Thoughts and prayers thread

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

“Perfect is the enemy of good” is a silly talking point. We are talking about effectiveness, not perfection. I don’t think passing the buck to mental health professionals and law enforcement will do anything. Let’s start with banning AR and high velocity ammo, or as I said impose excise taxes and rationing on that ammo. Nobody has made effective proposals, all they do is pussyfoot around and yammer about “common sense” reforms.

I agree. Gun nuts will point out “you can’t stop them all” and that’s obviously true. But stopping 98% is a helluva lot better than stopping 0%.

We took the fight to Al-Qaeda to lessen attacks here. We install security alarms in our house and put a sign in our window to deter would be burglars. We should be enacting new laws that minimize these events. We shouldn’t be talking about perfection.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

“Perfect is the enemy of good” is a silly talking point. We are talking about effectiveness, not perfection. I don’t think passing the buck to mental health professionals and law enforcement will do anything. Let’s start with banning AR and high velocity ammo, or as I said impose excise taxes and rationing on that ammo. Nobody has made effective proposals, all they do is pussyfoot around and yammer about “common sense” reforms.

Again, we can't get people who are adjudicated mentally ill and people on the no fly list to not buy guns, what chance do we have with banning AR and high velocity ammo? I agree with you on those steps, but if we cannot get them we have to look at what we can get. I don't know what that is.

There will be a sea change. Much like happened with gay marriage one day enough Americans will wake up and say "hey, why do we want people carrying weapons of war in cities?". But I see no evidence we are there. I hope we are, but the two lists above suggest we are not. So you are arguing to fight for the perfect. I am saying we can do that and still take what we can get until the perfect comes around. Because unless the NRA blesses the removal of the AR-15, it ain't going to happen this year. And I doubt it will happen in a Trump presidency. So we are left with do nothing or what?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Again, we can't get people who are adjudicated mentally ill and people on the no fly list to not buy guns, what chance do we have with banning AR and high velocity ammo? I agree with you on those steps, but if we cannot get them we have to look at what we can get. I don't know what that is.

There will be a sea change. Much like happened with gay marriage one day enough Americans will wake up and say "hey, why do we want people carrying weapons of war in cities?". But I see no evidence we are there. I hope we are, but the two lists above suggest we are not. So you are arguing to fight for the perfect. I am saying we can do that and still take what we can get until the perfect comes around. Because unless the NRA blesses the removal of the AR-15, it ain't going to happen this year. And I doubt it will happen in a Trump presidency. So we are left with do nothing or what?

Two things:

1. We’ve been successful in getting explosives and other high energy weapons to be ruled out of the 2nd Amendment. There’s no legal reason today that precludes adding semi-auto long guns (high powered and high throughput) to that list.
2. We shouldn’t be using nomenclature such as AR-15 when discussing eliminating these from the citizens homes. We should be talking about semi-auto rifles and carbines. The AR is just one type. There are many many more.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Of course President OBama did. He begged and pleaded and made his case often for sensible gun control. Of course the NRA, oops, GOP, ignored him and the over 90% of the public that apporived of more stringent background checks. They listened to one after another Sandy Hook parent come in and plead their case. And they voted the way the NRA told them to.

Obama made this a single coefficient problem: guns. That kind of approach falls on deaf ears.

When will a politician stand up and propose a new amendment? Until then nothing will happen. Except more shootings.

I think his approach was to start with tiny steps that nearly unanimously was popular around the country. After even that didn’t pass, he assumed it was a waste of time. Which it would have been.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I think his approach was to start with tiny steps that nearly unanimously was popular around the country. After even that didn’t pass, he assumed it was a waste of time. Which it would have been.

I do not believe increasing background checks will do anything at all to decrease mass shootings. Mental health is such an untreated and moving target that way too many people wont be on any kind of watchlist. Recognizing such, we have to get rid of the mass-casualty producing weapons.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There’s no legal reason today that precludes adding semi-auto long guns (high powered and high throughput) to that list.

I'm just going to throw out an addendum to this here, since the last two or three times we've had a shooting like this, some people have wanted to focus on the ammo, but you are correct to highlight the problem as the gun. There are very good reasons for .223 centerfire ammo to be perfectly legal. There are no good reasons for a semi-auto rifle to be chambered to fire it.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Two things:

1. We’ve been successful in getting explosives and other high energy weapons to be ruled out of the 2nd Amendment. There’s no legal reason today that precludes adding semi-auto long guns (high powered and high throughput) to that list.
2. We shouldn’t be using nomenclature such as AR-15 when discussing eliminating these from the citizens homes. We should be talking about semi-auto rifles and carbines. The AR is just one type. There are many many more.

The Constitutional part is not the problem. Getting 61 Senators is a huge problem. I'll support it. I am just thinking once the Senate takes the NRA bribe money and votes no, what fallback position do we have?

Semi-automatic rifles works. I was attempting to avoid "assault rifle" since that always leads to the "there is no such thing" argument.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

.

Accuracy means taking the facts as we find them. The following article seems like very clear reporting of facts.

Everytown for Gun Safety, a non-profit that advocates for gun control, recorded 17 incidents where guns were fired at schools or colleges in 2018. There were six shootings at K-12 schools where at least one victim was killed or wounded.​

Everytown provides a compilation of the events since 2013.

Everytown began tracking gunfire in schools and at colleges and universities because no one else was doing it. The U.S. Department of Education produces statistics annually on the number of students killed on-campus per year — approximately 15 homicides and 5 suicides annually. But they only track shootings at primary and secondary schools (not higher education institutions), do not distinguish between the weapons used, and omit shootings outside of regular school hours.1 To fill this gap, Everytown began documenting all incidents where a firearm was discharged on school property, relying on media reports and following up with local law enforcement and school officials when necessary.​

Of course, after Parkland the homicides during school hours number for 2018 will definitely be higher.
It would be highly desirable to have more and better data and analysis on shootings of all kinds. But Congress at the behest of the NRA have systematically blocked such research.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/gun-violence-research-public-health/

You apparently didn’t read my link. It was about why Everytown’s statistics are inflated. Factcheck even awarded them four Pinocchios.

 

[Thyrsis]

Obama made this a single coefficient problem: guns. That kind of approach falls on deaf ears.

When will a politician stand up and propose a new amendment? Until then nothing will happen. Except more shootings.

Maybe a quibble and probably a pedantic diversion (hi @TheOriginalHappyGoat !), but I'm not so sure repeal of the 2A would change much of anything if the Supremes were still of a mind to be pro-gun. There are still Constitutional grounds upon which pro-gunners could argue even without the 2A. Maybe a new amendment could cut off those already existing angles (5th amendment, etc.), but I dunno.

In the end, the effect of legislation and policy has to be to change the culture and the tenor of the national conversation. That's harder if the S.Ct. is hyper-partisan all by its lonesome. That concern isn't limited just to gun issues. Especially among Republicans, a hyper-partisan, unyielding, uncompromising rabid extremism has gained too large a following. They tend to view opposition as the enemy and further basis to dig deeper into their poorly constructed trench. And those folks vote larger than their numbers and are supported by similar elements in Congress who, in turn, demand the same of their judges. The gun issue is an issue all by itself, but I have a hard time separating it from a scary groupthink around other topics, including abortion, taxes, the flag, immigration, etc. For the folks I'm talking about, those aren't difficult political issues requiring decision-making, understanding, compromise, and a focus on results, but instead are no-compromise proxies for a fevered culture viewpoint. We really need to break the fever in this country.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I think his approach was to start with tiny steps that nearly unanimously was popular around the country. After even that didn’t pass, he assumed it was a waste of time. Which it would have been.

I do not believe increasing background checks will do anything at all to decrease mass shootings. Mental health is such an untreated and moving target that way too many people wont be on any kind of watchlist. Recognizing such, we have to get rid of the mass-casualty producing weapons.

I agree that’s the most important thing. But I think we have to do a better job with the watchlist . And it might not help with a lot, but it might help with some. And it’s not going to hurt anything.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Maybe a quibble and probably a pedantic diversion (hi @TheOriginalHappyGoat !), but I'm not so sure repeal of the 2A would change much of anything if the Supremes were still of a mind to be pro-gun. There are still Constitutional grounds upon which pro-gunners could argue even without the 2A. Maybe a new amendment could cut off those already existing angles (5th amendment, etc.), but I dunno.

That's an interesting point. It's really not that hard to come up with a 2A style right from other amendments, similar to the privacy right. I think you are probably correct; repeal would mean little without a replacement that delineates the extent of the government's regulation power.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That's an interesting point. It's really not that hard to come up with a 2A style right from other amendments, similar to the privacy right. I think you are probably correct; repeal would mean little without a replacement that delineates the extent of the government's regulation power.

In earlier parts of this thread I was more disciplined with explaining I mean repea and replace. I’ve seen gotten lazy and started saying repeal. But I still mean replace.

I think a fair compromise is to replace the 2A with an amendment that preserves a right to the right kind of firearms.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

.

You apparently didn’t read my link. It was about why Everytown’s statistics are inflated. Factcheck even awarded them four Pinocchios.

Everytown and their propaganda are part of the “good intentions - but hurting more than helping” crowd.

 

[Thyrsis]

In earlier parts of this thread I was more disciplined with explaining I mean repea and replace. I’ve seen gotten lazy and started saying repeal. But I still mean replace.

I think a fair compromise is to replace the 2A with an amendment that preserves a right to the right kind of firearms.

This probably really is a quibble (especially since it's not really responsive to your larger point about clarifying the right via Constitutional amendment) and this is more of a diversionary question about what that would look like, but I don't know a repeal and replace by itself would necessarily cut off rights under other parts of the Constitution. Probably would, but I dunno.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The Constitutional part is not the problem. Getting 61 Senators is a huge problem. I'll support it. I am just thinking once the Senate takes the NRA bribe money and votes no, what fallback position do we have?

Semi-automatic rifles works. I was attempting to avoid "assault rifle" since that always leads to the "there is no such thing" argument.

I agree. The 2A leaves loads of room for regulation as Ranger noted. The problem is not the constitution, the problem is politicians who can’t make a gutsy decision because they are always running for Office, and worse than that, they don’t understand the constitution so they listen to lobbyists and political advisors.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm just going to throw out an addendum to this here, since the last two or three times we've had a shooting like this, some people have wanted to focus on the ammo, but you are correct to highlight the problem as the gun. There are very good reasons for .223 centerfire ammo to be perfectly legal. There are no good reasons for a semi-auto rifle to be chambered to fire it.

Can’t the round be produced with decreased kinetic energy?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Can’t the round be produced with decreased kinetic energy?

Yes, but then it won't be useful for certain legal activities, primarily hunting. The round that is generally thought of as an "AR-15 round" (the .223 Remington, and variants) is, in most states, the least powerful cartridge that can be used to legally hunt deer, because anything less powerful is unlikely to take a deer down, unless you get damn lucky.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Yes, but then it won't be useful for certain legal activities, primarily hunting. The round that is generally thought of as an "AR-15 round" (the .223 Remington, and variants) is, in most states, the least powerful cartridge that can be used to legally hunt deer, because anything less powerful is unlikely to take a deer down, unless you get damn lucky.

This is why it’s critical to use the nomenclature “semi-auto rifle/carbine” in lieu of AR-15. We have to make sure we get the .308 variants included. Those, while a bit more rare than the more common .223, are exponentially more deadly.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This is why it’s critical to use the nomenclature “semi-auto rifle/carbine” in lieu of AR-15. We have to make sure we get the .308 variants included. Those, while a bit more rare than the more common .223, are exponentially more deadly.

Sister Goat has a bolt-action .30-06. I think it holds four or five rounds. I've shot target with it. Powerful, powerful rifle. God save the man who gets hit with one of those rounds. But if she snapped and went crazy, she wouldn't be able to cause nearly the death and destruction that someone with an M1 carrying the same ammo could.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Sister Goat has a bolt-action .30-06. I think it holds four or five rounds. I've shot target with it. Powerful, powerful rifle. God save the man who gets hit with one of those rounds. But if she snapped and went crazy, she wouldn't be able to cause nearly the death and destruction that someone with an M1 carrying the same ammo could.

Precisely. I’ll take my chances with a guy trying to go on a mass killing spree with a bolt action rifle.

Of course some jackasses will try to invent tools to “bump stock” the bolt so that type of manipulation has to be illegal also.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Of course some jackasses will try to invent tools to “bump stock” the bolt so that type of manipulation has to be illegal also.

Like those thumb-flick bolts used by biathlon competitors. Reloading is way too easy for them.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Like those thumb-flick bolts used by biathlon competitors. Reloading is way too easy for them.

Very slowly aimed weapons those though

 

[sglowrider]

Former GOP Congressman David Jolly made waves yesterday saying the GOP would never pass gun control legislation. He was back at it this morning and sounded very reasonable. He said the classic "never let the perfect become the enemy of the good". We need to find legislation that will pass. Here was an idea of his, we will not get an assault weapons ban but maybe we can get a background check equal to top secret security clearance through. Frankly, I doubt that would go through, but it is an interesting idea.

Or as Chris Rock had suggested once; put a massive tax on bullets.

Bullet control:

 

[iuwclurker1]

Now does a meme ruin a thread, pray tell?

 

[sglowrider]

The Constitutional part is not the problem. Getting 61 Senators is a huge problem. I'll support it. I am just thinking once the Senate takes the NRA bribe money and votes no, what fallback position do we have?

Semi-automatic rifles works. I was attempting to avoid "assault rifle" since that always leads to the "there is no such thing" argument.

Deficit of courage.

 

[sglowrider]

Such lovely supporters he has.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

View embedded media

Such lovely supporters he has.

He has some lovely detractors as well:

Sometimes they like to beat up Trump supporters too:

Sometimes it's best to keep the stupid and the violence out of it.

 

[sglowrider]

He has some lovely detractors as well:

Sometimes they like to beat up Trump supporters too:

Sometimes it's best to keep the stupid and the violence out of it.

Must make you a tad dirty having to defend Trump's supporters here! Need a shower after this?

 

[sglowrider]

"We need to have an honest conversation as to what should and should not be allowed in the United States as it relates to the things being put in the hands of our young people,"

Ok... make sense...

"I'm a big believer in the First Amendment and right to free speech, but there are certain things that are so graphic as it relates to violence, and things that are so pornographic on a whole another front that we allow to pass under the guise of free speech, which arguably are," he told the Enquirer. "But there is zero redemptive value. There is zero upside to any of this being in the public domain, let alone in the minds and hands and homes of our young people."

WTF!!!

It looked like he's talking about keeping weapons of mass murder out of young people's hands here, but never fear, he's actually just talking about games and movies!!!
The rest of the world plays video games and watch violent American movies like most Americans but almost all dont suffer from this mass murder epidemic. See how that doesn't quite gell.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

View embedded media

Ok... make sense...


WTF!!!

It looked like he's talking about keeping weapons of mass murder out of young people's hands here, but never fear, he's actually just talking about games and movies!!!
The rest of the world plays video games and watch violent American movies like most Americans but almost all dont suffer from this mass murder epidemic. See how that doesn't quite gell.

Pretty soon firearms will = speech

 

[iu_a_att]

He has some lovely detractors as well:

Sometimes it's best to keep the stupid and the violence out of it.

Given the indictments that have come out at least some of the "stupid" was/is the product of Russian operatives.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Must make you a tad dirty having to defend Trump's supporters here! Need a shower after this?

Not really defending them. I’m pointing out that there are stupid and violent people among the resistance too.