Slashdot Mirror
President Trump: 'We Have To Do Something' About Violent Video Games, Movies (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: In a White House meeting held with lawmakers on the theme of school safety, President Donald Trump offered both a direct and vague call to action against violence in media by calling out video games and movies. "We have to do something about what [kids are] seeing and how they're seeing it," Trump said during the meeting. "And also video games. I'm hearing more and more people say the level of violence on video games is shaping more and more people's thoughts." Trump followed this statement by referencing "movies [that] come out that are so violent with the killing and everything else." He made a suggestion for keeping children from watching violent films: "Maybe they have to put a rating system for that." The MPAA's ratings board began adding specific disclaimers about sexual, drug, and violent content in all rated films in the year 2000, which can be found in small text in every MPAA rating box.
How about appropriately blaming the Police and FBI that ignored multiple blatant opportunities to catch that nutjob. Heck, he used his real name to threaten school shootings online, and one of his relatives called the FBI tip line in January.
There are violent movies and video games in other countries and they don't have the same issues with gun violence.
The 80's called, they want Tipper Gore back.
at the cost of the first!?
Never mind that numerous studies have been done showing that video games and movies don't have any impact on the behavior of normal, well-adjusted people, only people who already have mental illnesses or mental deficiences to start with, oh no! If Trump is going to ignore science on so many other issues then why the ever-loving fuck wouldn't he ignore the science on this issue, too? Anyone want to lay bets that Pence is as much behind this as possible, too?
1st amendment issues with any kind of censorship and then there is the 2th amendment issues after that.
I'm so glad my president always ensures he's well-informed about the topics he offers his opinions on.
The Maybot is a paragon of good sense by comparison. Scary thought.
"Maybe they have to put a rating system for that."
Uh, they have a rating system. Been in place for a long damn time now, not quite show how the hell Trump could have not known this.
If he's looking for more than that, there's an easy answer. It's called Parenting.
We're not going to regulate guns like we do cars. There's just no stomach for it. Even without the NRA money you've got millions of single issue voters.
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one. We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help) and their social media posting. If we're going to go that far that means we have to have someone make decisions about who's allowed to have guns and who isn't. Are we going to do jury trials for every failed background check? Or are we going to have judges or maybe appointees (aka un-elected bureaucrats) make those decisions? How do I restore my gun rights after I've (effectively) lost them?
When you read that 97% of Americans support background checks nobody realizes there's a lot of variations in what a "background check" entails...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
He said he's going to do it, so that means he's NOT going to do it, right?
Build the wall, Mexico will pay - No wall built, Mexico not paying.
Lock her up - Hasn't locked her up.
Drain the swamp - Created more swamp.
"No Collusion" - There was definite collusion.
I guess countries with low gun violence don't consume violent media. I...can't believe that even he would try to sell this idiotic chestnut. This predates "thoughts and prayers" as the go-to do-nothing policy. Seriously, AGAIN with this?
https://satwcomic.com/funny-mo...
When you read that 97% of Americans support background checks nobody realizes there's a lot of variations in what a "background check" entails...
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they allowed to roam the streets? If someone has served their sentence for committing a crime, shouldn't they have their rights restored to them after that?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Now I'm not saying that one necessarily has to do with the other directly but the rise in youth gaming culture directly parallels a long term decline in youth violence. At the very least, violent video games can't be hurting things too much, if not at all.
Sound's like Trump is just scape-goating to appease his base.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Let's face it. You can blame guns for the violence but guns have been part of America's fabric for as long as it has existed. There's something unique to this era happening with the massive uptick in mass shootings. The FBI, Homeland Security and every other policing agency at the federal level should be studying this phenom and trying to figure out why and how to address it.
The last assault weapons ban established by Pres. Clinton in the 1990s, and which lasted for a decade, was widely studies and found to have zero effect on gun violence. That doesn't mean I think just anyone should be allowed to buy AR-15 and Kalashnikov-style assault weapons to defend themselves against the socialist horde.
And, this argument about addressing mental illness... yes, for healthcare's sake, not to prevent violence. People with a serious mental illness are 11 times more likely to be the victims of violence, i.e., suicide and attacks on the homeless, etc, rather than its perpetrators.
I'd prefer not simply accepting that "this is how things are now" and thinking we have to turn our schools into high security areas like airports. That's insane, and not something I feel we as Americans should accept. So let's get off the "arm-our-educators" bandwagon and look for real solutions instead of creating combat zones in school halls.
Right wing conservatives are so quick to point out when someone even hints at possibly affecting their second amendment rights but have absolutely no problem at all with stripping away 1st amendment rights.
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one.
1) Provably false.
2) Getting a gun should be at least as hard as getting a car.
We absolutely must end the ability of people to pretend to kill others, whilst doing nothing to stop people being able to kill each other.
Because binary "you are being punished" or "you are not being punished" is coarse, stupid and was done away with a while ago. We recognize that serial DUI drivers don't ever deserve the freedom to not have an interlock that technically prevents (or at least inconvenience) drunk driving. We recognize that wife beaters should be forbidden from making contact with their wife after they get out. We recognize a need for a parole system that manages behavior while still allowing for some freedom.
I'm not saying every crime needs to have an inability to own a gun, but there are definitely some where that right should be forfeit forever.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You don't need a background check to drive a car.
You don't even need to have insurance or a license or even be a citizen.
You need even fewer credentials to vote in many states
Purchasers of firearms have to endure NICS or the state equivalent where if you fail the state police investigate. Considering that the automobile is a greater threat to life than any legal firearm in the US and takes life every day how come no one is outraged about the lack of vehicle legislation?
Face it, the FBI was too busy destroying evidence that would put Hillary in jail to both to investigate.
He's trying to bring unconstitutional laws. He's a criminal. He's a rapist. And sometimes, I assume, he's a good person.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I don't know how things work in the US but most countries already have a system in place for doing assessments: driving tests, welfare assessments, social services, etc.
One thing that might be a start is that if you don't have a conviction but you do have lower-level things (e.g. violence on your school record, DVO/ASBO/whatever, maybe even "police were called" one too many times) you are on probation for N years and can't get a firearm, or perhaps can't get a firearm over a certain level of "power" (e.g. centrefire rifle, anything that holds more than two rounds/shells). The probation can be lifted by having an assessment.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"I'm hearing more and more people say Trump is an idiot."
"We should do something about that."
Politifact has a rating for Presidents' lies. It's been around since about 2000 also.
MENTAL ILLNESS is completely mishandled and misunderstood by Americans it would be embarrassing if more people were educated.
Movies, Video Games, Speeches, and BOOKS can get crazy people to do crazy things. Crazy children usually grow up into crazy adults... we don't really care about children in this country, it's just lip service. If people actually cared they'd do something more than just get ribbon stickers and bracelets... like actually THINK and not just emote the same old rehash.
We should put psychologists into schools and make every kid get some work done... studies show middle school is the best age; a massive amount of problems begin at that age. You could skip 6-7th grades completely and it would easily be made up by the speed gains with well adjusted motivated teens.
Autistic and Epileptic people are trained to avoid conditions that trigger them, they are not stigmatized or in denial. A nutty person should be able to avoid certain things; or their parents... but realistically, it's a matter of having services and education so they KNOW to get help after being exposed to anything that triggers them. If they can't learn to cope then they NEED to be institutionalized for their everybody's good
Pedophiles are a great example of the idiotic American system where it's a punishment instead of marking those people dangerously mentally ill and unsafe to be allowed to be free and unregulated. We've had state laws overturned because of the lack of jail term for pedophiles ("until they get better" was viewed as unconstitutional-- and for a crime it is, but this is not a crime & punishment paradigm; hence the problems fitting square pegs into round holes.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
At least for me, they were an escape from what I endured day in and day out in that festering shithole they called a School. The hell I endured being a computer geek in the 1980's, just so I could go to school and get an education.
It paid off, I make a good living, and have a great life now. But on many days going home and playing violent video games saved me from doing something I would now regret. (Not that they didn't have it coming, but jail would not have been a happy environment for me.)
First law of people: People are generally stupid.
Getting a gun is harder than getting a car. Even in America. Even in a red state.
Unless you add in that it's a lot harder to earn enough money to buy a car than to earn enough money to buy a gun. But that's true of almost anything you compare to a car, except for other vehicles and real estate.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
He probably just had a meeting with Pence or some other social conservative who wants government censorship of immoral content in games.
Sooner or later he'll get another meeting with an alt-righter concerned that the alt-right will be vulnerable to censorship and the idea will be forgotten.
The only policies that Trump follows through on are things that enrich him personally (pass through tax rate) and anti-immigrant measures. Everywhere else he does what the party wants, the best model is an establishment conservative without accountability.
I stole this Sig
Nobody is more well-informed than Trump.
Nobody is less racist than Trump.
Nobody respect women more than Trump.
Nobody knew healthcare was so complicated.
And he is a very modest person.
(btw, apart from the first, these are all quotes from a very stable genius)
While most don't have a criminal conviction, they do usually have a record of interaction with the police.
I thought, to encourage people to get help, their records were sealed and unopenable without their explicit consent. Or are there records of involuntary commitments that you are referring to?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Yeah, like look at what schools are doing to kids' minds at the behest of those who set the 'education' guidelines.
It's a lot harder to get alcohol than a gun if you are 18.
If only I could throw those little discs harder.
The one common thread through every single massacre we have had in the US are SSRI or other psychoactive drugs. The US is the #1 country for medicating people, especially because not just a GP, but a nurse can prescribe them.
Now combine that with constant bullying, 24/7, school districts with well-greased classroom to prison processes (courtesy of the private prisons), no real training on handling conflict except being told that they are bad people because they are angry... then add the fact that the press fawns over killers for days to weeks, posting their biographies, reading their manifestos... and it is no wonder why we get this happening.
Ban AR-15s, sawed off shotguns will be used. It won't matter.
The press, Big Pharma, and Hollywood have created a perfect storm of evil, and they profit immensely from every dead child.
Never mind that numerous studies have been done showing that video games and movies don't have any impact on the behavior of normal, well-adjusted people, only people who already have mental illnesses or mental deficiences to start with, oh no!
The same can be said for guns. Mental illness seems to be a recurring theme in these mass shootings, well the ones that are not terrorism related.
If Trump is going to ignore science on so many other issues then why the ever-loving fuck wouldn't he ignore the science on this issue, too?
Ignoring science in this debate is common on both sides. For example the AR-15 being no more lethal than other semiautomatic rifles that are not part of anyone's "assault weapon" list. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into an AR-15 and how is it different from the semiautomatic hunting rifles? Both sides are picking the respective scapegoats.
The real problem is likely in US social policy. We've had magazine fed semiautomatics for nearly a century. The civilian AR-15 for 50 years or so. Something changed, it wasn't the guns.
hear, freakin' hear.
republicans will do nothing.
This group of kids grows up to vote, republicans will disappear overnight.
The dumb fuck nra ceo? The nra will have zero power.
How about their voting rights? In Florida, there are 1.5 million people who are denied voting rights because they were convicted of felonies, even after they've served their sentences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
It will make it a hell of a lot harder for criminals to get guns. Over time, criminals will have less and less guns.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like. We can't just look at their criminal record. Most (all?) of these shooters didn't have one.
That why people are suggesting raising the minimum age to 21. So there is some time on the clock for that adult criminal and mental history check.
We'd have to start looking at their mental health records (which would discourage anyone who likes guns from seeking help) and their social media posting.
Not all people who come into contact with the mental health system are doing so voluntarily. Are the extreme anti-social and/or violent going in voluntarily, or is it the suicidal going in voluntarily. Harm others vs harm self may come to the attention of the system in different ways. We need to update the privacy laws.
If we're going to go that far that means we have to have someone make decisions about who's allowed to have guns and who isn't. Are we going to do jury trials for every failed background check?
Not all judicial proceedings get a jury. But yes, judges, that is their job, to decide who has their constitutional rights set aside. Plus a lot of those background check failures will result from criminal convictions, an event where a judge/jury has already spoken.
Do the pres not know about this?
The content of a game is listed in the white/black box on the back
Also, what is considered violent?
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Yes we all know America is full of absolute idiots, you don't have to remind us.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Only if you count suicides but thanks for playing, subhuman shill.
Got any statistics to back that up? First off, let's not lump death by gun violence and suicide together in one statistic, they are not at all the same thing and it makes comparison rather hard: suicides usually form the bulk of gun deaths and suicide rates vary wildly per country, with or without guns.
Looking at Firearm related homicides, Switzerlands numbers are pretty average for Europe, despite the rest of Europe having way stricter gun controls. Surprising? Open borders means that getting a gun on the black market is actually not all that hard, criminals have them and shoot each other with them. But instances of legal gun owners opening fire on citizens are rather rare here.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
You want to know what schools are doing to kids minds? They're doing "active shooter" drills. Tell me this doesn't mess you up.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I don't think folks have thought much about what an effective universal background check would look like.
The current proposal on the table is to require a background check for all gun transfers, not expand it into new areas like social media.
While "the ebil gov'ment is gonna read your patriotic tweets and take your guns!!!!!" is lovely FUD, no one is proposing that because social media isn't nearly as helpful as reporting by friends and family.
Are we going to do jury trials for every failed background check?
Uh....why? You can already sue the government if you think they did something unconstitutional. There's even several organizations that specialize in doing just that.
How do I restore my gun rights after I've (effectively) lost them?
Today, you can generally not "restore your gun rights". In most places, convicted felons can not restore their "gun rights" after serving their sentence.
And if we're going to add some sort of mental health basis for rejection, it's going to be set based on medical criteria, not "I hate Obummer" post count. Someone who fails that medical criteria can easily slip back into illness, and so should not have a gun. For example, someone with paranoid delusions can take drugs to stop them, but if they stop the drugs the delusions come back.
Wouldn't want your teenagers drunk and armed.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Getting a gun is harder than getting a car. Even in America. Even in a red state.
I honestly don't remember, do you usually need to show a driver's license to purchase a car? If so, it's debatable, since getting a driver's license at least requires a basic test of your competency.
I also assume that the parent post meant getting a driver's license, not going to a dealership and purchasing a car.
how come no one is outraged about the lack of vehicle legislation?
Perhaps we could institute some sort of program where you have to register your vehicle, as well as obtain a license to operate that vehicle.
And for especially dangerous vehicles, we could have more stringent licensing criteria.
Seriously video games and movies have been shown to decrease violent tendencies in young men because they are an outlet for youthful aggression.
I don't shoot people. Just aliens and zombies. Maybe the occasional historical figure but I mostly stab them.
But you raise a good point. The underlying problem isn't guns, it's gun culture. And gun culture pervades everything.
Everything in American media and a lot of American politics teaches you that guns and warfare are the answer to problems. Social problems aren't issues to manage, they are enemies that you declare war on. That's even the narrative around mass shootings: guns would fix that problem too.
Guns are tools to accomplish certain tasks. They are not a solution to any problem. Get Americans to understand and internalise that, and you can probably keep all the "rights" you want.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
It's a lot harder to get alcohol than a gun if you are 18.
No it's not. But you will get arrested for buying the alcohol.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Legally yes, but if you think 18 year olds have any real trouble getting alcohol then you live a sadly sheltered life.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Movies and videos don't kill people, people kill people.
Every now and then, politicians trot out the rotting corpse of 'entertainment media influences violence.' It's as dead now, as it was in the 80s.
One thing that might be a start is that if you don't have a conviction but you do have lower-level things (e.g. violence on your school record, DVO/ASBO/whatever, maybe even "police were called" one too many times) you are on probation for N years and can't get a firearm, or perhaps can't get a firearm over a certain level of "power" (e.g. centrefire rifle, anything that holds more than two rounds/shells). The probation can be lifted by having an assessment.
Federally, any felony conviction removes your right to bear arms - even non-violent felonies, like pirating movies.
In addition, many states (yes, even Red ones!) have enacted their own laws targeted at domestic abusers, so that a felony conviction is not necessary to remove firearms from the possession of a potentially violent person.
Oregon just passed a law that basically lets a judge arbitrarily remove the rights of anyone they determine to be "unfit to own a firearm" for over a year - one of the "legitimate" reasons listed in the legislation? Buying a gun in the last 6 months. Seriously, the law says that the mere act of buying a gun makes you unfit to own a gun.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
While most don't have a criminal conviction, they do usually have a record of interaction with the police.
... and, interestingly, a prescription for SSRI drugs.
I find it odd that every US mass killer in the last 30 years has been prescribed some form of psychotropic narcotic with a "black box" label, yet pharmaceuticals are almost never part of the conversation.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
A full ban on selling assault weapons and a program to confiscate all existing assault weapons. There you go.
This sig is false.
A lot of things already bar you from legally obtaining a firearm but one of the biggest problems is just no one bothers to do the paperwork to put those into the system. Retroactively pointing out that someone should never have been allowed to own a gun doesn't help when none of that information was entered into the system even though so many people in a position to act knew about this guy and his history.
The repeated infractions at school (several weapons related), the multiple times the police had been called to his home, the repeated calls to the FBI; any one of those if properly handled and filed would have most likely made him fail the background check.
The slogan of "See Something, Say Something" has to be updated to "See Something, Say Something, Do Something"
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
I don't know how things work in the US but most countries already have a system in place for doing assessments: driving tests, welfare assessments, social services, etc.
In the US driving and access to social services are considered privileges, and can therefore be easily denied. Firearms are considered a right under the 2nd amendment. So it's the responsibility for the government to provide a good reason to deny access to firearms. Where most other countries it's up to the citizens to provide a good reason for ownership.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
How about having to prove you are responsible and stable enough to own a gun? People are required to prove they can drive safely before being allowed to get behind the wheel without an instructor.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Going to go full disagreement with you on this one.
While illegal as hell and very much sitting in the banned category, I can rattle off a list of drugs as long as my arm that are far too easy for folks to obtain on a moments notice.
Guns will fall into the same category. You ban or limit them, folks will just obtain them from unofficial sources and the black-market will love you
for it. Or folks will just turn to other methods to deal pain and death to one another. We've been killing each other for thousands of years and we've
become quite efficient at it.
Besides being a relatively modern trend, what's most interesting is that a vast majority of these shooters have all been on some sort of psychiatric medication at some point or another.
What really bugs me is why this is a modern problem. Kids have always been bullied in school. Most kids I knew always had access to all sorts of firearms, yet the whole school shooting thing didn't really take off until the Columbine Duo. Gun access hasn't changed, kiddos getting bullied hasn't changed. . . . . so what has ?
The administration of psychiatric drugs to kiddos and media sensationalism are the two things off the top of my head. Different parenting standards ? Society just going to shit ?
It's a curious problem.
The Swiss may have a lot of guns (though far fewer than Americans), but regulations surrounding the acquiring and keeping of guns are way stricter than in the US. Gun owners need permits and approval for each gun they want to buy, so all weapons are registered so their ownership is clear. To buy ammo you also need to show permit, and large purchases are prohibited. The storage and transportation of guns are strictly regulated. The Swiss do NOT have a culture of "I should be allowed to buy as many guns as I want, if I want to hoard an arsenal under my bed that's ok". In Switzerland, freedom comes with responsibility, in the US not so much.
News reports about mass killings of children at school. Itâ(TM)s sort of a bigger concern than video games, which I actually have some control over in my house.
After every shooting, the left demands that the problem is a THING: guns. When the people on the right scoff and say "no, it's the PERSON using the thing, the thing is inert on its own and could be used for good or for evil" the left goes nuts and accuses the right of wanting to see more kids killed.
EVERYBODY runs to the internet to google for stats favorable to their side of the argument.
The left points to high gun ownership and high gun deaths in the USA, the right points out that most gun deaths are suicides (true stat) and the even higher rates of deaths caused by other things like knives and cars and alcohol and drugs.
The Trump comes along, and like throwing gas on the fire, effectively says "if we're blaming inanimate things, then we ought to look at movies and video games". Whoosh! the flames leap higher, and I need more popcorn! The bloggers are gonna be going nuts for days!
If inanimate objects are to blame for the violence, rather than the people using those objects, then all objects are up for discussion, and lots of people are going to be conflicted and confused and angry about those arguments, indeed.
It's people, or it's the junk people use. If it's the junk people use, then we need to look at all of the junk. If, on the other hand, it's the people themselves, then we need to look at what they know how to do, what they are able to do, and then more seriously their beliefs and principles (what they want to do and are willing to do). This is far more difficult, but it goes to the root of the problem and once you deal with it, you can stop worring about whether this gadget or that gadget, or this chemical or that chemical, or this entertainment or that entertainment, must be banned, and also stop worring about what new thing might be invented tomorrow. People can use an almost unlimited list of objects to kill other people; if you want to stop the killing by limiting access to the instruments used, you have an impossible task.
Violent movies and games all have ratings in place designed to keep such material out of the hands of minors, yet everyone pretty much ignores them.
( Fail to see the point of a regulation, rule or law if no one enforces it )
It's amusing to hear people whine about the availability of such material while, at the same time, they have no issues purchasing it for their kiddos to play / watch. :|
Pro Tip: Be a parent and quit relying on the government to do your job for you.
Whenever people want to touch the 2nd amendment, it seems that there's always someone who seems to be of the opinion that if you want to touch the amendments, you ought to start at the top of the list.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Of course it's distraction.
What is the Trump administration distracting us from? Let's dig into the five DIStraction CONdition levels:
DISCON1 — Florida shooting
DISCON2 — Rob Porter
DISCON3 — DACA path to citizenship
DISCON4 — Russian IRA indictments
DISCON5 — Shall we play a game?
Lindsey Graham: There's a 30 Percent Chance Trump Attacks North Korea — 14 December 2017
Unlike Wargames, all five DISCON levels are played simultaneously as a Django five-note chord.
Over the last 50-60 years Hollywood has developed and intensified the theme of what I call "just revenge," where a protagonist has bad things done to his loved ones and then goes on a justified psychopathic murder spree filled with blood and bodies. The audience is supposed to applaud and feel good that the good guy has "got his back," at the bad guys. This assault on the nation-mind, especially the most vulnerable young people, those with mental problems caused by genetics or social environment relentlessly pursued by Hollywood for money must have an effect, and I believe we are seeing that effect in the increasing number of school massacres. I blame the studios, directors, and writers of Hollywood for this theme. [The rest of this, naming actors who have responsibility is redacted by me, sqreater, here, but you know who they are.] Bruce Willis's new just revenge movie coming out next month based on the 1970s "Death Wish" movies of Charles Bronson should be withdrawn from theaters.
E Proelio Veritas.
So sad America needed an ignorant idiot as defense against liberals and socialism.
Not the best ..
The FBI, Homeland Security and every other policing agency at the federal level should be studying this phenom and trying to figure out why and how to address it.
Guess what Congress explicitly banned?
Guess what ban the US Department of Justice said was ineffective? Did removing flash suppressors and pistol grips make the post-ban guns any less lethal? Is an "assault weapon" with a low capacity hunting magazine any different than a semiautomatic hunting rifle that is not on anyone's ban list?
Tell me: do you think those drugs would be easier or harder to obtain if they were made legal?
It should be pointed out that the shooter, who had previously been expelled from school and banned from campus, was able to walk onto school grounds unchallenged. He was then able to enter a building through an unlocked door and access the people inside.
Campus security was a joke, but I don't hear anyone talking about that issue. If the building doors had been locked the shooting may not have ever occurred. If someone were watching the campus grounds the shooting may not have ever occurred. You should have to pass through a monitored set of security doors to get inside the building like you do at places like courthouses.
and found to have zero effect Studies listed here found an effect from the assault weapons ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Apparently you didn't read your own citation. The pro-ban researcher explicitly says the key was banning high capacity magazines not the guns themselves. Put a low capacity hunting magazine into that "assault weapon" and how is it different from a semiautomatic hunting rifle?
Your pro-gun researcher also plays bait-and-switch games. "Assault weapons" are actually used for few "mass shootings". According to a recent Mother Jones article 2/3 of such shootings use pistols. As for the remaining 1/3 its evenly split between rifles and shotguns and only some of the rifles are "assault weapons".
All I can say is, it worked in Austrailia.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Google on Austrailia gun regulations.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
How about appropriately blaming a society where:
a) There are guns everywhere.
b) There is very little social responsibility (its always someone ELSES fault).
c) Being the Alpha is what matters, be it through money, force, or fame.
d) Not 'fitting in' is punished by being socially ostracised, and told there is something wrong with you.
e) A Police force that will thunder through the door guns blazing in response to a phone call.
f) Living in a constant media and social deluge reinforcing all of the above.
Disenfrancise enough people and this is the outcome. Congratulations America, I guess this is 'The Dream'.
But dont worry, just arm more people, because escalation works.
(btw, no, video games wont work - many countries, especially Asian boys, LOVE violent video games, and have very very very very low rates of these crimes)
Quick the NRA has threatened to remove their funding so everyone should look over there while we accept payment and ignore everyone.
That is only treating the symptom.
The cause is a regression in society where people are looking inward and not outward.
Jordan Peterson has a brilliant lecture on the story of Cain and Abel. Cain and Able bring a sacrifice to God, and God says to Abel (paraphrased).
I'm not pleased with your sacrifice, but you have a choice to make a better sacrifice, but you need to choose. Instead of choosing a better sacrifice, Cain broods on his failure until it results in the murder of his own brother. and this is what is happening in the USA.
We are different to Animals because we can plan for the future. Planning for the future requires sacrifices in the present, it's a brilliant concept. But if you're a 14 year kid trying make sense of the world, and your attempt at sacrifices keep getting rejected, well you could be in a world of trouble.
This culture increases the number of selfish, feeling sorry for themselves, life sucks, I hate the world, I want revenge on the world baby psychopaths: who when combined with the easy accessibility of weapons, create chaos.
The answer to this problem is super hard, because it requires some fundamental cultural changes that shun the plastic materialism the USA pioneered and embraces and outward looking attitude of what can I do to better the world.
btw. the SJWs are only going to make the problem worse, because they are the 'what about me' generation and dividing people into oppressed minorities.
46137
If they took him in based on the posts he could argue that his first and second amendment rights were being violated. I know we can't shout fire in a theater but I also know that you can say some pretty awful things and as long as it passes the "No right thinking person" test it's not illegal.
What I'm saying is this: If we start locking folks up for saying they're going to do violent things we're going to lock up a _lot_ of people. I'd say a good 5% of the population. And if we're not going to charge them with a crime and proceed with criminal prosecution then what right do we have to take away their guns?
I suppose we could build a completely new criminal justice system that allows suspension of 2nd amendment rights while not charging someone with a specific crime. We could also make certain misdemeanors punishable by losing your gun ownership rights. But do you think that's politically viable? If not then the FBI and police simply do not have the tools to deal with these sorts of people. Find another way.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Wouldn't this require some kind of national registry? I am trying to picture this in my mind. Trump: I have implemented a national gun registry to keep the bad guys from getting guns but only the bad guys. If you like your guns you can keep your guns!
But gun manufacturers will make less and less money! Won't someone think of the gun manufacturers!
He could be right, I've heard many criminals obtain their guns by stealing them from legit owners.
Most illegals guns are the result of being stolen off a person who legally bought it. So banning guns would remove the supply.
Once gun supplies go down, the price goes up, now I want to see some skinny 17 year old white boy walk into the hood with a couple of thousand dollars on him and think he's going to walk out with a gun, with his money, or with his life.
The majority of mass shootings are NOT done by hardened criminals.
We can see how well militants are doing against government forces, and those militants are being supplied heavy weaponry by the US and others. Your average nut bar with an AR-15 is no match. If the government wanted to take over, they could already.
Stop believing the paranoid myths the pro gun lobby uses, they are there to install fear, and with fear comes the ability to control people. Americans have killed MORE Americans than all the wars they have been involved. Its not foreign governments you should be scared of, its your gun owning neighbour.
Gun manufacturers and dealers love the threat of a ban it's great for business as long as people are afraid that they may be about to lose their ability to have a gun they buy them like hotcakes but when people aren't thinking that they are much harder to sell.
So they have to keep everyone on this razors edge of they might ban them without letting things ever go so far for it to actually happen.
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Alcohol is harder to get today than it was in the prohibition.
During the prohibition you only had to have money.
Today you have to have money, an ID and be of a certain age to buy it.
Why would the drugs be any different?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
... I wonder what the Slashdot take on this will be? lol
They would fucking LOVE that.
Number one, a disarmed populace is so much easier to dominate. I won't drop any specific names here, just look at every single dictator in the past century and note how much every last one of them loved/loves gun control.
Number two, if one amendment can be repealed, so can others. Let's get rid of that pesky due process of law, and freedom of assembly is overrated because people might hurt themselves.
There is no way to prove the person driving is the one who registered the vehicle
Lots of people drive without licenses, they were giving them away to criminal aliens
Guns do make people safer, from oppression.
Oppression from what or whom?
The nutjob neighbor with the semi automatic weapons in his basement?
The overzealous cop who shouldn't even be touching a gun let alone shooting at people?
The alleged "militia" twits?
I see you want to start Civil War 2.0: Electric Boogaloo. Just don't be surprised if the statistics you decry get dramatically worse before they get better, if you choose that adventure.
Phone use while driving has higher death rates than death by firearms. 2015 datashows 32,000+ deaths by distracted driving. 11,000+ by firearm deaths in the same year.
Take the phones!!
Oh thats not what we want to do right? /sarcasm
Guns are not the problem, culture is the problem. Every western nation defines health care as a right and gun ownership as a privilege, except the US who have it backwards. This is why the US is at then top of the list for gun violence and the bottom of the list for health care affordability and outcomes.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
That's how it would be in an ideal and sane world, but I'm trying to propose something that is constitutionally possible and that the vast majority of responsible gun owners could get behind.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Seriously, the law says that the mere act of buying a gun makes you unfit to own a gun.
Well no, it says that the act of buying a gun makes you unfit to buy another one.
There's a kernel of something in here in this that could be turned into something better. Perhaps you should have to show that you are competent with a less-powerful weapon before you are allowed to own a more-powerful one?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
to driving. Heck, a lot of them don't have those rights to social services.
Moreover, Americans don't want the folks at the DMV in charge of whether they can own guns or not.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
And the fact that the felonies they decided to commit clearly came with the penalties to their liberties and finances as well as the future trust their fellow Floridians were willing to put in them to help run the state were already well established. If you choose to commit a felony in Florida, you know that you risk losing your liberty for the duration of your prison sentence, and permanently losing the trust of your fellow voters. Just like you permanently lose that state's willingness to endorse your purchase of a gun.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Elections have consequences..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Many studies have shown that violent video games and movies have very little impact on gun violence. Other countries don't seem to have the mass shooting problem that America does. Do you think that MAYBE it has something to do with the ready availability of such weapons? No of course not. It's violent video games which every other country has as well. Fancy that.
Though I wonder whether this is another "dumb Trump idea" or another "4D chess move" to put a Clinton policy position on the firing line to test the public & press response? If people hate it he can say "it was Clinton's idea don't blame me" and if the press attacks him over it he can say "look how the media treats me differently"
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
We had widespread terrorism before the feds came in and cracked down. No shit, look it up. There was a time when there was a perfect and (quasi) legal outlet for these kinds of nut cases in the form of the KKK. Their anger and frustration would be directed at black folk (and occasionally jews). We also had wars for these kids to fight. Many of them went to 'Nam, and you saw how that turned out.
Also, the media didn't used to report mass shooting from fear of copy cats. That changed after Columbine. I think that was the right thing to do. There weren't any concerted efforts to stop bullying until after Columbine. I'm an actual nerd and so are my friends. Many of us were bullied not just by students but by teachers (who justified it as 'tough love' when it was really just them being dicks). I'm sure many reading this right now experienced the same. Post Columbine at least the teachers backed off.
So yeah, stuff changed. We stopped letting these folks loose on minorities and made up enemies and we started reporting it when they took out their rage against inappropriate targets. But the violence was always there.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The NRA has been lobbying legislatures to restore gun rights for felons, but not voting rights.
https://www.nraila.org/article...
You are welcome on my lawn.
"WHY does anyone need to buy an AR-15 with 30 round magazines."
Sounds like you've never fired one. Aside from other uses, the ability to place a slug in a small target from 300 meters away without special optics or a bruised shoulder, constantly, is well... just plain fun.
And, if you have to harvest game to eat, you couldn't find a better tool. Just because there's sickos that can use a legally available tool to do their sick deeds doesn't warrant legislation against a high quality tool. Outlaw bump stocks and fully automatic conversion kits if you want. Everyone knows they make the tool less efficient.
So before you mount your soapbox, fire one. Seriously. Just a FYI, I don't hunt nor own a firearm. But, my M16 was awesome and I can fully relate to enthusiasts. Someday I might venture into that hobbydome, I just got more interesting things ones now. But to each his own.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
There is no way to prove the person driving is the one who registered the vehicle
Which is why we license the drivers independently of registering the vehicles.
Lots of people drive without licenses, they were giving them away to criminal aliens
Nope. Some states let undocumented immigrants get drivers licenses, because it's better they get the required testing and training than have them drive without a license. These were not "given away", they had to meet all the same driving requirements as citizens.
Yeah... Because other countries that have repealed gun laws in the last ten years lost all their other rights too- o wait you've been losing your rights since 2001, it's just guns you care about, NVM we have a nutter over here...
military arms are regulated pretty much in all of USA, therefore the 2nd amendment is already irrelevant.
the 2nd amendment was specifically crafted to allow for privately owned militias and corporate concern owned armies - which the people who made the amendment had - and the arms refers to equipment used to WAGE WARS, not some plinker guns, but to the best and most expensive devices you can have that have only the use for waging war.
it hasn't existed in practice since the fifties or so.. little did anyone notice though since they let you have handguns and other weapons that military doesn't consider as proper arms.
hunting utility items, something you need to defend yourself against bears or whatever and such were never part of it and we're never intended to be part of it.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I get so tired of this strawman argument of "if you took the guns away, people would just use guns, bombs, etc. You can't stop every single person who is determined to kill people, therefore it's pointless to make any changes."
No one is saying you can stop EVERY would be mass murderer, so please stop arguing against that made up point. But if we can reduce mass shootings by 50 or 75 percent, why wouldn't you do that? Look at Australia. After the Port Arthur mass shooting that left 35 people dead, they pass comprehensive gin control laws, and offered to buy weapons back from people, if they wanted to get rid of them.
That was in 1996, over 20 years ago now, and guess how many mass shootings (defined as 5 or more people dead) they've had since then? Zero. Big fat 0. And just for comparison, in the ~20 years before that, 1979-1996, they had 13 mass shootings. So I would say that is pretty strong correlation.
So can you stop every determined killer? No. But you can make it a lot harder for most people to acquire the tools to carry one out, particularly those who may be disturbed or have a history of violence. Because something has to change. No other first would country has anywhere even NEAR the level of mass shootings that we have in America. It makes me sick, and it should everyone else to. If we can do something to even just lessen the number, I think we have a moral responsibility to do so.
There are fewer guns per capita in America now than there were 50 years ago.
Anyone care to 'splain why gun violence has skyrocketed in that time, if it's ALL about guns being readily available....?
Or why, when we carried rifles to school in the 60s and 70s, that there were NO school shootings back then? Hmmmmm?
Maybe it's the psychiatric (brain-altering) drugs. Maybe it's the movies and video games. Maybe it's just lazy-ass people with no honor or respect anymore, letting the iPad raise their damn kids. Who knows?
All I know is that previous generations didn't HAVE this problem, and guns were MORE prevalent and MORE in your face then, than now.
We don't have a gun problem, we have a PEOPLE problem.
NRA seems to want to sell more guns by scaring us into thinking we need them. Hollywood is whining about running out of ideas when there are 900 scripted TV shows. So many new tv shows are reboots of previous. Both need to get real and fill societies needs in proportion. Now about the new-age Giligans Island!
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
That may be true but what are we going to do about it? Blaming culture is like blaming our genes. It has been there for hundreds of years and it won't change anytime soon. The only solution seems to be what is happening now -- incremental changes in response to tragedies like mass shootings.
Like the kids aren't going to see it other ways ("Oh no, not my angels").
How about setting a real example of fine leadership, and quit selling future generations into debt slavery?
Simply deflection, and nothing but deflection. Explain how Australia, Canada and England, where kids play the same games, societies have the same issues, and the moral breakdown of civilization is the same. Their citizens (including children) watch the same television shows, read the same printed materials, view the same internet, listen to the same music, do the same drugs, etc. Yet, all three countries, combined, have had fewer school shootings in the last 20 years than the US averages in a month. Violent crimes committed by a gun, or by those carrying guns, are also much less in those three countries than in the USA. Two notable differences: Health care (while far from perfect) is a universal right, and guns are much more strictly controlled in all three. And, surprise, surprise, criminals are much less likely to have (and use) firearms. Guns may not be the problem, but the American obsession with them is a symptom of whatever the problem is.
When you read that 97% of Americans support background checks nobody realizes there's a lot of variations in what a "background check" entails...
You should probably read that as 97% of Americans support background checks ... for other people. As soon as the background checks will affect them personally (not necessarily to the point of refusal, but causing them extra hassle), a lot will change their minds.
When will we all have enough guns? they dont go away. You can have your gun and use it too! so the militia-industrial-complex is newly invented.
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
...IMAGINARY guns kill people.
I used to go through Wisconsin, near enough to an establishment named "Jed's" to see some of the signs. It advertised guns and "cheap likker". What could possibly go wrong?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
During prohibition, you had to have money and know someone willing to sell you illegal liquor for money. Adding a legal option makes it easier, not harder. Underage drinkers are fairly common, and most people of drinking age do have some sort of ID.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The "issue" is retards going out and shooting shit up because they're fucked in the head.
Excuse me while I raise a glass to all mentally ill people who didn't go apeshit this month.
Having said that, you can tell a lot about a culture by the way they go crazy. When Saudi dudes go crazy, they do it with religion. When American dudes go crazy, they do it with guns.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Actually, we don't know the meds for most shooters. However, it fits some people's narrative to think that SSRIs cause shootings. When I tried checking this on Google, the first hit was Infowars. Lots of sites saying there is a connection, Huffington Post saying there isn't, Psychology Today saying there's no evidence of that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
the Civil rights movement has nothing to do with the shootings _directly_.
Before the civil rights movement guys like Nikolas Cruz used to have pre approved targets that they could commit wanton acts of violence against. Again, this isn't idle speculation. There's reams and reams of evidence on widespread terrorism style tactics used against black people following the civil war. They could do this with impunity secure in the knowledge that no local jury would convict them.
There were limits of course. If their bloodthirst was of a higher level we had wars to send them off to.
Then the Civil Rights Movement happened and the feds moved in and these people got prosecuted and jailed. Their crimes brought into the light. Meanwhile they couldn't just go overseas to commit atrocities because they'd eventually be court martialed when the media picked the story up.
The bullied nerd was always a powder keg waiting to go off. It's just we used to let them go off so long as they picked the right target. About 50 years ago we stopped doing that. But they're still a powder keg and they still go off. It's just now they go off at random instead of on the targets we tacitly agreed to. That's put us in a spot where we might actually have to do something about it. Either that or pick a target that it's OK for them to go after. That would work too.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
you can't stop people from having guns. Guns are a part of America. It would take generations to get rid of all of them. You can, however, control access to ammunition. Ammunition is a commodity, There is only one manufacturer in the US that creates nitrocellulose. It is an amazingly difficult substance to create. Control access to ammunition and you control gun use. Anyone can buy ammo. If people had to have a background check and a card to show it to buy ammo it would be much more difficult for criminals to get it.
once more into the breach
I've thought for a long time that we should do something about lead. There are shooting ranges that are more polluted than industrial sites.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I am also perplexed at the argument that if we can't do everything we shouldn't do anything. Anyone who makes that argument in my presence never gets hired as an engineer.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Technically, it's "arms" ownership that's a right, not specifically guns. We're just liberal about how we hand out and enforce licenses.
These kinds of crimes are largely done by people who are mentally disturbed and looking for fame/infamy. Not the same motivations as common criminals.
If those people find it hard to get guns, I'm sure they'll get by just fine with fire and pipe bombs.
Now crank that gun death down because more then 60% of them in 2015 were suicide. Looks like traffic still wins.
Well, that sort of makes sense. Your right to self protection is pretty much their central focus. Things like voting rights are best handled by groups that focus on those issues. The ACLU might be too broad a focus, but is perhaps a better vehicle for that, since - unlike the NRA - they aren't as focused on a specific area of law.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Even if you could repeal the 2nd Amendment what happens next?
1) You need to get gun control through both houses. Good luck with that, given that 15 Democrats voted against Obama's Federal Assault Weapons Ban
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
Feinstein won the backing of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had previously voted against renewing the ban. But 15 of her fellow Democrats, including a number from Western states, and one independent voted against the ban, as did all Republicans except Sen. Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois.
No problem you say, we'll fill CNN with crying children and bring on Jimmy Kimmel, also crying, to emotionally blackmail anyone who is going to vote against the bill so it passes. Well Republicans don't watch Jimmy Kimmel or CNN so you'll have to concentrate of the Democrats. You also need the bill to survive legal challenges, which it's fair to assume there will be a lot of.
However now your problems are only just beginning.
2) You need to confiscate all the now illegal guns. ATF and the FBI will need to go door to door. Most people are going to say "Oh yeah that AR-15? Lost it in a tragic boating accident?". In Australia only about one third of guns were collected
https://www.nationalreview.com...
Gun confiscation is not happening in the United States any time soon. But let's suppose it did. How would it work? Australia's program netted, at the low end, 650,000 guns, and at the high end, a million. That was approximately a fifth to a third of Australian firearms. There are about as many guns in America as there are people: 310 million of both in 2009. A fifth to a third would be between 60 and 105 million guns. To achieve in America what was done in Australia, in other words, the government would have to confiscate as many as 105 million firearms.
Some percentage of gun owners will decide that a government which confiscates guns is Literally Hitler and it is their patriotic duty to die fighting it. So you'll need the National Guard. Maybe the army too - though at that point you've admitted it's a civil war. Though it's fair to say that people who join the army and National Guard might sympathize rather more with the people who believe in the 2nd Amendment than the politicians telling them to confiscate guns. But hey, don't worry. The US's armed forces are pretty well indoctrinated into the importance of following orders from civilians, even if they disagree with them. There hasn't been a mutiny since troops in Vietnam fragged their superiors.
Still do you see gun deaths going up or down in this process? Do you see civil liberties being enhanced or radically curtailed as the government ends up fighting an insurgency on its own territory and supported at the very least by ex military types? If you're the delicate sort who cries when a few dozen people get killed in gun violence, be prepared to be crying all the time as the ATF and right wing militias duke it out and a few people in the armed forces announce they're going over to the rebel side.
American gun control would be like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, i.e. a complete mess. On the other hand it's not like putting the toothpaste back in the tube causes a bloody civil war. So actually it's significantly worse than putting the toothpaste back in the tube.
Meanwhile the Russians and Chinese will be celebrating because the government of their only strategic competitor has just done something which makes overseas military action impossible. And they'll be sure to take advantage of that. If the US is having a civil war, what's top stop Russian sending troops into the Eastern members of NATO or China sending troops into Taiwan?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Mr. Trump is simply throwing off chaff.
Fact is, AR-15's are only mildly less powerful that fully automatic machineguns.
Fully automatic machineguns haven't been used in a mass shooting in decades ( I think the st. valentines day massacre was the last one which prompted the then NRA to help right the bill to ban weapons of such horrific killing power (7 people were killed in one shootout).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We need to limit magazines to 12 shots. After a trade in period, any larger magazines should be treated as fully automatic weapons. The owner would have to store them offsite at a 3rd party. They would be expensive to buy and expensive to continue owning. Possession an unregistered larger magazine would be the same kind of serious federal crime as possession an unlicensed fully automatic weapon.
We also need to tax bullets except at gun ranges. The taxes should be allocated to victims of illegal gun shootings treatment, rehabilitation and funeral bills. The tax for a given year would be based on the prior years bullet sales and that year's cost of treatment, rehabilitation, and funeral bills.
It's time for conservatives to stop dining on the liberal tears of 9th grade survivors of conservative policies.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Demand serfdom NOW!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We should not deny voting rights to anyone. There are no clear boundaries on what offenses can result in the removal of voting rights and the bar is being lowered all the time. I always hear about misdemeanors being turned into felonies, never the other way around. Prison sentences are also getting longer all the time.
This will eventually result in the creation of a permanent, disenfranchised underclass. They will be poor, undereducated and denied of social benefits. Since they can't vote, they can only lose more and more rights as time goes on. They will feel like the world is conspiring against them, and they will find solace in each other. If history is any indication, groups of such people is at best unproductive and a drain on society, and at worst a danger to everyone.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If the bad guy could not get a gun we would not need a good guy with a gun to stop him.
That is my reply to NRA's Wayne LaPierre's comment “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
Actually, yes you are, at least among the developed, rich countries, i.e. countries most comparable to the US.
The fact that there are more gun deaths in countries which have been in a state of never-ending civil war for decades (e.g. Afghanistan, Congo) and those rife with extreme poverty and violent drug cartels (e.g. many countries in Latin America) is not really relevant here. When it comes to mass shooters however, the US tops the world-wide list...
The US Should rather regulate Guns.
aaaaaaa
If the US is having a civil war, what's top stop Russian sending troops into the Eastern members of NATO
The nuclear bombs that would be falling on Moscow and St. Petersburg within 10 minutes of them crossing the border
Perhaps we should wrap President Trump in barbed wire and shoot him into the sun. I think that would solve quite a few of Americas problems right there.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Australia wasnâ(TM)t a voluntary buyback. It was a criminal theft, but they called it a confiscation. No payments. No choices. Just theft of your prized property.
We have to do something about the ease of procuring a gun. No-one has been murdered by a video game (though there have been a few cases of murder over a video game), therefore video games are not the problem. you don't see brit blaming Jamie Oliver and Nigella Lawson for the high rate of knife crime, however they're always using knives on daytime TV, which even a 5 year old can watch.
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
"It would take generations to get rid of all of them" - so you can stop people from having guns, it just takes time.
...A kid who posted a comment on youtube about wanting to be a professional school shooter...
the term "school shooter" does not originate from video games or movies. This kid absolutely and with out a doubt sought nothing more than to mimic the behavior of past school shooters... It's just that simple.
If you want to stop people from shooting up their highschools, how about we focus on why the fuck some one decide to do that in the first place.
You can blame video games, movies, and guns. If absolutely no violence in video games or movies existed and NO ONE had access to guns EVER; then, what would you have? You'd have school stabbings (this has also happened before). And supposing no one had access to a damn CUTTING tool beyond a butter knife; then, you'd have kids stabbing with pencils (this too happens).
So rather than being logical, rational, sane creatures, what do we do? We plug all the electrical sockets in the house, make sure all the cupboards can't be opened with out a lock or some fancy device, then maybe we start padding the walls, then maybe we lock ourselves inside the house, cause god forbid some kid gets a hold of a stick...
Basically what we are talking about is sticks, stones, bones, rocks. I mean give me a fucking break. You could take some one's eye out with a spoon if you were that committed to pure violence.
So the next step is to blame the parents or authority figures. I'd say the parents are a good place to start. Furthermore, perhaps the teachers...
You also have to realize that the friction created from these types of events; the, targeted systematic conditioning responses, also create problems. It's sort of like trying shove a square peg into a circular hole. You can do it with enough force; but, it doesn't fit.
Modern American culture and values, or lack their of, is where it begins. The way to prevent this kid from doing what he wound up doing; was, probably preventable during his early child hood developement. Very, very, simply, he decided the best way to get attention, to be heard, was to do... what he did.
The root of the problem and where things REALLY begin is BEFORE conception... Yes.
1. PROPER sex education (not just scaring kids with diseased reproductive organs and explaining the mechanics).
1.a. Sex is necessary for reproduction, and if done properly is very enjoyable.
1.b. Use and have access to condoms, birth control, mutual respect, understanding, etc.. etc...
Children who are brought into really shitty circumstance have a VAST disadvantage to their planned and wanted counterparts. This is where the idea of sex before marriage comes from. They did not have birth control or even condoms back then. So the best bet for the child was to be born after a marriage into a ready, waiting, fertile family environment.
THAT is the FIRST LINE DEFENSE in preventing school shootings. And that is MORE than enough for ANYONE to work on improving. You could be born into a family of for hire soldiers and so long as they planned for your birth and both wanted you, you'd be better adjusted to your respective cultural norms.
After that stage the SECOND LINE DEFENSE is the community. The family unit is the beginning. Outside of that is the community. At this point and beyond there is just too much more to say; except that, the USA is a country where you could live next door to a family of racist Christians who own 8 guns, 2 of which are fully automatics; and, their neighbors could have a 17 year old boy who identifies as a Buddhist woman. Then 100 miles over you might have a family who has several copies of the Quran in their house. These are some wildly different family cultural environments and the differences can be hard to reconcile.
All the ground rules are laid out to honor all of this, though. Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. Freedom of the press. Pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. The right to bare arms. etc.. etc..
And then, sometimes you just hav
There you have it you win we will give back all the guns.
The second amendment is about being able to protect ourselves from the government and military in the case they try to take away our liberties. You can argue people don't need automatic weapons I will join you but my fore fathers wished to make sure I can remain free don't take that away.
Going to go full disagreement with you on this one.
And you'd be wrong. One of the good things about living in the UK is the fact that the most dangerous thing a criminal can threaten me with is a knife but most wont even have one of those. Our criminals are cowards and we have a much lower rate of violent crime as a result.
The problem with the US is, and you are part of that problem, that it refuses to admit it's society has a problem. America with Guns is like an alcoholic with a bottle of scotch, they don't believe they have an issue even when they're dying of renal failure and will use any excuse in the book not to change.
Now introducing gun control wont fix the issue, gun control will come as a natural consequence of fixing the issue of fixing the broken ideas in your society. This has to happen at every level from the top down. The first part is admitting that the American attitude towards firearms is foolhardy and dangerous and that gun owners need to take more responsibility. The same will be true of licensing and registration of firearms, it will be a natural consequence of a more sensible and mature attitude around firearms.
Gun control has worked in Australia and the UK because gun owners saw it as the right thing to do after the Port Arthur massacre in Australia and the Dunblane shootings in the UK. Gun owners in these countries are responsible (yes, contrary to what the NRA would have you believe, you can own a gun in Australia or the UK) and irresponsible gun owners have their firearms taken away. Until the US changes its attitudes, innocent people will continue to be gunned down needlessly and senselessly.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I love how Trump ignores the elephant in the room, and instead goes hunting fleas that may or may not have anything to do with all the broken china.
Austrailia HASN'T HAD a mass shooting since they introduced gun regulations. I don't care if criminals have guns, quite frankly, because they aren't the ones walking into schools and killing innocents. The fact is, every country with run regulation laws has a MUCH LOWER rate of gun injuries and death. It's just a fact.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
How many people walked into a school and killed 13 people before they were stopped, while the person with the gun cowers outside?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I mean with a knife.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Florida could make a distinction between felonies like violent crimes VS what are basically civil violations of not following the rules made up by the various government agencies. Such a distinction is made for many other things, so why not voting rights?
Except, the very acts that might reasonably make one's fellow voters not want to trust one with having their hand (indirectly, by voting) on the machinery of government could well be non-violent offenses. Somebody who has shown a willingness to engage in felony corruption around bribery, or stealing the retirement funds of senior citizens, or similar non-violent offenses, are showing me more reason to distrust their suitability for civil engagement than some fifty year old guy who hung out with the wrong people when he was 18 and got caught up as an associate of some gang member or liquor store robber.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
But this rock and roll the kids speak of. What's being done about that? And how do I keep it off my lawn?
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
>>Which is why we license the drivers independently of registering the vehicles.
Thanks for the heads up, I guess were done with the analogies...
Barack Obama was an undocumented immigrant, you mean criminal aliens...
Yup, they made it easier for criminal aliens to get drivers licenses.
The good old US tax payer funded the assistance
The travesty of the license was not for driving a car it was so that they would have ID to make it easier to latch on to social assistance not that many of them seemed to have trouble with this before.
in our criminal justice system. That's fine so long as you're aware of what you're asking for.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But he was still right that more people die due to something nobody is calling to regulate than something we're clamoring to lock down; he assigned the larger number to phones rather than cars, and he got the gun deaths number wrong, but his point was still valid.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Not to mention there was a (trained, professional) "good guy" with a gun at the Florida high school during the shooting, and he did nothing. The good guy with a gun theory is not looking so good.
Do you think there should be limits on your self defense from any would be assailant by the government?
A gun is an equalizer and a deterrent. Grandma can defend herself from Bubba. Bubba has to think twice about an armed would-be victim. That will not happen with a knife or a phone call.
A gun is a tool. A tool which is violent by nature because we live in a violent world not a world of angels. Violence can come from many different places or people or institutions. Violence from the government. Violence from a mob or Violence from foreign would-be invaders. All have a common recourse of action and the gun has the infamy of equalizing any encounter. No standing army can hold America because Grandma can shoot Private Bubba.
Yes, video games are violent. But, they have ratings. If you think a game is too violent for your kid, then enforce your rules in your own family. Speaking as a 55+ year old gamer (my wife gives me the rules for when I can game), I wonder about the kids I hear in my headset and how they probably have no adult supervision. Although, I did "witness" one kid cussing into his mic and hearing his dad yell in the background, "What did I just hear you say? I told you what would happen." Then I heard the kid plead that he was in the middle of a mission and "please don't take my XB...(dead air, 'foulmouthkid has disappeared' and probably been murderized by his father)"
You aren't going to win that argument. You're absolutely right, but you aren't going to win. Every cop I know (local and state in a handful of states and a larger handful of localities; federal law enforcement; rookies, seasoned, retired, doesn't matter, all of them agree) says this. Every mental health professional I know says this. Every social scientist (not self-proclaimed "social scientist" but those with actual degrees in statistical analysis and human behavior related fields) I know says this.
Basically, anyone I can find who has any direct experience with the issue and any sort of credentials which might lend them some credibility seems to agree that guns are not the problem and there's some greater force making us want to kill each other in the US. Unanimously, and regardless of their status as a gun owner, anyone who's actually dealt with or earnestly studied gun violence and is qualified to understand human interaction and behavior agrees that guns would just be replaced with some other weapon if we didn't have them.
And think about it: what makes guns so powerful? There's nothing magical about a gun that makes it more deadly as the best available weapon than a knife would be if that was the best we had. A bit easier to kill with? Sure, and harder to stop with anything other than another gun. But a knife will kill you just as dead as a gun and, if we didn't have anything more powerful than a knife, someone with a knife would be just as hard to stop with anything but a knife.
So we get rid of guns. Then what? Knives take their place. We get rid of knives? Okay, then we've got people running each other down in vehicles. So we get rid of those, right? What next? You can sharpen a spoon into a weapon, we should get rid of those as well. Follow that to its logical conclusion and we find ourselves back in the stone age.
Except that we won't be allowed to wield stones. Or sticks.
My friend, again, you are absolutely correct. But you need to realize that you're arguing against people who fear guns more than they fear people wielding guns; as though it's the gun who wants to kill them, rather than the person holding it. They won't ever admit that there's a people problem, because it would force them to admit that they, themselves, are flawed.
What they don't realize is, if we gun owners really were all killers, well, we know they can't fight back. The fact that we don't just take them out doesn't even register in their tiny little heads as an indication that most of us are the very same law-abiding, kind, gentle, good people they fancy themselves to be. Oh, and that without us, criminals with guns would own their asses.
They also seem to ignore the fact that the overwhelming majority of mass shooters end up dead on the scene. Someone who knows they're going to die during the commission of their crime doesn't give two shits if using an illegally obtained firearm will add 25 years to their prison term; if they can't obtain the gun legally, they'll just buy one illegally instead. Being close to law enforcement, I know just how easy that is -- and, honestly, it's cheaper and less of a headache than going the legal route. Even if we get rid of all legal guns in the US, they'll still come in illegally from Canada and Mexico en masse. And yes, Canada loves guns every bit as much as the US.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
There isnt really any logical reason to infringe upon law abiding citizens rights because there is a criminal class that may abuse the privilege.
More to the point, there's no indication that it's even effective. It's easier (and often cheaper) to buy a gun illegally today than it is to obey the law. That's not stopping anyone!
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
But then that's not really a great argument for why a population of murder-crazy people should be allowed to have weapons designed to kill.
I need to be able to prepare food. That's a good reason, isn't it? After all, knives are designed to kill.
Which brings us back to fixing the people problem.
I'll also accept effective regulation, which is not what we have now (which needs to be done away with and replaced with something effective) if it's easier to buy a gun illegally than it is to obey the law. And that's the reality in the US, as I've been shown by friends and family in law enforcement.
A stricter prison term isn't going to scare off someone bent on dying during the commission of their crime, and that's just how the overwhelming majority of US mass shootings end.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
How quaint, you think the US isn't in a civil war right now and that poverty isn't everywhere. I'll grant you the point on drug cartels, if you'll admit they've got their lower-level networks here and those people are also armed.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Agreed, and in response to parent, I read his article, and was actually starting to change my long term belief because it was mostly credible. Then I got to this (search for 'and concluded'):
Did Australia and Great Britain’s reforms prevent mass shootings? It’s hard to say, simply because mass shootings are relatively rare. In the post-buyback period, Great Britain has had one massacre with guns while Australia has had none. It’s hard to calculate how many would have been expected without a ban. Australia looks more successful in this regard, because it had more frequent mass shootings before the ban (averaging about two mass shootings every three years from 1979 to 1996.3)
So one of the article's most important argument legs is that you can't statistically prove Australia's buyback program had any impact. But:
before the buyback, mass shootings: 2 out of every 3 years
after the buyback, mass shootings: 0 in 20 years
You can't draw a statistical conclusion from that? Cmon, man.
So you're saying, if he didn't want to carry out the mass shooting in the first place, the gun would have still made him do it? Of course that's not what you intended to say, but that's what you wrote.
In a way, the point you're actually making is correct; solving the cultural issues or getting rid of guns would prevent mass shootings. Now, consider which of those is actually an attainable goal and take that route.
Someone who knows they're going to die before they're done committing their crime (e.g. a mass shooter) doesn't care than an illegal gun will add 25 years to their prison term. They're not going to prison.
Take away legal guns and they'll just buy them illegally; which, by the way, is easier today than buying them legally due to the current ineffective regulation that needs to be repealed (of course only when we have something better to replace it with).
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Yeah let's blame his dead parents.
Oh you didn't know the kid was an orphan?
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
so you think that you cannot kill 100 people with a handgun? where you a soldier in france? I can absolutely promise you that armed with a Glock22 (.40 caliber) I could easily dispatch 100 people, especially in a gun-free zone. Why would you say otherwise if you really were an ex soldier? Even if you limited my 15rd mag to a 10rd mag I can insert a new mag long before someone hiding, trying not to get shot, can rally and try to charge me.
secondly we cannot buy assault rifles in the united states (unless manufactured prior to 1984). The only thing we own are replica of assault rifles, ie ones that look like the m-16 or m-4. They do not fire 600 rounds per minute like the m-4. They fire about as fast as you can pull a trigger. However, they do often come with a 30 round magazine. But does that really matter? During Vietnam we waged war with the M16A1 and the magazine was a 10 round magazine. It sure as hell did not stop it from being effective and that was fighting against people shooting back at you. In a gun-free-zone scenario, where you are shooting unarmed masses, will the 4 seconds it takes to swap a magazine really make a difference if you had to do it 6 times vs 1 time in order to shoot 60 rounds? If you really were an ex-soldier, and you actually had to use these weapons, surely you practiced how to quickly load a fresh magazine into your battery compartment. How fast did you get?
as far as the right to bear arms, it has nothing to do with muskets. It has to do with evening the odds. If the citizens only get revolvers, then the police should only be able to have revolvers. The supreme court said as much in 1939. Our constitution clearly says _no standing army_. The people, meaning us, were supposed to be armed and WE, the people, the militia, were to be the ones to go to war. Would you go to war with a musket if all the other countries were using lever action rifles? Few understand the point behind the 2nd amendment. Hell if we got rid our illegal standing army and went back to We the People, being the militia, and issued us real asault rifles, most likely we would never EVER get involved in a war unless war came to us. Its one thing to send someone elses kid off to war when your some rich dude or some senator. Its an entirely different thing to yearn for conflict and war when you yourself will have to be the one to pick up your rifle and risk your own life. THAT was the idea of our second amendment.
No the reason that Australia doesn't have mass shooting is that you aren't playing enough violent video games and watching enough violent movies. It really has nothing to do with your gun control laws or health care system.
There are no legal requirements to have a driver's license to purchase a vehicle. You would be required to provide proof of your identity for the purpose of titling and licensing the vehicle. It may also be required to provide proof of your identity for some of the financial aspects of the transaction. None of the elements require a driver's license be your proof of identity. State issued ID cards and passports would work.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Basically, anyone I can find who has any direct experience with the issue and any sort of credentials which might lend them some credibility seems to agree that guns are not the problem and there's some greater force making us want to kill each other in the US. Unanimously, and regardless of their status as a gun owner, anyone who's actually dealt with or earnestly studied gun violence and is qualified to understand human interaction and behavior agrees that guns would just be replaced with some other weapon if we didn't have them.
I simply don't believe this statement. It defies not only logic, but reality. It's simple economics. Guns are an easy way to kill people, knives are more personal, more dangerous to use, require more effort, and are less effective. It's much easier to shoot 100 people, than it is to stab 100 people. That means reducing access to guns will both reduce the number of incidents, and reduce the severity of the incidents as it becomes harder to obtain guns. Basically, the desire to kill people is a demand curve, and the easier it is to carry out the objective the more people die. And beyond the simple logical understanding, there is plenty of research that disagrees. Which makes your comments fail the "no true Scotsman" sniff test because you seem to be excluding everyone who disagrees with you from your pool of experts.
And think about it: what makes guns so powerful? There's nothing magical about a gun that makes it more deadly as the best available weapon than a knife would be if that was the best we had. A bit easier to kill with? Sure, and harder to stop with anything other than another gun. But a knife will kill you just as dead as a gun and, if we didn't have anything more powerful than a knife, someone with a knife would be just as hard to stop with anything but a knife.
Do you even know what a gun is? It's point and shoot. It's not magic that makes it more deadly than a knife. It's the little pieces of metal travelling at around 1,700 mph that we call bullets that make them more deadly than running around trying to stab people with a knife.
So we get rid of guns. Then what? Knives take their place. We get rid of knives? Okay, then we've got people running each other down in vehicles. So we get rid of those, right? What next? You can sharpen a spoon into a weapon, we should get rid of those as well. Follow that to its logical conclusion and we find ourselves back in the stone age.
This is both a strawman argument and a slippery slope argument. Most people don't want to get rid of all guns, they'd just like to see more restrictions on who can own them, and more respect for their death dealing capabilities. Also, restricting access to knives is not likely to significantly impact murder and assault rates, because the difference between a knife and a blunt object isn't nearly as big as the difference between a knife and a gun.
My friend, again, you are absolutely correct. But you need to realize that you're arguing against people who fear guns more than they fear people wielding guns; as though it's the gun who wants to kill them, rather than the person holding it. They won't ever admit that there's a people problem, because it would force them to admit that they, themselves, are flawed.
Once again, you are completely wrong. Murder is a people problem, but there are many different ways to deal with the problem, and reduced access to guns is one method that will reduce the effects of the people problem. Increase the barrier to commit the crime, and there is less of that crime. There are other approaches that also need to be taken, because it's a demand curve, so increasing barriers only reduces the effect of the problem, it doesn't eliminate it. It's not a silver bullet. So reducing violent
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Hate to break the news to ya, but you obviously forgot about OKC, one of the biggest attacks in history of the USA, and they used nothing more than fertilizer and gas. And what have we been seeing in places like Paris? Guys in trucks screaming Aloha Snackbar while running down dozens. Pro Tip...if a scumbag wants to kill lots of people? The Anarchist Cookbook can be downloaded in seconds and gives you the recipes to do massive damage just using the stuff found in your average kitchen. Are you gonna ban chemistry?
If you want to actually do something about school shootings? Here is 3 simple steps that would make it a LOT harder and less attractive to scumbags...1.- Give schools the same ability to push a single button and lock the place down like they have in hospitals. you'd be amazed how many schools have ancient buildings that simply cannot be locked down without some person going around with the keys. 2.- Give teachers firearms training and have them armed, look at how many teachers have given their lives protecting kids, think about how differently it could have been if the teacher had a way to defend their charges besides being a human shield. 3.- STOP GLAMORIZING THESE DOUCHEBAGS! They see their faces plastered on the news networks, stories about them for weeks, it allows any loser to get 15 minutes of fame and get tons of attention...think those same losers would be so willing to charge in if they saw the headline "needle dicked loser that was nothing but a complete failure at life proves that he should have been aborted by killing others"? Stop giving these losers positive press, let them know they won't get their name and picture plastered everywhere and the only time their shown will be with titles like "worthless' "pathetic" "impotent". There have been studies that show that these crimes go up after there is a lot of press about an attack because losers want to have the infamy the other guy got, why give it to them?
But if you think banning guns would do shit? I have a bridge you might be interested in. After all how long has it been illegal to cross the border without permission? How long has SLAVERY been illegal? According to Amnesty International thanks to our broken southern border we have thousands of slaves being brought in every year for sexual abuse and slave labor, do you honestly think getting slaves across the border is easier than getting a load of guns and ammo? We have literally tens of thousands of tons of illegal drugs being brought across our border every.single.year. you think the criminals can't just as easily bring a load of guns to go with the dope and the slaves? All the gun laws do is make sure the law abiding don't have a way to fight back, the criminals don't give a flying flipping fuck about your laws...hence why we call them criminals.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
ugg... I hate commenting to ACs because Im half convinced its a bot anymore. That said, yes Switzerland even makes the ex-soldiers keep their real assault rifles they were issued. Or maybe that was another Scandinavian country. Here is some demographics to ponder...
statistically speaking most school shooters (not other mass shooters but at least the school ones) have all been young white males.
at the same time the number of incidents are increasing, we also read about things like 'white privilege', and 'toxic masculinity'. Words are purposefully being used that instantly trigger ideas of the world being against them. I find this weird because the people instituting the use of these terms are the same ones that will say merely hearing the N-word immediately triggers an emotional response. Which I do not dispute. But in the same breath will use words that on their face say 'you suck because you are white' , 'you suck because you are male' and when you happen to be both 'your world is going to end and one day we will own you'. I really hope that the femanist movement that coined the term 'toxic masculinity' did not set out to immediately put men on the defensive by choosing such a harsh and, to use their phrase, 'toxic' choice in a label. How can you effect change if you alienate someone in your opening remarks?
is it not possible that these less-stable white men are somehow vulnerable to despair in part because of mental stability, and another part because they also feel under attack from everywhere on things they had zero choice in the matter. They didnt pick being white, they sure didnt pick being male. And I'm pretty sure they dont feel very fucking privileged right now. But instead of trying to handle it, we let the media use these hateful expressions to somehow bully them into conformity. Only maybe they didn't conform, maybe they just snapped.
Obviously its not a huge number, but even 1 in 1000 could be enough to breed the next mass killer, regardless the method.
if you have no 'gun deaths' because you have no guns, that doesnt mean you dont have deaths. What about total violent crimes, on a PER CAPITA basis. That way countries the size of Rhode Island (ahem UK) cannot claim low numbers when compared to countries the size of Russia.
you seem to be excluding everyone who disagrees with you from your pool of experts.
No, I'm simply excluding people who haven't dealt first-hand with the issues. That those who have tend to agree with me is kind of my point.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
We both know that a nuclear at on Russian cities by the USA means a nuclear response by Russia against American cities that would lead to the destruction of most of the populated areas of both nations.
Do you really think the US is going to do that in response to a conventional attack against a foreign country?
The Russians know this, and they wouldn't be stupid about it - they'd take small territories at a time, never large enough to justify a full scale response.
will never happen.... ever
This is a silly concern. Repealing the 2nd amendment would be a huge herculean task that could only be done with the population having an enormous change of opinion. Everyone running for congress would look at the ratification as an opinion poll, and adjust their platform accordingly (or else lose their election). You'd have a different Congress. (Still, "what next?" is a damn good question. It's not obvious what gun controls would be "ideal" if gun control were legalized.)
Why? There's no downside to skipping that step. Elect me and I promise I won't burn those trillions of dollars.
You can ignore every illegal gun that LE never comes into contact with. If someone has an illegal gun in their house, so what? Don't ask, don't tell. ;-)
And then whenever LE does run into one, you can either get medieval on the owner's ass (to set an example, which I think would be pointless), or you can just whatever, confiscate it with all the passion and seriousness of a cop pouring out a teenager's beer can.
All of this is independent of the debate over whether or not repealing the 2nd amendment is a good idea. But repealing it doesn't cause those problems.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
No, I'm simply excluding people who haven't dealt first-hand with the issues. That those who have tend to agree with me is kind of my point.
My point is that if you are motivated enough, you can always find a justification to narrow the pool of answers until only the answer you want is left.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
There was a recent study showing nearly all the firearms used in major recent US mass shootings are available for purchase legally, in Canada. Perhaps it's the culture, not the guns.
When was the last time someone walked into a school and knifed 13 students to death in one event?
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Honestly, the biggest disservice people are going to themselves here is expecting ANY solution to be a total solution. You know what? Regulate guns and people will still die from guns, and there will still be bad people with guns. But what almost every other developed nation in the world shows us is that you vastly reduce gun violence if you put a limit on the kind of gun a person can own. I mean, gun deaths are 10 TIMES HIGHER in the US than they are in Canada for crying out loud. Are there some bad people in Canada with guns? Absolutely! But yet very little gun crime. To be fair there was one mass shooting in 1989 in Montreal, but that's pretty much it. But at least parents don't have to be afraid about sending their kids to school.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
My point is that someone who has no experience with the subject matter might not have a qualified opinion. For example, it is my opinion that we should provide a basic livable income to all Americans; however, as I really don't have any experience with large scale economics and government assistance (welfare) programs I wouldn't call that a qualified opinion, nor would I expect it to hold any weight in any decision (or policy) making process.
See what I did there? Any asshole can have an opinion on any subject (this asshole certainly has many opinions on many subjects), but that opinion really only matters if the asshole in question has first-hand familiarity with the subject. In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to discount the opinions of people who aren't familiar with the subject; and that's all I'm doing here.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Trump is just the most obvious example of the deficit in thinking power in the Republican Party (and their voters). You'd have to be "special" to vote for more military spending and guns while they cut your pension, deny you health care, starve your schools and send your job to China or Mexico (while pretending not to) then test you like shit....and then want to build a freaking wall with the money they say they don't have for all the stuff you really need. America....... Are you REALLY this dumb? So far...... Looks like it.
Only boring people are ever bored.
We require people to be a certain age and and require you to pass a test that includes certain physical requirements, such as eyesight, in order to receive a license to operate one.
Good. Let's do that for guns, as well. That might actually have an impact on firearms accidents, without imposing undue burden on law abiding firearms owners like much of the current regulation.
we regulate what equipment needs to be on the car to be road legal, such as headlights, tail lights, mirrors, and so on
We do something similar with guns, as well, and it doesn't seem to have any effect. We do it to an even greater degree in California than what federal laws require and, really, California ain't some panacea of gun safety. One thing we do in Cali that I would like to see become federal law is the drop test; guns are loaded with blanks and dropped from various distances and in various (predetermined) positions; if the weapon discharges during the test, it can not be sold or imported into the state. The majority of "crap you can and can't have on your guns" regulations are feel-good measures that keep people from having scary-looking versions of rifles they can otherwise buy and legally posses a functional equivalent of; in other words: ineffective. The drop test requirement at least prevents one class of accidental discharge (and it's up to owners to prevent negligent discharges).
we regulate how much noise they can make
There have been a couple bills, relatively recently, attempting to do that for guns, as well. I'm all for it, as a suppressor is much more effective than ear plugs or muffs.
we regulate safety equipment, such as seatbelts, airbags, rollcages and many states have laws to ensure those seatbelts are used
Many states do the same for firearms. Again, see California and note above where I support those measures that are actually effective.
we have laws regarding distracted driving. we have laws regarding what substances can be in your body while you operate the vehicle.
I believe we have similar laws for firearms on a federal level; I know for certain we have them here in California.
we regulate where you can drive and park the car.
We regulate where you can shoot and store a gun, as well, and I also support this.
we regulate how fast you can drive it.
I've never been to a range that didn't regulate how fast I can fire my guns, either.
we sometimes regulate how many passengers can be in the vehicle
Here in Cali, we regulate how many bullets can be in a magazine.
Most of the regulations you cite for vehicles have parallels for firearms; however, firearms have additional regulations for which vehicles have no parallel. Many of these regulations carry no benefit, while placing additional burden on law abiding gun owners. Those specific regulations are the ones I don't support; I'm not sitting here screaming "FREE GUNS FOR EVERYONE" like you seem to think.
There are between 270 and 310 million guns in the US, while there are 263.6 million cars in the US. Cars still kill more people than guns; if regulations work and, as you claim, cars are more heavily regulated than guns and guns are more dangerous than cars, well, that simply wouldn't be the case.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Has anybody asked him why the pacman generation didn't wander around buildings with corridors while eating M&Ms? The asteroids generation? Did they shoot at rocks? Donkey Kong...?
The real question is why didn't the pacman/asteroids/donkeykong generation wander around the school shooting people? Something has changed and it wasn't the guns. That generation had the AR-15 too. Oh excuse me, using the Mini-14 as they saw the A-Team doing on TV?
But you do not need to carry a knife in public to prepare food do you?
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
But then that's not really a great argument for why a population of murder-crazy people should be allowed to have weapons designed to kill.
Nobody said anything about carrying them in public. That said, since you brought it up...
If I bring my lunch to work and that lunch happens to be a steak, I'm probably bringing a steak knife, which is a weapon quite designed to kill so, yes, I do need to carry one.
I probably don't need a gun for that purpose, though, so I probably don't need to carry one unless I might need to defend myself against a gun-toting criminal, in which case that steak knife may prove inadequate (and inaccessible if it's in a lunch bag).
Make it impossible for the criminal to carry a gun (hah, you can't) and you'll remove my need to carry one for defense.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
The NRA doesn't make money selling guns although if you really want to stretch, since they do run a large number of gun safety and training courses across the US they would benefit from new purchasers. They are not the representative organization for gun sellers, that's an entirely different group. The NRA is like the ACLU in that it's goal is the protection of the constitutional rights; in the NRAs case, the second amendment.
When it comes to spending on lobbying or even political campaigns the NRA is barely a blip on the radar and is about equal to Planned Parenthood in political spending (although unlike PP their funding is mostly through ads in their magazines and membership fees and not government related billing). While their spending is measured in millions and tens of millions the real spending groups (such as healthcare, banks and unions) measure their campaign and lobbying numbers in the billions.
The NRAs real power comes from the fact that unlike a lot of these other organizations who are made up entirely of corporate entities, they have a membership somewhere north of 5 million people who are willing to use their vote to protect their rights.
As for sales increasing after tragedies, that has nothing to do with the NRA and is entirely on the gun grabbers plate. Whenever anyone talks about banning a popular product sales generally increase as people start 'hoarding'. It's simple supply and demand; threaten the supply and the short term demand will increase as even people who were only considering a future purchase will feel pressure to enter the market.
If talk went to the proper areas such as ensuring people are properly entered into the various databases when they are a known threat (as was the primary failure in this case and at least one other recent shooting) so that they will fail the background checks instead of banning weapons because they look scary (an AR-15 is just a standard, generally low caliber, hunting rifle and even with mods added it's no more powerful or deadly than any other rifle) then sales would mostly stay constant instead of seeing major upticks. In the last 10 years the best ad man for gun sales was Obama. Whenever he talked about "sensible gun laws" which in pretty much every case meant ban or even confiscation (even using Australia's mandatory buyback as an example) sales would increase.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
A surprising number of guns are designed to shoot non-living targets. That doesn't stop anti-gun fanatics from wanting to ban them all, nor does it stop criminals from misusing them as weapons. I'm only applying the same logic to all knives as your kind apply to all guns.
.22lr blanks to drive nails into concrete. Certainly not designed to kill, but you can make a trivial (and highly illegal) modification to one to allow it to fire actual .22lr rounds without having to be pressed firmly against a hard surface. Similarly, you can slice someone's jugular with a boning knife.
Ever heard of a RAMSET? It's a gun that uses
The design intent of the device means little in hands that are sufficiently motivated to harm others.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I would class steak knives very differently from a meat cleaver.
As for guns I am Australian.
We managed to remove the vast majority of guns and since then any shooting is national news because it happens so rarely.
My Transformation Website
Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
1/3 isn't a majority, let alone a vast one.
On this side of the pond, we have more guns than cars, but more people die from cars than guns each year. Gun violence still very much makes the news here, while it takes something exceptional for a car crash to get any coverage at all, even with multiple fatalities. But your ignorance is forgivable; you wouldn't see that angle from where you are.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So which countries are those? Do you even know what a right is? (answer - NO)
Gun control has always been a leftist and racist idea. Especially in the US, right along with Jim Crowe laws, KKK and those other leftist racist ideas. Look it up, I'm not a troll. Look up Governor Wallace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Read about him and the Democratic party. Learn.
No, you don't have to do anything about violent games and movies.. all you have to do is make it illegal to carry/own fire-arms.. As long as the american people want to be able to buy guns and carry them, the problem won't become less (as you can never fully make it safe anyway). One of the bigger moronic suggestions is arming teachers with guns, yes, that what you really want, more guns in a school. THINK YOU MORONS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKbDKsNsjac
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
If you want to actually do something about school shootings? Here is 3 simple steps that would make it a LOT harder and less attractive to scumbags...1.- Give schools the same ability to push a single button and lock the place down like they have in hospitals. you'd be amazed how many schools have ancient buildings that simply cannot be locked down without some person going around with the keys. 2.- Give teachers firearms training and have them armed, look at how many teachers have given their lives protecting kids, think about how differently it could have been if the teacher had a way to defend their charges besides being a human shield
Definitely government wants to solve the problem.
But, there is more than one problem.
Have to look at all the problems together. Can suggest this or that, but these suggestions will likely be mystically not applied because there are problems that are not considered.
So what gives?
There are a couple of details to consider. Money and votes.
People have to speak up, say what they feel. This causes money spending to be acceptable. This causes politicians to say things or do things that people vote for. If the solution to the problem occurs, it might just be a side effect. The people have to say enough things about ALL the problems in order for some side effects to occur that are desirable.
Things like jobs might result in government revenues and votes in the right direction. So increased safety mechanisms lead to more jobs, That might be favorable to politicians. Compare to airport security - there wasn't time wasted implementing more of that kind of thing.
Gun control - loss of jobs in gun industry
Mental health issues or social issues, better doors and cameras, armed guards/teachers - increased jobs
Tip: if people can embrace in advance what government plans to do, the fewer mental health issues.
Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
How about having to prove you are responsible and stable enough to own a gun? People are required to prove they can drive safely before being allowed to get behind the wheel without an instructor.
That means you are being immediately denied a right which is a violation of due process. Some states do exactly that to one degree or another and it has not helped them.
We need more reality TV, right? ...and more Twitter?
And you want to turn over responsibility for your medical care to an organization that can't even update a database of criminal convictions in a timely manner? Nope, an organization that the courts have ruled has no obligation to protect the individual taking the means for the individual to protect themselves is going to have a very hard sell.
NRRPT/RCT
Not to mention there was a (trained, professional) "good guy" with a gun at the Florida high school during the shooting, and he did nothing. The good guy with a gun theory is not looking so good.
I've found that lots of people on both sides of the issue really like to take one single incident and then extrapolate into a more general conclusion, but you can't make a general conclusion with just one data point.
To the anti-gun side: Just because one guy did nothing does not mean that's even a common thing with armed guards. You can't say "well, armed guards don't make a difference, this guy didn't" when it was just one guy in one incident.
And to be fair, to the pro-gun side: Just because the FBI got a warning and did nothing in this case does not mean that whenever the FBI gets a warning, they will do nothing. Also, it ignores all those mass shootings where there was no warning whatsoever. I see a lot of finger-pointing at the FBI (which is well deserved) as well as at mental illness (less well deserved) as a way to deflect blame so as to kick the 'gun question' can down the road yet again.
To the anti-gun side: Just because one guy did nothing does not mean that's even a common thing with armed guards. You can't say "well, armed guards don't make a difference, this guy didn't" when it was just one guy in one incident.
That's certainly true, but if good guys with guns are so effective, the NRA and people like Mitch McConnell should have lots of examples of crimes stopped by armed citizens. Do they? I haven't heard of any such evidence, but I don't know. Maybe it's just so extremely common that it doesn't even make the news, but I would think gun rights people would be crowing about such incidents.
That's certainly true, but if good guys with guns are so effective, the NRA and people like Mitch McConnell should have lots of examples of crimes stopped by armed citizens. Do they? I haven't heard of any such evidence, but I don't know
They do, but they're usually 1-on-1 incidents, not these mass killings. To stop this shooter, or the Las Vegas shooter, you'd have to have a person -perfectly positioned- to stop the incident, and that will almost never be the case. Like, say, the armed security guard. He was outside of the building. If the student opens fire in a classroom or a hallway, it'll still be minutes before he gets into range of the shooter. How many people can someone with an AR-15 kill in that time?
It's why Trump and Co. advocate arming teachers. It leads to a lot more people with guns near the targeted children.
One thing that has changed is that as a culture we've conditioned students not to fight back against bullies. We coddle our children, we give out participation awards and we raise them not to fight back. Yet the bullying continues unabated. Kids try to get by but the current coddling / caring culture leaves them without the tools they need to survive harsh reality, and so some percentage of them, feeling like they are out of options, resort to extreme measures.
If the student opens fire in a classroom or a hallway, it'll still be minutes before he gets into range of the shooter.
If he's crawling, or can't figure out where the shooter is (I'm assuming by "minutes" you don't mean two). Kids are generally given 4-6 minutes in my experience to get from one classroom, to their lockers, and then to the next classroom. So for someone in a hurry and with no congestion it should be a matter of few seconds to a minute or so unless he has trouble figuring out where the shooter is.
Of course that's all moot since he didn't even go into the building.
It leads to a lot more people with guns near the targeted children.
The part about a lot more guns near children is why people have a problem with this plan.