School shooting Florida

[Elagabalus]

What a coincidence. I’m in Stockton right now. It is a hellhole. It has been for a long time. It’s also the future of California and the rest of the United States. But it’s the people here and not the guns that are the problem.

Compared to the O.C.? Really? Do tell.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well now you tell me the difference between an aardvark and a .22. I wasted a lot of time breaking into that zoo and even then, didn't kill a single squirrel.

Did okay with ants.

The first image that popped into my head was a hunter complaining to his buddy that his new "hunting dog" was terrible, and seemed to spend all his time digging into anthills.

Then I realized that the aardvark was the weapon, and I had an image of the hunter holding the aardvark with both hands as the aardvark's tongue shot toward the squirrel, missing every time.

 

[Meadmaker]

One of the things that is so frustrating about this debate is that there are so many arguments that are not simply things I don't agree with, but are just plain false.

I have a tiny bit of respect for the slippery slope variations, which are "They will take all of guns if we let them ban semi-autos". To be fair, there are people in the United States who would like to ban all guns. They have no clout, and it won't happen, but I can at least respect something about that argument.

However, any variation of "A Brown Bess can kill people, so there's no point in banning AR-15s" is just stupid.

And any variation on "I can kill lots of people with ordinary guns, so there's no point in banning fancy guns" is twice as stupid.

And any variation of "If you don't understand enough about guns, your opinion doesn't count" is unworthy of mention except for ridicule.

So what's left, after the stupid ones? There's "Since you can't get rid of existing guns, there's no point in banning new sales." I don't think that's ridiculous, but I do think it's wrong. It often includes a variation of the "perfect solution" problem, which is that since it won't work perfectly and immediately, there's no point.

There's "Criminals will still get illegal guns, so guns shouldn't be illegal." Again, that's not stupid, but it ignores that a lot of people aren't planning on being criminals when they buy the guns, and wouldn't have become mass killers if they didn't have access to the guns. It also ignores the way that the proximity to the guns in their possession actually fuels the violent fantasies that are sometimes enacted.

I just wish that some people could try to support an argument that is of the form, "I need this weapon because....." and then follow it up with something other than surviving an apocalypse, fighting off a tyrannical government, or getting into a firefight with gangs. None of those things are going to happen.


ETA: As an aside, the reason that this time, finally, I got all riled up about this one is because, this time, there was enough public support for gun control that politicians felt they needed to do something, so we might finally get......MORE GUNS IN SCHOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No. No, I do not want that.

 

[Aridas]

One of the things that is so frustrating about this debate is that there are so many arguments that are not simply things I don't agree with, but are just plain false.

I have a tiny bit of respect for the slippery slope variations, which are "They will take all of guns if we let them ban semi-autos". To be fair, there are people in the United States who would like to ban all guns. They have no clout, and it won't happen, but I can at least respect something about that argument.

Ehh... I'm not going to disagree with you much here. Even for the most popular of potential bans, assault rifles bans, there will inevitably be exceptions included for those who use them for the appropriate sports, before even touching the rest. On the other hand, it's worth noting that many of the slippery slope arguments are nearly total crap that's wrapped around a kernel of truth.

However, any variation of "A Brown Bess can kill people, so there's no point in banning AR-15s" is just stupid.

And any variation on "I can kill lots of people with ordinary guns, so there's no point in banning fancy guns" is twice as stupid.

And any variation of "If you don't understand enough about guns, your opinion doesn't count" is unworthy of mention except for ridicule.

As are just about any argument that tries to portray the issue at hand to be just about school shootings or kids getting their hands on guns, then tries to go from there. The school shootings are merely the tip of the iceberg, after all.

So what's left, after the stupid ones? There's "Since you can't get rid of existing guns, there's no point in banning new sales." I don't think that's ridiculous, but I do think it's wrong. It often includes a variation of the "perfect solution" problem, which is that since it won't work perfectly and immediately, there's no point.

There's "Criminals will still get illegal guns, so guns shouldn't be illegal." Again, that's not stupid, but it ignores that a lot of people aren't planning on being criminals when they buy the guns, and wouldn't have become mass killers if they didn't have access to the guns. It also ignores the way that the proximity to the guns in their possession actually fuels the violent fantasies that are sometimes enacted.

There is, of course, the guns for self-defense argument, which is entirely true... in some circumstances and for some guns. It can easily be misused stupidly, of course, and Americans, on average, seem to have a remarkably unrealistic threat-level assessment (likely because of the scare tactics being thrown at us all the time, honestly).

I just wish that some people could try to support an argument that is of the form, "I need this weapon because....." and then follow it up with something other than surviving an apocalypse, fighting off a tyrannical government, or getting into a firefight with gangs. None of those things are going to happen.

A fair complaint about some people, unfortunately. Many of the others are much more reasonable, though, in my experience.

ETA: As an aside, the reason that this time, finally, I got all riled up about this one is because, this time, there was enough public support for gun control that politicians felt they needed to do something, so we might finally get......MORE GUNS IN SCHOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No. No, I do not want that.

It's likely to be of remarkably limited value when it comes to dealing with the specific problem in question, after all, and would quite certainly create far, far more problems in the process, both directly leading to easily preventable crime and indirectly interfering with the kids learning environment and mentality. Medicine that's worse than the sickness is usually medicine best avoided.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Compared to the O.C.? Really? Do tell.

What about Stockton compared to the O.C.? That it's a hellhole? That it's been one for a long time? That it's the future of California and the United States? Or that it's the people and not the guns that are the problem?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

One of the things that is so frustrating about this debate is that there are so many arguments that are not simply things I don't agree with, but are just plain false.

I have a tiny bit of respect for the slippery slope variations, which are "They will take all of guns if we let them ban semi-autos". To be fair, there are people in the United States who would like to ban all guns. They have no clout, and it won't happen, but I can at least respect something about that argument.

However, any variation of "A Brown Bess can kill people, so there's no point in banning AR-15s" is just stupid.

And any variation on "I can kill lots of people with ordinary guns, so there's no point in banning fancy guns" is twice as stupid.

And any variation of "If you don't understand enough about guns, your opinion doesn't count" is unworthy of mention except for ridicule.

So what's left, after the stupid ones? There's "Since you can't get rid of existing guns, there's no point in banning new sales." I don't think that's ridiculous, but I do think it's wrong. It often includes a variation of the "perfect solution" problem, which is that since it won't work perfectly and immediately, there's no point.

There's "Criminals will still get illegal guns, so guns shouldn't be illegal." Again, that's not stupid, but it ignores that a lot of people aren't planning on being criminals when they buy the guns, and wouldn't have become mass killers if they didn't have access to the guns. It also ignores the way that the proximity to the guns in their possession actually fuels the violent fantasies that are sometimes enacted.

I just wish that some people could try to support an argument that is of the form, "I need this weapon because....." and then follow it up with something other than surviving an apocalypse, fighting off a tyrannical government, or getting into a firefight with gangs. None of those things are going to happen.


ETA: As an aside, the reason that this time, finally, I got all riled up about this one is because, this time, there was enough public support for gun control that politicians felt they needed to do something, so we might finally get......MORE GUNS IN SCHOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No. No, I do not want that.

What I think is stupid is the idea that the guns are what causes the violence in our society and that banning them, or some of them, is going to stop people from being violent. Thinking that restricting guns is going to solve the problem of violence in schools or violence in general is ignoring history. We've passed laws against assault rifles and we still have school shootings. We've passed laws against sawn off shotguns and we still have school shootings. If we make the AR-15 and every other gun built on the AR-15 platform illegal, is that going to stop school shootings? If it doesn't, what do we do next?

Most school shootings would have been prevented if laws that are already on the books had not been broken. Parkland is probably the best example of a preventable tragedy. There were plenty of warnings about Cruz. Law enforcement was aware of his behavior and could've taken away his guns or taken him into custody. Blaming the NRA and calling for a ban on certain types of weapons is a diversion is what is stupid.

BTW, you haven't told us which of your guns couldn't be used in a school shooting.

 

[MikeG]

What I think is stupid is the idea that the guns are what causes the violence in our society and that banning them, or some of them, is going to stop people from being violent......

It won't stop them being violent, but it will stop them shooting people. If you haven't got access to a gun, shooting people becomes somewhat problematical.

The thing is, the evidence is there from all over the world. Why are you so intent on ignoring the evidence which other countries provide for you? We've done the experiment. It works.

 

[Aridas]

What I think is stupid is the idea that the guns are what causes the violence in our society

You suuuure love making up nonsense and trying to shove it into other's mouths!

and that banning them, or some of them, is going to stop people from being violent.

When more guns being carried around seems to directly lead to more violent crime occurring on average... the two are definitely linked. Are guns the whole problem? Of course not. That was never the claim in the first place, though.

Thinking that restricting guns is going to solve the problem of violence in schools or violence in general is ignoring history. We've passed laws against assault rifles and we still have school shootings. We've passed laws against sawn off shotguns and we still have school shootings. If we make the AR-15 and every other gun built on the AR-15 platform illegal, is that going to stop school shootings? If it doesn't, what do we do next?

So much half-assedness in your attempt at an argument here. I'll grade it with an F, because it seems to be one crappy fallacy after another here, presented in a rather unfocused manner.

Most school shootings would have been prevented if laws that are already on the books had not been broken. Parkland is probably the best example of a preventable tragedy. There were plenty of warnings about Cruz. Law enforcement was aware of his behavior and could've taken away his guns or taken him into custody.

There were lots of warnings, yes. And lots of failures.

Blaming the NRA and calling for a ban on certain types of weapons is a diversion is what is stupid.

Blaming the NRA for the actual things that they've been doing is entirely fair. They do a lot of good things, yes, but unfortunately, they've also done and been doing a lot of quite objectionable things that make tragedies far more likely to occur. Calling for the ban was already happening, regardless, though. Parkland just made the calls all the more poignant and motivated.

It won't stop them being violent, but it will stop them shooting people. If you haven't got access to a gun, shooting people becomes somewhat problematical.

Or, more realistically for the US, reduce the number of people on average that they can manage to shoot. Either way, for all the Republicans keep trying to portray this as solely a mental health issue, it's almost mind-boggling that the Republicans in power seem to keep trying reduce funding for dealing with mental health problems. Almost, but not really, given their records.

 

[Hungry81]

What I think is stupid is the idea that the guns are what causes the violence in our society and that banning them, or some of them, is going to stop people from being violent. Thinking that restricting guns is going to solve the problem of violence in schools or violence in general is ignoring history. We've passed laws against assault rifles and we still have school shootings. We've passed laws against sawn off shotguns and we still have school shootings. If we make the AR-15 and every other gun built on the AR-15 platform illegal, is that going to stop school shootings? If it doesn't, what do we do next?

Most school shootings would have been prevented if laws that are already on the books had not been broken. Parkland is probably the best example of a preventable tragedy. There were plenty of warnings about Cruz. Law enforcement was aware of his behavior and could've taken away his guns or taken him into custody. Blaming the NRA and calling for a ban on certain types of weapons is a diversion is what is stupid.

BTW, you haven't told us which of your guns couldn't be used in a school shooting.

The value of the straw market has just crashed due to a large, cheap, easily accessable deposit being found in this post.

Lets break it down. Bob is a carpenter of 25 years building a wooden box for fun. He has nails he needs to drive into some wood. He does not have a hammer. He decides to use the metal handle of his rubber mallet. Is Bob going to be as efficient at driving the nails in to the wood using a rubber mallet handle as he normally would be with a claw hammer?

 

[jimbob]

It won't stop them being violent, but it will stop them shooting people. If you haven't got access to a gun, shooting people becomes somewhat problematical.

The thing is, the evidence is there from all over the world. Why are you so intent on ignoring the evidence which other countries provide for you? We've done the experiment. It works.

It probably does reduce "rational violence"

Reducing the prevalence of firearms would reduce the risk of someone getting the drop on you, so probably all violence would decrease.

ponderingturtle was only taking it to its logical conclusion that it should be a reasonable defence for someone to say that the saw a cop from a notorious force and shot them pre-emptively in self defence because they were worried that they would otherwise be shot for no reason. After all, it seems to work for the cops.

 

[Nessie]

You were involved with the police in way way or another, and yet have no concept of what evidence is. Interesting. You stuffed up your own prediction with "evidence of the future", and, despite being told that that's a nonsense, you are now trying to get me to produce my evidence of the future.

Let's see if I can walk you through this in baby steps. Evidence is that which is left by events in the past. Stuff which has happened. Have a think on that for a little while.

The claim is that the USA will not make any significant change and mass shootings and the high gun death rate will continue for the long term future.

My evidence is the sheer number of people and guns;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12219393#post12219393

the impracticality of seizing guns;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12219400#post12219400

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12219424#post12219424

that the reaction to Columbine was numerous copycat shootings and just how many school massacres of kids on kids there have been without any significant change.

Now, walk me through with you baby steps and teach me evidencing if you think that is not evidence the USA will not change.

 

[Nessie]

It won't stop them being violent, but it will stop them shooting people. If you haven't got access to a gun, shooting people becomes somewhat problematical.

The thing is, the evidence is there from all over the world. Why are you so intent on ignoring the evidence which other countries provide for you? We've done the experiment. It works.

There are numerous reasons, which you keep ignoring, why the USA is an outlier and what is proposed cannot work there.

Lets walk you through them. Start with your first point, violent people with guns.

How do you identify the Americans who have guns?

How do then identify the subset who are too violent to have a gun?

How do you get the guns off them?

No vague answers. I want detailed, costed means to achieve the gun seizure programme you will need to have. How many police will it take? How will they work? What tactics will they use (especially against armed militias)?

I want you to show the legal ramifications and consequences with actual US laws. For a start, is it legal for a police officer to seize a gun off someone or will laws be needed for the seizure? You will need to go state by state with that as well as any federal laws.

 

[MikeG]

There are numerous reasons, which you keep ignoring, why the USA is an outlier and what is proposed cannot work there.........

Prattle away to yourself, Nessie. Your tedious nay-saying doesn't add anything to this conversation.

 

[TJM]

There is a difference between banning sales of some types of guns, and taking guns away. This seems to only apply to the sale of new guns in CA. Does this prevent the resale or continued ownership of used non-microstamping guns in CA? Will gun owners whose guns don't do this be required to turn them in?

New sales vs circulation. Two entirely different matters. California’s ever-evolving handgun roster has become an efficient means to block sales of new handguns, far from what lawmakers originally sold to the public, and it seems they can change the definition of an “unsafe handgun” at will. One day we might see an added provision which states that a safe handgun must consistently provide the shooter with a glass of delicious fresh squeezed orange juice after to every shot fired. You might think that’s going overboard but microstamping is every bit as impossible to implement per the current law.

As far as circulation goes, California already has specific laws as to what and how firearms may be legally transferred and who may do it. Given the current political environment here, I fully expect those laws to only expand over time.

 

[bruto]

I keep running in to this all-or-nothing attitude, which i can't help feeling is a ruse used by those who really prefer nothing anyway.

So, sure, it will be nearly impossible to stop all gun violence, and sure, if a dedicted crazy person gets hold of a musket he can still kill someone, and sure, it will be hard, or even impossible, to do many things. But it would not be impossible to tighten up current gun laws at the supply end, it would not be impossible to make at least some guns less accessible and some persons less able to get them, and I suspect it would not be impossible to reduce the slaughter. Is the lack of perfection really an excuse for not seeing the difference between more and less?

 

[Nessie]

Prattle away to yourself, Nessie. Your tedious nay-saying doesn't add anything to this conversation.

This thread is like any other thread about the latest ass shooting, as people make suggestions as to what to be done.

As you have correctly pointed out, the rest of the western world has the solution, which is a licensing/permit system whereby those who want a gun, pass a background check and anything else deemed necessary to show they are safe and suitable. No license/permit, no gun and possession is illegal.

Thousands of posts (more like tens if not hundreds of thousands) debate the issues over the USA adopting such a system and how or even should be done.

After a lot of reading, study, looking at the evidence and then Sandy Hook, I came to the conclusion that the USA cannot adopt such a system. I have produced evidence as to why it cannot.

That adds significantly to the conversation as it changes its emphasis, or at least should.

You can prattle on about your tedious fantasy of a low gun crime/shooting USA, but it is like wishing an amputee can grow his leg back. Maybe, just maybe in the dim and distant future, something will allow that to happen. But all the evidence at this time is that is not going to happen any time soon.

The bulk of the debate should be based on that as it would be far more constructive.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Indeed. There will be nothing meaningful done. Guns are a religion and the adherents have the upper hand.

 

[Nessie]

Yes, there is as much chance of a universal permit system being introduced over the entire USA as there is of Buddhism become the universal national religion.

 

[Meadmaker]

What I think is stupid is the idea that the guns are what causes the violence in our society

There might be people who think that, and if there are, that would be stupid. Violence has been part of every society since Cain slew Abel.* There has never been, and never will be, a society free of violence.

What our special society does is enable those with violent tendencies to greatly increase their ability to kill people if they choose to do so.

If we make the AR-15 and every other gun built on the AR-15 platform illegal, is that going to stop school shootings?

Some of them, yes. And it will lower the body count for some of the others.

BTW, you haven't told us which of your guns couldn't be used in a school shooting.

Not one of them could give me a body count of 17. The Mauser is the best I've got.

*Yes, I know it's a myth. Creation myths often include murder, because murder has been part of society since the dawn of time.

 

[Meadmaker]

There were lots of warnings, yes. And lots of failures.

It baffles me that the NRA et. al. are pushing the "failure of law enforcement" on this. Yes, this was a failure. Do they think it will be the last failure? What is shows is that the system didn't work, and any thinking person will realize that it will never work perfectly.


So in response to the failure in this case, what we look like we will get will be schools with lots of people packing heat, and a system where neighbors, families, and school officials are encouraged to turn in suspicious characters for investigation, and the authorities will be required to keep records of those reports and of the findings. What could go wrong?