Thank you, Reason Magazine. You're still goofy libertarians, but this was needed.
There are also fewer mass school shooting now than in the 1990s.
Now, carry on with the hysteria and proclaim what guns should be banned and why we should be institutionalizing more people.
Link: https://reason.com/2022/05/26/uvalde-texas-mass-shooting-statistics-gun-crimes-misleading/
(no message)
Coverage of the topic is misleading and fuels paranoia and fear while stoking copycats, and the media not only becomes part of but also magnifies the problem.
People who kill kids in this way at school are deranged and on some level want attention. Step one: don’t add fuel to the fire - no more 24 hour CNN Columbine coverage. Step two, reduce teacher-student ratios - use lotto money actually for what it is for. Step three, end the middle school experiment - go back to K-8 and allow school of choice. Step four, allow teachers to refer kids for counseling, to share concerns with parents,and request a danger to self or others evaluation. Step five stricter gun background checks. Step six, tax ammo in excess of a certain purchase amount per year unless the individual demonstrates that they hunt to feed their family or use for other sanctioned reasons.
Or, just ban all guns, but oh wait, that pesky Constitution.
(no message)
And I am thinking there are some common fundamental reasons that lead to all acts of violence. I've rhetorically asked previously, "what if Ramos had at least one real friend or mentor"... One could also ask: "What if he wasn't bullied? What if he had better parents? What if he had better teachers and/or counselors? What if he had found a passion in life through sports or religion or art?" The idea that if you hyper-focus on (assuming you could) effectively remove one tool for inflicting such, it would just result in adaptation to different tools and methods with the end result being the same. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't work the AR-15 problem, but focusing on the weapon alone will not solve the underlying problem. And, for clarity, I am with MAS on institutionalizing people, I don't think that is the answer either.
all the factors...among them...
>Make it extremely difficult to own an Assault Rifle...btw, the more I look into this, the more I realize that even soldiers are trained to use the "semiautomatic" setting in combat...not full-auto...which underscores why such weapons deserve the title...also restrict high capacity magazines...high velocity ammunition, etc. (see NY's "SAFE ACT")
>Institute rigid background checks...longer waiting periods..."Red Flag" communications...databases, etc.
>Fund school counselors trained to recognize dangerous behaviors in students...give them the means and authority to refer such students to qualified mental health professionals.
ARs and similar are semiautomatic only and have always been. Do you really not know this by now?
I already proposed registering these weapons for "profiling, monitoring and prevention" and raising the age a person could acquire such. I am now expecting that you'll propose this about 5x in response to me as if it was your idea or that it somehow disagrees with one of my points. This is tiresome.
Making it difficult would have been a great idea in 1994, we settled for poorly crafted legislation that has made the problem worse with 20M+ of such weapons now in circulation. Before the AWB, almost no one had an AR, now it seems everyone does. Before the AWB, most people didn't know what an AR-15 was, when it sunset, everyone wanted one. See the problem? (Of course you don't) The "start somewhere" crowd completely ignores this. The toothpaste is out of the tube, simpler (incomplete) solutions such as limiting the ownership of such are no longer politically viable or pragmatically implementable. And the market has now made a seemingly infinite amount of variations such that banning by characteristic is no longer viable. Poorly crafted legislation, not gun people, not the NRA did this.
Getting individuals help to prevent violence in the first place should be the primary goal. Focus on that.
article and video within)...our military is trained to use the semiautomatic mode when focused on killing their enemy and not just 'suppressing' them with the volume of fully automatic fire...really surprised you didn't know that.
I'm repeating myself here, but I've said clearly that Conor's broad list of actions, beyond just the weapon, is an excellent list...but the reason I harp on the banning of Assault Rifles and their ammunition is because that is the fastest way to achieve meaningful results, such as has been done elsewhere (e.g. U.K., Australia, New Zealand)...they achieved dramatic drops in gun violence in a year, if not one month.
While the Clinton era ban may have had loopholes, it was effective...we should now plug those poorly crafted segments and reinstitute a much better ban that won't encourage the gun industry to launch a new sales campaign for Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines and High Velocity Ammunition for them...after all, there is obviously precedent.
Taking other actions (e.g. Upping the age for purchase...background checks..."Red Flag" communications...etc.) I'm all for and don't care who came up with them first...although my idea for hiring school counselors in all High Schools, trained in the mental health field and authorized to identify and refer 'problem students' to mental health professionals, hasn't come up much...and it is a focus of mine.
Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-militaries-actually-use-automatic-weapons-in-combat-2020-12
1. What point do you think you're making about semiautomatic mode? Everyone knows ARs are semiautomatic, they don't have modes like their military equivalent, M-16s, they have one mode. Really not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say that because the military uses their fully automatics in semi-automatic mode (there's a third mode, 3 shot bursts, btw) that they are functionally the same? Okay, it's wrong, but whatever and I don't care because it isn't material to any point I have made, it is wholly irrelevant to our conversation.
and note this excerpt...
----------------------
"I’ve taught college English for almost two years now, and for all the fulminating against the culture of political correctness, I’ve never seen language scrutinized like the language of armaments and gun control. There is a mechanical difference between the M-4 I carried in Afghanistan and a civilian assault rifle, but given the way we trained and shot (USING SEMIAUTOMATIC MODE), there is almost no distinction."
--------------------
More importantly, listen to his conclusive comments regarding whether or not Assault Rifles should be banned...
--------------------
“People who say they need an AR for hunting or home defense often don’t understand the weapon’s ballistics or overpenetration,” he said. “ARs cause horrific damage to humans; that’s why the military developed them.” He continued: “If you want to shoot an AR so bad, please feel free to join the fight against ISIS in the military.”
--------------------
My sentiments EXACTLY.
Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/magazine/i-used-an-assault-rifle-in-the-army-i-dont-think-civilians-should-own-them.html
Please point to an argument or statement I've made that you are arguing against.
Why would you make such a statement if not to deny that AR-15s ARE Assault Rifles in reality, as the Afghan War Vet testified to...our military trains with such weapons in 'semiautomatic' mode in order to be sure of killing their enemy...the Vet said clearly that no civilian should be using an Assault Rifle...his words...
“People who say they need an AR for hunting or home defense often don’t understand the weapon’s ballistics or overpenetration,” he said. “ARs cause horrific damage to humans; that’s why the military developed them.” He continued: “If you want to shoot an AR so bad, please feel free to join the fight against ISIS in the military.”...do you have combat experience that counters his position?
I've also shown you and everyone else the video in a previous link that shows active duty Marines training in semiautomatic mode...I've also researched other vets saying how they literally 'NEVER' used automatic mode in combat...it's all about the ammunition, high capacity magazine and gun design...stop the sales of these weapons immediately, and offer buybacks for those already purchased...as well as penalties for non-compliance.
At the same time that is going on, we set to work on legislation that addresses access to such weapons, including the mental health actions needed.
Point to one post of mine where I cared to wade into the "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" semantic argument. You could quote 1000 generals about bullshit that I don't disagree with, but simply don't care about. I know what an AR-15 is, I don't want one and if I was king Ramos wouldn't have had one either.
But what does this have to do with my original post you responded to?
I tried to meet you halfway, what part of this post do you disagree with?
"1. What point do you think you're making about semiautomatic mode? Everyone knows ARs are semiautomatic, they don't have modes like their military equivalent, M-16s, they have one mode. Really not sure what your point is. Are you trying to say that because the military uses their fully automatics in semi-automatic mode (there's a third mode, 3 shot bursts, btw) that they are functionally the same? Okay, it's wrong, but whatever and I don't care because it isn't material to any point I have made, it is wholly irrelevant to our conversation."
designed for warfare and therefore not suitable for use by non-military persons...you keep bringing up the 'semiautomatic' mode as the ONLY mode it operates in...just like a whole lot of others who want them to be available to the public...my contention, and that of active military personnel, as well as combat veterans, is that the absence of an automatic mode would not make a difference in an actual fire fight...they could still fight just as effectively with an "AR-15", given the gun's design, ammunition and magazine capacity...ergo, it should not be allowed in civilian hands...that's the point I'm making wrt Assault Rifles...btw, according to additional research I've done recently, combat squads rely on belt-fed weaponry (e.g. M249) for fully automatic fire given its quick change barrel.
Hopefully, you agree with the points and conclusion I've drawn on that issue...as for all the mental health, background checks, age requirements, etc., I think we have much to agree on...even the mental health trained H.S. counselors, I trust...
Can we find common ground here?
Perhaps we're both at fault.
military would very gladly employ in combat?..I think I've provided sufficient evidence to support that claim, but feel free to offer your own 'evidence' to the contrary...i.e. not simply your opinion.
On the other means of reducing mass shootings we have much closer agreement, but a summary in writing would be nice.
You know zero about guns.
care to correct him?...didn't think so.
You still know zero about guns.
"We only want to ban assault weapons" comes out of the same orifice as ""15 days to slow the spread," "late-term abortion would be rare," "defunding police won't make you less safe," "he called the nazis fine people," and "they just want to be able to get married."
You people cannot be trusted with individual liberties. Or anything else, for that matter. We're not interested in meeting you anywhere in between.
so let's just stay on point for this thread...I have repeatedly espoused the broad list that Conor penned earlier, which includes...but is not limited to...the restrictions on guns and ammo...
Please stop putting words in my mouth...feel free to comment on what I do say...then be ready to hear my challenge to you.
I said precisely what I meant. You are part of the collective that owns all of that evil and the damage it's caused. You voted for it. Cheered it on.
Now, you want us to listen to your bright ideas on 2nd-amendment infringement. Sadly, we don't trust you. Justin Trudeau's unhinged actions today are the inevitable place *you people* want to take this.
Sorry. Not interested in whatever package you want to dress it up with.
you're simply not telling the truth, which makes an honest exchange of ideas and opinions difficult, if not impossible.
Hopefully, you'll change your approach.
(no message)
(no message)
If the AR goes away, something else will pop up. True root cause isn’t guns. The gun is a tool. People find other tools.
We really should not discourage gun owners from training with their weapons. What amount were you thinking of? 10? 1000?
This is a genuine question. I'm not trying to start an argument.
Could be used to fund mental health programs.
But at the end of the day, it’s why it’s last on the list as it’s symbolic and I don’t think ARs and ammo are practically bannable nor are they a true root cause.
For the record, I was close to the GC gig at Smith & Wesson but once they decided to leave MA, I was out. So I’m not anti-gun. But when I started to research volumes of guns and ammo in light of profit - it’s staggering.
You'd think they were training to go to war.
Like - holy shit, look at all those shell casings. This is an expensive hobby. And how can all these people afford this?
Then the dude with the AR walks up or the guy with the .357 magnum, or the handle action high caliber rifle, and everyone stops and watches them shoot because … that thing is loud and can do serious damage.
Too many non serious people wandering around for my liking. Two ranges in my area had suicides take place within the past year. One right before Christmas. I can use my snap caps at home if I feel the need.
Once the range is clear I walk past all their 50, 75 and hundred yard targets to set one up at 200. And then I shoot 12 times in 3 shot groups (4 different precise powder charges), spotting scope in between taking notes. Then range clear again, I retrieve my target, pack up and leave.
(no message)
action, but this pediatrician I'm sure would put the number at "1"...sadly, he's not the only person who has had to treat little kids who used to run around playing tag at recess for high-velocity bullet wounds, or have to identify those who didn't survive...there have been others at Sandy Hook and Parkland...my guess is that there will be others down the line if nothing is done about access to such weapons.
It sure would help to know what the real number we need to reach is...please tell us...after all, from your own linked article, we heard the author say this...
"Given the sheer horror of the violence in Uvalde this week, it's understandable that the public is interested in ensuring that such a thing never happens again."
Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uvaldes-only-pediatrician-shares-horror-treating-school-shooting-victi-rcna31045
(no message)
How can we get this number to zero?
Drownings are tragic "Accidents"...not insane "Murders"...there's a difference...I can't believe I have to say that.
Tyrone: What is your 'magic number' of swimming deaths before you are repulsed enough to call for action?
Or, do you not want to answer that question because it is an unfair question which is not posed to further debate but to demonize the person being asked?
lessons for kids...and hiring lifeguards for protection...like I was during my college summers.
Not quite the same with senseless murders of school children, now is it, where too many people fight hard to hold onto their simple pleasures while allowing anyone with any mental malady to purchase an Assault Rifle with all the ammunition they can carry and shoot up schools, night clubs or music events.
Something like, it was more complicated?
If we switch to that, we can dispense with the one is "senseless" and the other is a mere "accident". I get the sense that scale doesn't matter to you. If we can prevent 100s of "senseless" deaths, 1000s of "accidental" deaths are palatable. But even worse, you're only interested in a minority subset of "senseless" murders. I think that many deaths, whether accidental or senseless are preventable, but society has decided that there is an acceptable level of risk vs tragedy on many issues. My response was to your assertion that "one is too many" which implies that they are easily preventable, when they are clearly not.
But, to me, a person shooting up a school is a complicated issue that starts with the "why" while you're focused on the "how". It is way more complicated than eliminate the currently preferred tool to accomplish the task. And as I've pointed out, even eliminated the tool is a difficult task due to technical reasons.
were brutally and horrifically gunned down...but it wasn't even the first time...all because this country, unlike others, can't find the courage to 'limit' the kinds of weapons available to ordinary citizens...nor can this country enact what 90% of the population believes is totally reasonable...i.e. background checks, wait times, "Red Flag" communications...somehow, you and a minority of others are still unmoved and apparently will remain so until some number of similar events is reached.
I believe it would be a safe bet that you didn't do any arithmetic on 9/11 when the same number of accidental drownings were matched by lives lost in that one event...there was a visceral reaction that the media also responded to...and the rest is history...People are justifiably outraged by what's going on...repeatedly...and want it stopped...join with us.
(no message)
I don't watch the news, but when I read about the girl that smeared blood on herself and played dead for an hour, I cried. But I can set my emotions aside and still think rationally. I want to solve this problem just as much as you do.
all that screaming and shrieking going on outside?...who cares...
(no message)
(no message)
Don’t do this.
their due insignificance and lack of importance in our society.
All those families who mourn the losses of family members don’t know nothin’.
(no message)
And if it's obvious to people that facts are skewed, inflated or flat-out made up; they will not want to participate in solutions. For reference, see: CoVid-19.
(no message)
Little wonder that you are among the ignorant masses who believe there is an epidemic of police shootings of unarmed black men and the like. A smaller and smaller percentage of Americans have any knowledge of the reality of any number of alleged crises in our society.
The reasons why the lawn mower isn’t painted red.
Mass murder shootings should never happen. they shouldn’t happen in schools, places of worship or at a shopping center. But they do happen. They happen because lunatics have access to guns.
And you all agree, well it doesn’t happen all that much if you break it down in specifics, it’s really not happening all that often.
You and folks like you generally avoid talking about the former because it creates cognitive dissonance in your brains and forces you to confront orthodixies you hold.
Public policy driven by ignoramuses who do not understand the most basic facts about an alleged problem have been, and will always be, devastating to a society. About all that folks like you and the people for whom you vote accomplish is enfuriating people further who disagree on your solutions. When someone refuses to accept verifiable data that contradicts his assumptions, you are dealing with a hopeless situation. You will continue to believe what you want to believe.
(no message)
But I have been wrong, very wrong in the past when deploying optimism.
(no message)
(no message)
That way they can claim moral superiority.
Superior with everything. When in reality, they are just sad and miserable.