The Guns thread - Part 1

[squeekness]

Does it hide your "Bad Guy" teeshirt?

But of course.

 

[squeekness]

If Trump were actually able to introduce tougher regulations, restrictions & laws around guns it might actually make his thus far moronic Presidency in some way worth bearing as he'll have actually done something that truly matters.

I wouldn't hold my breath, lol.

 

[LTuser]

The irony of the NRA holding a gun convention in Dallas is not lost on me.

SO IYO where should they hold it?? In Chicago?

 

[Sithborg]

Well, the FL legislature voted against re-instituting the assault rifle ban while kids from Parkland watching. That... is kind of heartless.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Well, the FL legislature voted against re-instituting the assault rifle ban while kids from Parkland watching. That... is kind of heartless.

No, it's not caving to pure emotion over a sense of rationality. You can't just emotionally shame people anytime you want things a certain way.

 

[Marvolo]

Besides, banning certain types of guns at a state level is entirely useless. A psycho or criminal can drive right across the border and buy that gun in another state and then drive back to Florida and use it. And any Florida gun owner that already owns that gun would be grandfathered in in some way so they would get to keep the guns they already own.

 

[Sithborg]

No, it's not caving to pure emotion over a sense of rationality. You can't just emotionally shame people anytime you want things a certain way.

Yup, a bill that was apparently in committee for 2 years, that was only brought out in order to tell these victims "screw you". It was a goddamn horse and pony show.

 

[hitmanyr2k]

Besides, banning certain types of guns at a state level is entirely useless. A psycho or criminal can drive right across the border and buy that gun in another state and then drive back to Florida and use it. And any Florida gun owner that already owns that gun would be grandfathered in in some way so they would get to keep the guns they already own.

Which is why the strict gun laws in Illinois aren't effective. Most guns used in Chicago's crimes come from out of state with the majority of those out of state guns coming from Indiana.

 

[Marvolo]

Yup, a bill that was apparently in committee for 2 years, that was only brought out in order to tell these victims "screw you". It was a goddamn horse and pony show.

Or it was brought out because someone thought it had a better chance of getting passed in the wake of this tragedy. Even if it failed it was good that they voted on it so soon.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

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.

Although it's easy to say that this very important phrase isn't definitive, people who don't ignore the historical context in which the Second Amendment was written -- people who actually stop and think about not only their rights but their responsibilities as parts of a whole nation -- know that it clearly refers to military activities, especially given the usage of the terms "militia" and "bear arms." It didn't need to be watertight when it was written because it was obvious to everyone what it meant. The Second Amendment guarantees state militias the right to bear arms. It's a reading that stuck with us from 1791 throughout most of the 20th century, and was even ratified by the Supreme Court on four occasions.

http://www.cracked.com/article_25195_how-nra-lost-its-mind.html

Pretty interesting read. Good to know the NRA gun-nuts only screwed up the definition of the 2nd amendment here in the last few decades.

 

[Marvolo]

The militia part has been argued to death for a long long time. With multiple interpretations. What interpretation a person or group accepts seems to depend on that person's own options about guns.

Since militias are made up of civilians and since civilians In the 18th century would no doubt bring their own rifles along for militia activity I take it to mean that the people have a right to bear arms so that the militias can be formed and function as a viable military force.

But I also think the second amendment is entirely outdated and the militia bit is entirely meaningless today and should be removed from the second amendment. All it needs to say is something about civilians having a right to bear arms in a well regulated way. The specifics of that should be left up to the law of the land and depend on the day and age and what is best for society at any given time.

 

[Aximili86]

There is zero evidence that armed guards in schools prevent violence. So find a better effing solution. Jesus.

Again, Utah hasn't had a shooting since '96 apparently. They do the armed teacher thing (though from what I understand it's not every school). Utah's a big gun state.

There are inconvenient counterpoints to both sides on this stuff, it's not some one or the other. Gray areas, conflicting situations both apparently pointing to helping the problem.

I'm not even advocating this personally, but it's probably something to consider. I wouldn't put the burden on teachers, but you could likely put some of these veterans to work and it'd balance out as a positive, provided the threshold for being approved is really goddamn high training/psych-wise. And you'd want re-training going on, some sort of very role-specific academy.

Look, the semi-autos aren't getting banned, it's just not happening. Knowing that, we need to do something. Part of that seems to be making background checks and inter-agency communication a ****load more efficient, and honestly the other part's probably at least making schools less-sort a target. Whether that's fortressing up further with various lockdowns and security checkpoints, or having armed officers on-site, I don't know. But it's likely something that has to be looked at.

 

[Donner]

That Utah example means nothing. Like literally nothing. Correlation isn't causation.

We need to move past this absurd idea that more guns in schools will keep students and teachers safe. For ****s sake, the US police can't even keep their guns holstered. It's just asinine.

 

[Lighthouse]

That Utah example means nothing. Like literally nothing. Correlation isn't causation.

We need to move past this absurd idea that more guns in schools will keep students and teachers safe. For ****s sake, the US police can't even keep their guns holstered. It's just asinine.

You know eventually a kid is going to get shot unarmed, and we'll have another "I feared for my life." situation.

 

[Hotwire]

You want to arm all 3.2 million teachers in the US? With what? A Glock 9MM for $600 a piece? That's $1.9 billion for the guns alone. You want bullets? Another $64 million. Training and certification for each of them? Probably around $100/teacher for another $320 million. So, right there we're at a ballpark total of $2.284 billion not even counting private and charter schools!

Now, keep in mind that Trump just cut the education budget by around $3.6 billion. So, maybe arming every teacher isn't such a promising solution.

Let's try armed guards, shall we?

There are roughly 100,000 public schools. Now, each would need at least 2 armed guards so you don't have any lapse in security. What should we pay them per year? $35,000? That's a good starting point. That's $7 billion in payroll alone! I haven't even gotten to the cost of the guns, ammo, and armory for each school.

So, maybe we should look at different solutions to the problem. Not everything can be solved by throwing money at it.

 

[KevanG]

Well obviously the idea is to bring your guns from home.

Everyone from the principal to the new students should come armed and ready. That way no one will have to worry about shooters, amirite?

 

[Aximili86]

Not even the hardcore proponents of this are saying "arm every teacher", Hotwire, let's not spin things that way. They're calling for one or two in each school. So, divide all the figures you just listed by 40 or so (more for larger schools I guess) and you're more in an accurate ballpark.

But okay, assuming you're right and that the costs just make it totally unworkable. So we've eliminated banning semi-autos are something's going to happen. An armed designated teacher or two isn't happening.

So, what do we do? Tightening these background checks a crapload seems to be about the only reasonable thing we're going to get on the cards, along with the obvious banning of bump-stocks and body armor.

That could all get done tomorrow, theoretically, without much opposition. The semi-auto rifle bans are a non-starter though, it's never going to get any traction.

 

[Hotwire]

Not even the hardcore proponents of this are saying "arm every teacher", Hotwire, let's not spin things that way. They're calling for one or two in each school. So, divide all the figures you just listed by 40 or so (more for larger schools I guess) and you're more in an accurate ballpark.

But okay, assuming you're right and that the costs just make it totally unworkable. So we've eliminated banning semi-autos are something's going to happen. An armed designated teacher or two isn't happening.

So, what do we do? Tightening these background checks a crapload seems to be about the only reasonable thing we're going to get on the cards, along with the obvious banning of bump-stocks and body armor.

That could all get done tomorrow, theoretically, without much opposition. The semi-auto rifle bans are a non-starter though, it's never going to get any traction.

Some have suggested it.

 

[Doug_Moore]

You want to arm all 3.2 million teachers in the US? With what? A Glock 9MM for $600 a piece? That's $1.9 billion for the guns alone. You want bullets? Another $64 million. Training and certification for each of them? Probably around $100/teacher for another $320 million. So, right there we're at a ballpark total of $2.284 billion not even counting private and charter schools!

Now, keep in mind that Trump just cut the education budget by around $3.6 billion. So, maybe arming every teacher isn't such a promising solution.

Let's try armed guards, shall we?

There are roughly 100,000 public schools. Now, each would need at least 2 armed guards so you don't have any lapse in security. What should we pay them per year? $35,000? That's a good starting point. That's $7 billion in payroll alone! I haven't even gotten to the cost of the guns, ammo, and armory for each school.

So, maybe we should look at different solutions to the problem. Not everything can be solved by throwing money at it.

The government loves to waste tax payer money. Might as well put it to some good use.

 

[Aximili86]

And that'd be the counterargument, yep.

 

[LTuser]

No, it's not caving to pure emotion over a sense of rationality. You can't just emotionally shame people anytime you want things a certain way.

I agree. Knee jerk reactions, based on nothing BUT emotion are just wrong. Especially when the DOJ did a extensive study on the LAST assault weapon ban and showed it didn't prevent any killings..

The militia part has been argued to death for a long long time. With multiple interpretations. What interpretation a person or group accepts seems to depend on that person's own options about guns.

Since militias are made up of civilians and since civilians In the 18th century would no doubt bring their own rifles along for militia activity I take it to mean that the people have a right to bear arms so that the militias can be formed and function as a viable military force.

I've read/watched a # of videos, and books on the subject, and it has been argued to death i agree..

But I also think the second amendment is entirely outdated and the militia bit is entirely meaningless today and should be removed from the second amendment. All it needs to say is something about civilians having a right to bear arms in a well regulated way. The specifics of that should be left up to the law of the land and depend on the day and age and what is best for society at any given time.

Then lets make it an actual NATIONWIDE vote. To amend the 2nd amendment, rather than nickle and dime gun rights, especially with that last portion of it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" keeps getting cut into..

Again, Utah hasn't had a shooting since '96 apparently. They do the armed teacher thing (though from what I understand it's not every school). Utah's a big gun state.

According to the "mother Jones" website, compiling all mass shootings since 1982, there's been only ONE shooting, and that actually was in 2007..
Trolley Square shooting Salt Lake City, Utah 2/12/2007 2007 Sulejman Talovi??, 18, rampaged through the shopping center until he was shot dead by police. 6 fatalities.
But you did make a good point.. Armed teachers in the school, is not causing kids to freak out, or the like..

I'm not even advocating this personally, but it's probably something to consider. I wouldn't put the burden on teachers, but you could likely put some of these veterans to work and it'd balance out as a positive, provided the threshold for being approved is really goddamn high training/psych-wise. And you'd want re-training going on, some sort of very role-specific academy.

I'd put it to the teachers AND the parents of kids in the school.. Would they be ok with teachers being armed
A) IF the teacher was ok with it AND B) if the teacher qualified.
And if not, THEN go to having ex military/ex cops. BUT i would also make them all plain clothes, CCW holders, that way a shooter can't just say "HMM, that uniformed guy is the first one i need to kill/I need to go in when he's on the other side of campus".

Look, the semi-autos aren't getting banned, it's just not happening. Knowing that, we need to do something. Part of that seems to be making background checks and inter-agency communication a ****load more efficient, and honestly the other part's probably at least making schools less-sort a target. Whether that's fortressing up further with various lockdowns and security checkpoints, or having armed officers on-site, I don't know. But it's likely something that has to be looked at.

Maybe we also need to start holding those in said agencies accountable, when their "Letting things slip through the cracks" leads to one of these shootings..

That Utah example means nothing. Like literally nothing. Correlation isn't causation.

Is there any argument someone can say/figures they can show, that to YOU would mean something?

So, what do we do? Tightening these background checks a crapload seems to be about the only reasonable thing we're going to get on the cards, along with the obvious banning of bump-stocks and body armor.

But what exactly would 'tightening backround checks' mean? Especially when all the stats show most of these shooters DID PASS CHECKS, and thus got their guns legally??

 

[Aximili86]

Make the checks tougher.

As someone earlier said, maybe they start interviewing family and friends like Canada, a few of each, and get a gauge on your head state until they're satisfied. So like, not only not having a criminal or psych thing on record, but doing their own assessment of you according to multiple family and friends.

Wouldn't be foolproof, certainly not if friends or family were in on it, but it's something.

 

[Texas Zombie]

deleted

 

[Hotwire]

"You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Man, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... S***, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your f***ing head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property."

-Chris Rock

Still one of my favorite opinions. Maybe not $5000 but, make bullets far more difficult to acquire.

 

[Aximili86]

It's not all that funny a joke, but even then assuming you're serious: how is that different to prohibiting guns?

You think the American public who feel they have a right to arm themselves are going to be cool with prohibitively-expensive-for-the-average-joe ammunition for said guns?

It's fantasy-land thinking. Not a solution, as it'll never get anywhere near enough public support.