 11,386
- 2,033
- 113
Teachers should learn gang signs and sell crack to kids.
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
Active Member
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
Active Member
It's like the wild west up in here.
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
mentat
Similar threads
