Another School Shooting

[Viktorthepirate]

Aside from the hypocrisy of these people wanting to ban things they don't personally own or care about, while defending much more dangerous cultural practices they do partake in, another form of hypocrisy really pisses me off: alienation.

Again, sorry for the hopping in and out - I am least busy on Fridays but still have to do a lot of work so can't sit on for extended periods. But I find this comment really interesting (the rest of the post where you put all blame on "leftists" for the complete breakdown of society because we don't like racism, sexism, homophobia etc less so). It essentially echoes a series of comments by Michael Ian Black (copied from a twitter thread):

Michael Ian Black
‏
Verified account

@michaelianblack
Feb 14
"Deeper even than the gun problem is this: boys are broken.

Until we fix men, we need to fix the gun problem.

The last 50 years redefined womanhood: women were taught they can be anything. No commensurate movement for men who are still generally locked into the same rigid, outdated model of masculinity and it’s killing us.

If you want to hurt a man, the first thing you do is attack his masculinity. Men don’t have the language to understand masculinity as anything other than some version of a caveman because no language exists.

The language of masculinity is hopelessly entwined with sexuality, and the language of sexuality in hopelessly entwined with power, agency, and self-worth.

So men (and boys before that) don’t have language for modes of expression that don’t readily conform to traditional standards. To step outside those norms is to take a risk most of us are afraid to take. As a result, a lot of guys spend their lives terrified." (<<And I, ooky would argue, alienated from others).

"We’re terrified of being viewed as something other than men. We know ourselves to be men, but don’t know how to be our whole selves. A lot of us (me included) either shut off or experience deep shame or rage. Or all three. Again: men are terrified.

Even talking about this topic invites ridicule because it’s so scary for most men (and women). Men are adrift and nobody is talking about it and nobody’s doing anything about it and it’s killing us."

It also goes to what several experts are saying - some minority of mass shooters are truly mentally ill, as in they are delusional with irrational obsessions. But many are not actually "crazy", just psychopathic - they do not feel empathy and they are ok with hurting and killing things, sometimes for fun or because they like it. That's not really the same as mental illness, at least as we commonly mean it, for one thing because they do not feel this state lessens their quality of life, they still understands what society considers right and wrong, they know who they are and where they are, in other words, are not coo-coo. But more than anything, the thing most associated with mass shooters are anger issues and extremism.

Fla. shooting suspect had a history of explosive anger, depression, killing animals

Wow... just wow.

Sounds like he is referring to personal demons instead of some society wide problem.

[Viktorthepirate]

That car the drunk used to kill children with has to be registered and insured. Your analogy still sucks.

No it doesn't. It can break those laws as easily as driving drunk. You are not preventing anything.

The thing is, a really determined bad character can break however many rules or laws they put their mind to. Rules and laws of ANY kind on their own don't stop that. But the more barriers you put in front of something, the less people end up doing it. For example, I've seen in my lifetime that cracking down on seatbelts and mandatory seatbelt laws have led nearly 100% of people to wear them nearly 100% of the time, when in the 80s, a lot of people didn't wear them a lot of the time, even though it's super easy to just put on a seatbelt. Heck, it's also super easy to fasten the seatbelt behind you so you don't have to listen to that annoying chime if you don't want to wear it, but most people still don't do that - some of them the same people I know used to rarely wear seatbelts. Are there people out there who still don't wear seatbelts? I'm sure there are. But they are much, much, much fewer in number.

Montegriffo is pointing out that it makes no sense that something as inherently dangerous as guns should be the subject of this much heartburn about regulation of ANY kind, given that we don't have that same reaction to regulating so many other things that can be dangerous, or affect others negatively.

From where I'm sitting, I certainly don't want to prevent reasonable, law abiding citizens from owning guns. But I'm ok denying people bump stocks. There are people who as whole classes introduce too much danger into the equation, and I think to preserve others' rights around them shouldn't be able to legally buy or own guns, for example those with confirmed histories of domestic abuse. Will any law or regulation stop all the bad people who would use a gun the wrong way from using it in that wrong way? NO, that's not how the world works. But the goal should not be perfection and complete cessation of anything at this scale. The goal to be to reduce the deaths and improve the situation.

Any specific suggestions on your part?

[ooky]

Also we do regulate guns far more than alcohol. Stop lying.

Well, I'd say that makes sense to me since a single bullet shot from a single gun can be much more dangerous than a single drink. And while I agree alcohol can be dangerous if misused, it's pretty hard for a person to walk into a crowd or school and kill 10s of people quickly with alcohol against their will. But it is true what I said that legal age to buy a gun is earlier by years than legal age to buy a drink.

Are you arguing for more regulation of alcohol?

Molotov Cocktail, easy. I don't need a background check to buy a 40. So you can take that sass and shove it. Stop lying.

Good if frightening point on the improvised incendiary device Seems a little extreme and I have no idea if that would kill 17 people that quickly or just burn them, but ok. Although they do require alcohol strong enough that it's super flammable to have those little fireproof caps. And some states limit the size of high proof alcohol you can purchase, and some have databases to track who buys it. So it still seems to be regulated pretty tightly.

http://globegazette.com/news/local/stat ... 9e4de.html

[Viktorthepirate]

Well, I'd say that makes sense to me since a single bullet shot from a single gun can be much more dangerous than a single drink. And while I agree alcohol can be dangerous if misused, it's pretty hard for a person to walk into a crowd or school and kill 10s of people quickly with alcohol against their will. But it is true what I said that legal age to buy a gun is earlier by years than legal age to buy a drink.

Are you arguing for more regulation of alcohol?

Molotov Cocktail, easy. I don't need a background check to buy a 40. So you can take that sass and shove it. Stop lying.

Good if frightening point on the improvised incendiary device Seems a little extreme and I have no idea if that would kill 17 people that quickly or just burn them, but ok. Although they do require alcohol strong enough that it's super flammable to have those little fireproof caps. And some states limit the size of high proof alcohol you can purchase, and some have databases to track who buys it. So it still seems to be regulated pretty tightly.

http://globegazette.com/news/local/stat ... 9e4de.html

Good thing no one has ever thought of running people over in a car.

[Okeefenokee]

Well, I'd say that makes sense to me since a single bullet shot from a single gun can be much more dangerous than a single drink. And while I agree alcohol can be dangerous if misused, it's pretty hard for a person to walk into a crowd or school and kill 10s of people quickly with alcohol against their will. But it is true what I said that legal age to buy a gun is earlier by years than legal age to buy a drink.

Are you arguing for more regulation of alcohol?

Molotov Cocktail, easy. I don't need a background check to buy a 40. So you can take that sass and shove it. Stop lying.

Good if frightening point on the improvised incendiary device Seems a little extreme and I have no idea if that would kill 17 people that quickly or just burn them, but ok. Although they do require alcohol strong enough that it's super flammable to have those little fireproof caps. And some states limit the size of high proof alcohol you can purchase, and some have databases to track who buys it. So it still seems to be regulated pretty tightly.

http://globegazette.com/news/local/stat ... 9e4de.html

Or just use gas.

[clubgop]

That car the drunk used to kill children with has to be registered and insured. Your analogy still sucks.

No it doesn't. It can break those laws as easily as driving drunk. You are not preventing anything.

The thing is, a really determined bad character can break however many rules or laws they put their mind to. Rules and laws of ANY kind on their own don't stop that. But the more barriers you put in front of something, the less people end up doing it. For example, I've seen in my lifetime that cracking down on seatbelts and mandatory seatbelt laws have led nearly 100% of people to wear them nearly 100% of the time, when in the 80s, a lot of people didn't wear them a lot of the time, even though it's super easy to just put on a seatbelt. Heck, it's also super easy to fasten the seatbelt behind you so you don't have to listen to that annoying chime if you don't want to wear it, but most people still don't do that - some of them the same people I know used to rarely wear seatbelts. Are there people out there who still don't wear seatbelts? I'm sure there are. But they are much, much, much fewer in number.

Montegriffo is pointing out that it makes no sense that something as inherently dangerous as guns should be the subject of this much heartburn about regulation of ANY kind, given that we don't have that same reaction to regulating so many other things that can be dangerous, or affect others negatively.

From where I'm sitting, I certainly don't want to prevent reasonable, law abiding citizens from owning guns. But I'm ok denying people bump stocks. There are people who as whole classes introduce too much danger into the equation, and I think to preserve others' rights around them shouldn't be able to legally buy or own guns, for example those with confirmed histories of domestic abuse. Will any law or regulation stop all the bad people who would use a gun the wrong way from using it in that wrong way? NO, that's not how the world works. But the goal should not be perfection and complete cessation of anything at this scale. The goal to be to reduce the deaths and improve the situation.

Dishonest,all around dishonest. We have most of the "reasonable" restrictions you are alluding too. Bump stock? Fine, have them but that will accomplish nothing those are toys it doesnt make the weapon deadlier or more accurate, they are a gimmick. And what if your restrictions don't reduce the deaths or improve the situation any consequences, do I get my rights back or are you just going to go for more? We had an AWB for 10 years, it did nothing. What will shut you fucking people up and stop telling lies?

[ooky]

From where I'm sitting, I certainly don't want to prevent reasonable, law abiding citizens from owning guns. But I'm ok denying people bump stocks. There are people who as whole classes introduce too much danger into the equation, and I think to preserve others' rights around them shouldn't be able to legally buy or own guns, for example those with confirmed histories of domestic abuse. Will any law or regulation stop all the bad people who would use a gun the wrong way from using it in that wrong way? NO, that's not how the world works. But the goal should not be perfection and complete cessation of anything at this scale. The goal to be to reduce the deaths and improve the situation.

Any specific suggestions on your part?[/quote]

Sure.

Ban bump stocks.
Rescind the rule prohibiting research into gun violence without Congressional appropriation.
I'd say if it makes sense to need a state-issued licence to drive a car, that has to be periodically renewed, the same makes sense for guns. Note that the car system is not hard for the vast majority of people to obtain a licence, even when very new at driving cars, but you have to demonstrate basic competence, visual competency, knowledge of applicable traffic laws etc.
Figure out a way to track purchases so you can identify people obviously amassing arsenals and law enforcement can check in on them - doesn't mean they can't amass the arsenals, but there should be a level of activity of buying guns and ammo that should be considered a red flag. For god's sake, the second I look at a drill bit cover on one browser, I suddenly get ads for drill bit covers on all my devices, there has to be some way this could work.
I also like these suggestions from the NY Post:

https://nypost.com/2018/02/15/mr-presid ... bout-guns/

*Reinstate the federal assault-weapons ban, or at least revive its key features. Passed in 1994 but allowed to lapse 10 years later, that law prohibited the manufacture of semiautomatic firearms that bore certain features, like detachable magazines, that made them more dangerous. Perhaps most important, it also outlawed “large capacity” magazines. Critics argue that the ban did little good — but the fact is that the average toll from mass shootings has been growing. It’s surely worth trying to trim a casualty from the next killer’s total. Note, too, that the ban did no real harm. And it certainly didn’t lead the nation down the “slippery slope” toward eliminating other weapons, let alone a repeal of the Second Amendment, as the NRA and other Washington lobbyists warned.

*Raise the age to buy firearms. While Nikolas Cruz’s background and motives are still being investigated, it’s already clear he had issues — and people knew it. But at 19, his record wasn’t enough to prevent a gun sale. Background checks are no good if you hardly have a background. Most states ban drinking under 21; there’s no reason not to similarly curb gun purchases. Ban gun sales to “fugitives from justice.” Such sales have long been illegal, but last year, Team Trump opted to exclude fugitives from the background-check database unless they crossed state lines; that removed 500,000 names from the list. Shouldn’t everyone who flees justice be kept from buying guns?

*Target bump stocks. These let shooters turn semiautomatic weapons into ones that fire almost as rapidly as fully automatic ones, which are illegal. The idea of a ban got attention last year after the devices helped the Las Vegas shooter carry out his massacre — but soon died. Congress should act. If it won’t, Trump can order a bureaucratic ban: No one claims the Second Amendment protects these things.

*Kill the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would effectively impose some states’ loose gun-control laws on states with tighter ones; it’s arrogant and anti-federalist. It’s probably going nowhere — but the president can send a clear message by denouncing it. Why mess with places like New York City, which is already the safest large city in America? No doubt other steps can help address the mass-shooting horror. We’re all for better reporting of threats and better security — but no one wants America’s schools turned into fortresses. Nothing can be sure to prevent another Parkland or Las Vegas or Sandy Hook. But that’s a poor excuse not to act. America needs to stand up to these attacks — to make it harder for those who shouldn’t have firearms to get them, to send a message that the nation is cracking down. If it’s possible to prevent or limit even a few tragedies, why not?

Now, it doesn't need to be all of these, and to me, none of these specifically on their own are a hill to die on. But what's been happening is we keep reducing regulations (Concealed Carry Reciprocity, Trump's rollback last year of mental health restrictions), and as these things keep happening and we all get upset, anyone in favor of ANY increase in regulation is shouted down, told they are politicizing the issue at an indecent time, accused of trying to "ban guns", etc. That's not reasonable. Something's not working here. We can do better than what we are doing.

[clubgop]

Although they do require alcohol strong enough that it's super flammable to have those little fireproof caps. And some states limit the size of high proof alcohol you can purchase, and some have databases to track who buys it. So it still seems to be regulated pretty tightly.

Some state have those restrictions on firearms. So it still seems to be regulated pretty tightly. Stop lying.

[Okeefenokee]

This one is gonna take a while.

[Fife]

Not really, though.

Fuck prior restraint.