Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)


The Sisko

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Destino said:

Restriction are necessary but I've yet to see a plan proposed that could work.  More gun control is a meaningless statement.  Waiting periods, wouldn't stop killers that are patiently planning either.  I'd like to see some comprehensive plans that actually stand a chance in denting gun violence, that an also survive a court challenge. 

 

There are a good number of laws out there that have been shown to reduce (not eliminate) gun violence that were changed without a court challenge.  I've written about the Missouri law change in the early 2000s multiple times.  And the Missouri law had been in place since 1921 before it was changed by the legislature there.

 

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/effects-of-missouris-repeal-of-its-handgun-purchaser-licensing-law-on-homicides.pdf

 

And that was just hand guns.  Inacting such a law and extending it to all guns would almost certainly decrease gun violence.

 

If you refuse to act unless it will prevent all murders (or gun deaths) (the patiently planning killer), nothing is ever going to get better.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zoony said:

 

In europe its `lorrys`.  The worst school fatality incident in US history was a bombing.  I am not sure why everyone is in such a rush to start repealing the bill of rights, with no guarantee it will even work (and plenty of evidence it wont)

 

That said, I honestly dont think taking guns away is going to stop mass killers means or motivation in this country. 

 

How many people in Europe have been killed with Lorry’s (or knives, bombs or any other means including guns) this year? Compared to how many in the US? 

 

What evidence are you citing that gun control does not reduce killing with guns and overall homicide rates? The evidence from the rest of the world very much shows the opposite.

 

Levels of gun ownership and the culture around guns in the US is unique. So is our problem with mass shootings and the level of gun deaths when compared to other advanced nations. Correlation is not causation - but jeez.

 

Then again maybe it’s time we stopped calling ourselves advanced.

 

We do have a lower homicide rate than Venezuela. So there’s that.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

Okay, but there is nothing wrong with (some) banning guns, right?

 

There are, but what many of us are saying there needs to be more.  Local governments can completely prevent some organizations from assembling in the name of public safety.  You would be okay if local governments banned some people from owning guns in the name of public safety?

Peter, I have detailed many common sense gun laws in this thread. Including requiring a license for an AR type rifle. And fingerprints for gun purchases. And mandatory waiting periods. And punitive measures against parents who fail to secure firearms and whose children commit crimes with. And universal background checks. And requiring all sales to undergo a background check, private included.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Peter, I have detailed many common sense gun laws in this thread. Including requiring a license for an AR type rifle. And fingerprints for gun purchases. And mandatory waiting periods. And punitive measures against parents who fail to secure firearms and whose children commit crimes with. And universal background checks. And requiring all sales to undergo a background check, private included.

 

I'm sorry.  I missed those posts.  I responded to what I thought an argument was.

 

My fault!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

I'm sorry.  I missed those posts.  I responded to what I thought an argument was.

 

My fault!

My only argument is abolishing the 2nd/making it so restrictive it is impossible for the average American to exercise.

Edited by Popeman38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

I already agreed to that fact, though it and other things I agreed to gets lost in the noise around here. 

those other things being closing background check holes AND banning kids(below 21) from owning semi automatics(which includes AR-15s if you don't know.)

 

Are the posts not visible when I give you what you claim to want???

 

 

Why not ban AR’s completely, regardless of age? They have one purpose and only one purpose, to kill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popeman's Gun Control

  • Universal background checks, including all private sales
  • Mandatory waiting periods for all purchases (7 days? 30 days?)
  • No magazines/clips/whatever that holds more than 9 rounds
  • No bump stocks or any other tool that enables a firearm to fire more than one round per trigger squeeze
  • Fingerprints submitted at application (before waiting period) to be run against every criminal database
  • Prosecution of adults who leave a weapon unsecured and a minor uses to commit a crime
  • Longer sentences for crimes committed with a firearm
  • Forfeiture of right after being convicted of any domestic violence
  • Special license required for any "assault" weapon (needs a clear definition, and it can't be 'looks scary') that requires annual training (fail to attend training, you lose license and must turn in firearm until you pass)

 

I think that would be a good start...

Edited by Popeman38
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Destino said:

Restriction are necessary but I've yet to see a plan proposed that could work.  "More gun control" in general is a meaningless statement.  Waiting periods, wouldn't stop killers that are patiently planning.  Eliminating AR-15s would simply result in a different weapon becoming the favorite.  I'd like to see some comprehensive plans that actually stand a chance in denting gun violence, that an also survive a court challenge. 

 

You're not going to get a comprehensive plan.  All we can do is pass legislation incrementally to fix problems as we identify them.  The gun violence and mass shooting epidemic in America is a complex problem and there aren't going to be one shot panaceas for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

My only argument is abolishing the 2nd/making it so restrictive it is impossible for the average American to exercise.

 

Serious question. Why?

 

Why are a few words more important that children’s lives? I know that this is an emotive way of putting this question but that’s really what this boils down to.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Serious question. Why?

 

Why are a few words more important that children’s lives? I know that this is an emotive way of putting this question but that’s really what this boils down to.

This is like asking, "Did you stop beating your wife?"  Any response devalues a child's life.

 

I am very reticent to go stripping the Bill of Rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

It would be amending, not stripping.

You would be repealing the 2nd Amendment. If you want to quibble with the use of stripping, I'll concede the technical definition is amending. In essence, you will be stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

This is like asking, "Did you stop beating your wife?"  Any response devalues a child's life.

 

I am very reticent to go stripping the Bill of Rights.

 

I’m sorry I’m going to push you on this - it drives to the heart of the issue. Your an intelligent guy.

 

Why are you reticent to look at the 2nd amendment (I mean it IS an amendment so it was a change to the Bill of Rights itself) when set aside the consequences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

You would be repealing the 2nd Amendment. If you want to quibble with the use of stripping, I'll concede the technical definition is amending. In essence, you will be stripping the 2nd Amendment from the Bill of Rights.

 

Assuming that the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct.   Which basically no one with a legal background thought was the case (including the NRA) until 1977, when the NRA got taken over by extremists and started pushing it.   

 

Just ask Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger.

 

"The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour." Burger has said often that the "right to bear arms" belongs to the states, and he has attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The widespread legal and judicial view is that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right to be armed – for example, in today's National Guard.

 

When the Supreme Court has spoken in this area – and it has done so infrequently – it has begun with the idea that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep arms for a militia. In a nationally watched 1983 case, the justices let the town of Morton Grove, Ill., ban handguns. Without comment or dissent, they left intact a lower court decision rejecting the contention that Americans have a constitutional right to be armed."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/courtguns051095.htm

 

 

 

Edited by Predicto
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sort of feels like the only way to handle this properly would be to start over from ground zero when it comes to gun ownership period.  With how many guns are already out there in circulation, legal and/or illegal, the cat seems to be out of the bag.  In a way, sort of like immigration, regardless of what you want in regards to border security, we have to come up with a solution for all the immigrants that are here already, 99.9% who are productive members of society in some shape or form. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MartinC said:

I’m sorry I’m going to push you on this - it drives to the heart of the issue. Your an intelligent guy.

 

Why are you reticent to look at the 2nd amendment (I mean it IS an amendment so it was a change to the Bill of Rights itself) when set aside the consequences?

I'm not reticent to look at the 2nd.  I listed what I think are good restrictions to the 2nd. I am reticent to eliminating the 2nd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Predicto said:

 

Assuming that the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is correct.   Which basically no one with a legal background thought was the case (including the NRA) until 1977, when the NRA got taken over by extremists and started pushing it.   

 

We need an hour long public radio program about the history of the legal interpretation of the second amendment in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

I'm not reticent to look at the 2nd.  I listed what I think are good restrictions to the 2nd. I am reticent to eliminating the 2nd.

 

Your not answering the question. Why are you reticent to eliminating it (and I actually don’t think it needs to be eliminated just clarified and interpreted far more narrowly). My question stands though - why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

I'm not reticent to look at the 2nd.  I listed what I think are good restrictions to the 2nd. I am reticent to eliminating the 2nd.

 

This is an honest question:

 

Do you think the majority of conservatives share your views on gun control and your proposed legislative solutions?

 

Why do you think the GoP is out of step with your views on the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

There are a good number of laws out there that have been shown to reduce (not eliminate) gun violence that were changed without a court challenge.  I've written about the Missouri law change in the early 2000s multiple times.  And the Missouri law had been in place since 1921 before it was changed by the legislature there.

 

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/_pdfs/effects-of-missouris-repeal-of-its-handgun-purchaser-licensing-law-on-homicides.pdf

 

And that was just hand guns.  Inacting such a law and extending it to all guns would almost certainly decrease gun violence.

That's a good start. 

 

Quote

 

If you refuse to act unless it will prevent all murders (or gun deaths) (the patiently planning killer), nothing is ever going to get better.

Whatever is proposed doesn't need to stop all gun deaths, nothing will do that, but if you want to use the political will generated by a mass murder, the proposed changes have to address that particular sort of crime.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...