School shooting Florida

[DragonLady]

Why is it that people can strap a pistol to their belt, and that's fine. But if I do the same with a sword, people get nervous? Are they not both 'arms'?

Because almost everyone has cut themselves, and knows how painful it is. But very few have been shot, so that pain is only an abstract idea.

 

[William Parcher]

Why is it that people can strap a pistol to their belt, and that's fine. But if I do the same with a sword, people get nervous? Are they not both 'arms'?

If you are carrying a sword then you are guaranteed to have mental illness. It is not a question.

 

[Bob001]

An NRA perspective:

Why does the NRA always win, despite the repeated national traumas, and despite poll after poll showing a majority in favor of stronger gun control measures? It’s not the money. It’s because the NRA has built a movement that has convinced its followers that gun ownership is a way of life, central to one’s freedom and safety, that must be defended on a daily basis.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/19/why-the-nra-always-wins-217028?lo=ap_b1

 

[LTC8K6]

This has absolutely nothing to do with my post. See hilites below to refresh your memory.



Chicago is an insignificant part of "Everywhere".

I think you've got to start somewhere and demonstrate that this will work.
You aren't going to get a constitution change very easily, which is what you need.

Okay, how about Hawaii as a test state?

It's pretty isolated.

 

[smartcooky]

Why is it that people can strap a pistol to their belt, and that's fine. But if I do the same with a sword, people get nervous? Are they not both 'arms'?

Really?

I would be more nervous seeing a person carrying a gun than a sword. I can easily keep out of range of the guy with the sword.... the guy with the gun, not so much.

However...

 

[tyr_13]

Sorry if it's already been asked in this thread, but I hear a lot of people saying that the FBI is to blame for not preventing this because they didn't take the tip seriously, and therefore we don't need more gun laws.

But, what if they had? He would have still been allowed to purchase the guns, correct? They surely can't assign people to keep surveillance up on every person who has made online threats.

EDIT: I see it's been asked by thaiboxerken and not answered.

 

[Nessie]

I think you've got to start somewhere and demonstrate that this will work.
You aren't going to get a constitution change very easily, which is what you need.

Okay, how about Hawaii as a test state?

It's pretty isolated.

I predict if that happens, someone will go on the rampage in Hawaii and do a mass shooting, purely so it makes them famous, yay!

 

[fuelair]

This is true. Gun lovers have taken the position that anyone who doesn't support the notion of having no gun laws is a "gun grabber."

I am a gun fan and I want guns out of lots of people's hands: criminals, the insane, the psychos, the very young, the not-competent-to use guns safely, related. And a number of still working police officers who should have been found guilty/arrested for unnecessary shootings/killings.

 

[quadraginta]

Agreed.

This debate would go a lot better if hyperbole like didn't get dropped into it so much.

The odds of dying by murder by gun are still... pretty low on the list of things Americans need to individually worry about happening to them on a statistical level. American's murder rate is high, way, way too high no arguments but it's not like its really the thing most of us worry about on a day to day level. This idea that modern America is some country sized Laser Tag arena with live ammo is just silly.

If this is an average year 15,000 to 16,000 Americans are gonna die by murder, roughly 1/2-2/3s of those by gun violence. Yes that's way too high, stupid high, way past the point of solving the problem high.

But over, again if this year is average, 1.3 million are gonna die in traffic accidents (incidentally our rate of 13 deaths per 100,000 cars on the road yearly is below Europe's rate of 19 deaths per 100,00 cars on the road yearly) and 250,000 are gonna die due to medical mistakes.

<snip>

You need to check your numbers. There were ~37,000 traffic fatalities in 2016, not 1.3 million. There were 38,000 gun deaths, split 1/3 and 2/3 between homicide and suicide.

I'm pretty sure it's around 30,000. 1.3 million means a third of a percent of all Americans die every year in a car accident. That can't be right. I'm not even sure that many die, period.

Yeah for some reason I brain farted and my brain copied the global number over instead of the US.

Point still stands.

Actually, no it doesn't.

It pretty much fell flat on its face.

You pulled a number out of your nether regions which was in the neighborhood of a couple of orders of magnitude wrong, and then tried to use that bogus number to make the claim that by comparison to something like deaths by motor vehicle the gun deaths were barely significant.

But it turns out that deaths by firearm and deaths by motor vehicle are actually quite comparable.

What isn't comparable? The number and degree of restrictions and qualifications placed on owning and operating a motor vehicle in comparison to those placed on gun ownership.

And yet ... somehow we can manage to legislate effective health and life saving measures for motor vehicles, but for some apparently inexplicable reason this just isn't feasible for firearms.

 

[Civet]

Why is it that people can strap a pistol to their belt, and that's fine. But if I do the same with a sword, people get nervous? Are they not both 'arms'?

I've half-joked before that I'd have a lot more respect for gangbanger types if they settled their disputes through some sort of formal dueling process using edged or blunt weapons. Shows real grit and spares the innocent bystanders.

 

[jimbob]

If you are carrying a sword then you are guaranteed to have mental illness. It is not a question.

What has that got to do with weapons? </NRA>

 

[JoeMorgue]

An NRA perspective:

Why does the NRA always win, despite the repeated national traumas, and despite poll after poll showing a majority in favor of stronger gun control measures? It’s not the money. It’s because the NRA has built a movement that has convinced its followers that gun ownership is a way of life, central to one’s freedom and safety, that must be defended on a daily basis.

Okay but that doesn't really answer the question.

Again even the NRA's (I'm still convinced highly inflated) membership numbers are only about 4-5 million. That's not enough to be that big of a force to prevent something this big from being debated.

I think the Liberals have just decided to throw their hands up and go "We can't do anything because of the NRA!"

By comparison the AARP has 37 million members. If the NRA could totally shutdown one of the 3 or 4 biggest divisive "causes" the AARP should be able to rule the known galaxy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But it turns out that deaths by firearm and deaths by motor vehicle are actually quite comparable.

What isn't comparable? The number and degree of restrictions and qualifications placed on owning and operating a motor vehicle in comparison to those placed on gun ownership.

And where exactly did I argue against registration/licensing for gun owners?

Oh right I'm sorry this is one of those debates where only two opinions are allowed so when I say anything that isn't one side's party line everyone just assumes I have to be in lockstep with the other side.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Unfortunate truth//

If we do have implement any new wider gun control laws, there's a damn near metaphysical certainty it will be used disproportionately against minorities.

Again I'm opening more and more to a some sort of gun reform, but I also have a gut feeling any such movement would just be the new "War on Drugs."

 

[Bob001]

I think you've got to start somewhere and demonstrate that this will work.
You aren't going to get a constitution change very easily, which is what you need......

Not necessarily. The current interpretations of the Second Amendment are relatively recent. You wouldn't need an amendment for the Supreme Court to determine that the Second refers to organized state militias, or that it does not apply to weapons not suitable for civilians (and it could decide what is "suitable"), etc. The "right" to carry a concealed handgun was not recognized through most of U.S. history. Even in the Old West, visitors were often required to check their sidearms with the town sheriff.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...made-americans-fear-their-own-government.html

 

[IanS]

That would be like hiding all the forks because you eat too much cake. Instead of, you know, actually dealing with the cake.

This "blame the guns" stuff is a nonsensical knee jerk reaction by people who have no clue exactly how these tragic situations play out.

No it's not a "nonsensical knee jerk reaction by people who have no clue exactly how these tragic situations play out". On the contrary, what's being said here against gun ownership in the US, is that if most other civilised educated western democracies can put in place laws that effectively reduce such gun crimes to comparatively tiny numbers, than it should not be beyond the ability of politicians, security experts & others to take similar measures in the US.

What is "a nonsensical knee jerk reaction fudge of an argument by people who have an enthusiast interest in collecting and firing guns no clue exactly how these tragic situations play out" is to keep trying to shift the argument away from guns by talking about people eating cake with sharp pointed forks, as if dinner forks are being used in just as many mass murder spree killings.

Those pro-gun arguments which compare guns to knives, trucks/vehicles, or dinner forks (or in previous threads I've also seen pro-gun posters comparing guns to the dangers of alcohol addition, cigarettes, and drugs etc.), are plainly disingenuous and not remotely comparable at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And would anyone be shocked if people using smaller spoons ate slightly less?

No, but if anyone proposed "Outlaw spoons over X size" as the solution to our obesity problem I would find it weird.

 

[Nessie]

I am a gun fan and I want guns out of lots of people's hands: criminals, the insane, the psychos, the very young, the not-competent-to use guns safely, related. And a number of still working police officers who should have been found guilty/arrested for unnecessary shootings/killings.

The problem with that is, with 250-280 million guns in the USA and many people not interested in cooperating with any gun control, sorting it so only suitable people have the guns is impossible.

 

[William Parcher]

Trump expresses support for senators’ gun bill

President Trump signaled support for one piece of gun control legislation on Monday, five days after a mass shooting at a Florida high school left 17 people dead and scores injured.

“The president is supportive of efforts to improve the federal background check system,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, wrote in a statement Monday morning.

Sanders said the president spoke to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) on Friday to express support for the bill Cornyn has introduced with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). The bill is still being amended, the White House cautioned.

The statement did not address how the president would react to more aggressive gun control measures...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/02/19/515e9c0c-1585-11e8-92c9-376b4fe57ff7_story.html

 

[Bob001]

I'm guessing this is another joke post, but it brings up an important part of the "we need to ban guns" standpoint. For the hi-lighted part, what would be those steps? House to house and car searches? Metal detectors everywhere? Pat downs on the street?

It wouldn't require active measures. But if a person was found to have a prohibited firearm, he would be subject to prosecution. That would mean he couldn't take it outside for hunting or target shooting. If he shot an intruder with it, he could go to prison. If it was found in his car or on his person during a traffic stop, he goes away (if the cops don't shoot him on the spot). If visitors saw it in his house, they could drop a dime, maybe for a reward. And "stop and frisk," with limitations, has been approved by the courts. The practice, though often used heavy-handedly and too often, contributed to reducing the crime rate in New York City; bad guys stopped carrying guns because they knew there was a god chance they could get grabbed off the street.

If semi-auto pistols and rifles were banned, the average law-abiding citizen would exercise his Second Amendment right with revolvers, bolt-action rifles and pump action shotguns. Only the criminally inclined would keep their illegal guns, and they would be subject to prosecution if/when caught, just like drug dealers, tax evaders, etc.