Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

[shemp]

This assumes that a majority held Dem Senate would even pass such laws and not be stymied by conservatives within their own party, which is a recurring problem.
Dems could absolutely make an issue of this. Try to pass a bill and do a roll call vote and get people (Republican and Democrats) on the record. Make a pledge to do something should they ever hit some majority threshold.

The party always makes vague statements about what could happen if only the people voted a bit harder, but the lack of specifics and accountability is pretty glaring.

Well, there sure as hell aren't any Republicans who will do it, so let's elect Democrats until we get a majority who will.

On a personal note, I want people to know that I am not enamored of the Democratic party. But if I'm going to get **** on by a donkey or an elephant, the donkey isn't as bad.

 

[Rolfe]

I've seen surveys that suggest that about 40% of U.S. households own at least one gun. Allowing that some percentage of them are not kooks, I'm willing to say that the number of U.S. citizens who are kooks is at least 1 in 4. I refuse to go any lower.

As far as why, my take, in short, is that it's a combination of "frontier spirit," racism, old-time religion, and fear stoked by entities that have political and economic reasons. I'm sure other reasons could be added. A fuller discussion would require its own thread.

In 2000 I went to Tennessee to spend Thanksgiving with a friend - she had invited a bunch of people from all over to spend several days with her. One of the first things that happened was a safety tour of her small house, pointing out potential hazards. Possibly required under her insurance policy, I didn't think to ask.

One of the hazards she pointed out (or rather pointed out the location of, I didn't actually see the gun) was a rifle or a shotgun hidden behind either her bed or the cabinet beside her bed.

 

[Nessie]

How did Australia do it?

I do not know enough about Australian gun control to be able to say for any certainty. I suspect they did not have anything like the amount of guns the USA has, far more of those guns were licenced so that the authorities knew who had guns and the gun culture is not so strong, that after the Port Arthur massacre, people were willing to give up guns.

I do know that the UK had its guns well under control already, with strict licensing, before Hungerford and then Dunblane. It was an easy enough process to remove mass fire automatic and then handguns from circulation, because we knew exactly who had what gun. Add that to the UK gun culture, which is primarily one of "why does anyone need a gun?" and it is easy to see how the UK is pushing an open door when it comes to gun control.

I would image Australia is somewhere between the UK and USA, but closer to the USA in terms of already have many of its guns under control and a culture where giving up guns is seen as a solution to mass shootings.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Well, there sure as hell aren't any Republicans who will do it, so let's elect Democrats until we get a majority who will.

On a personal note, I want people to know that I am not enamored of the Democratic party. But if I'm going to get **** on by a donkey or an elephant, the donkey isn't as bad.

The problem is that credibility matters when making these kinds of promises, and time and time again the Democrats have shown that even in moments where they have opportunity to act (thanks to people voting blue), they'll trip over their own feet because members within their party buck the party line.

It's a glaring comparison to the Republican who have the patience and discipline to keep their coalition on message and focused to the point where they can spend decades with their nose to the grindstone to get broadly popular rights rolled back. Meanwhile Democrats are endlessly galloping to the right seeking out the mythical "centrist swing voter" to the point that their party line is totally incomprehensible and self-contradictory.

ETA: This opinion piece says it much clearer. Specificity is important, not just vague promises:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/25/democrats-chris-murphy-action-shooting/

 

[shemp]

In 2001 I went to Tennessee to spend Thanksgiving with a friend - she had invited a bunch of people from all over to spend several days with her. One of the first things that happened was a safety tour of her small house, pointing out potential hazards. Possibly required under her insurance policy, I didn't think to ask.

One of the hazards she pointed out (or rather pointed out the location of, I didn't actually see the gun) was a rifle or a shotgun hidden behind either her bed or the cabinet beside her bed.

If this was a rural area, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a rifle or shotgun; bears and other wildlife can be dangerous. You also may be in an area where it would take some time for police to reach you in the event of a burglary or home invasion.

I am not opposed to possessing single-shot rifles, shotguns and some types of handguns. I am opposed to:

1. High powered, high capacity guns. These should only be available for legitimate military purposes, and maybe some police purposes.

2. People with a history of felonies and/or mental illness possessing any kind of gun.

3. People being able to own any kind of gun without a permit and without state and national registry, and without proper training.

 

[Andy_Ross]

King Manchin has spoken



https://www.businessinsider.com/manchin-filibuster-texas-elementary-school-shooting-2022-5

So that's a wrap. See yall later to do the same dance after the next schoolhouse massacre.

Now is not the time.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Now is not the time.

Lol it's exactly the time.

The notion that politics is some gentlemanly sport for leisure and not, ya know, about passing policy to meet the needs of a society is a unique form of mental illness that seemingly only plagues do-nothing centrists.

Politicians aren't priests, they aren't our mommy and daddy, and they aren't our friends. We don't need their kind words and platitudes in response to tragedy, we need them to use the power vested in them to take action. it's literally why their jobs exist.

There's no virtue to pissing away opportunity and letting your voting base become more disaffected.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Lol it's exactly the time.

The notion that politics is some gentlemanly sport for leisure and not, ya know, about passing policy to meet the needs of a society is a unique form of mental illness that seemingly only plagues do-nothing centrists.

Politicians aren't priests, they aren't our mommy and daddy, and they aren't our friends. We don't need their kind words and platitudes in response to tragedy, we need them to use the power vested in them to take action. it's literally why their jobs exist.

There's no virtue to pissing away opportunity and letting your voting base become more disaffected.

Now is not the time, don't use this tragedy to score political points, let's look at it later in a more rational way.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Now is not the time, don't use this tragedy to score political points, let's look at it later in a more rational way.

Absolute loser mentality.

Imagine telling Australians that "now is not the time" after the Port Arthur massacre. What a joke.

 

[Rolfe]

If this was a rural area, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have a rifle or shotgun; bears and other wildlife can be dangerous. You also may be in an area where it would take some time for police to reach you in the event of a burglary or home invasion.

It was a very ordinary new-build suburban street in Hendersonville. The house was an end-terrace. Modern houses, almost "urban sprawl". I really don't see wildlife as an issue. I also don't think police access was likely to be an issue.

The gun was right beside her bed, not locked away in a safe place. In a house absolutely surrounded by neighbours. I can't see any reason for it being a difficult place for police to reach.

Burglaries happen everywhere. Women with lethal firearms within reach of their beds, not so much.

 

[Tero]

Now is the time. Pile on everything to 2022 election
-Abortion
-Voting rights
-gun violence

 

[Andy_Ross]

Absolute loser mentality.

Imagine telling Australians that "now is not the time" after the Port Arthur massacre. What a joke.

You can't make decisions until after the funerals and the police investigation.
Then, with all the facts assembled a consensus can be reached free of the emotion of the event.

Of course by then there will have been another massacre and the clock will reset.


I'm just following the script.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You can't make decisions until after the funerals and the police investigation.
Then, with all the facts assembled a consensus can be reached free of the emotion of the event.

Of course by then there will have been another massacre and the clock will reset.


I'm just following the script.

I see that I have ate the onion

 

[Bob001]

I note again Chris Rock's solution: Make bullets (yeah, I know a bullet is part of a cartridge) cost $5,000 each (and this was some years ago; he may be suggesting a higher price today). Nothing in the Constitution says anything about "keeping and bearing" bullets. Threats would go like this:

"I'm gonna kill you! I'm gonna cap your ass! I'm gonna sell my car and get a second job and save all my money, and as soon as I can afford my bullet you better run!"

Seriously, it might be tough to limit firearms, but I would think cartridges could be regulated like explosive devices, which are severely restricted.

 

[Rolfe]

I do not know enough about Australian gun control to be able to say for any certainty. I suspect they did not have anything like the amount of guns the USA has, far more of those guns were licenced so that the authorities knew who had guns and the gun culture is not so strong, that after the Port Arthur massacre, people were willing to give up guns.

I do know that the UK had its guns well under control already, with strict licensing, before Hungerford and then Dunblane. It was an easy enough process to remove mass fire automatic and then handguns from circulation, because we knew exactly who had what gun. Add that to the UK gun culture, which is primarily one of "why does anyone need a gun?" and it is easy to see how the UK is pushing an open door when it comes to gun control.

I would image Australia is somewhere between the UK and USA, but closer to the USA in terms of already have many of its guns under control and a culture where giving up guns is seen as a solution to mass shootings.

There has been a huge change though, over a substantial period. I remember reading a children's book written in (I think) the early 20th century (could have been the late 19th) for a reading group. In that book a young boy scraped together all the money he could to buy a gun. (This was intended as assistance to an adult male fugitive he was sheltering, but the gun shop didn't know that.) He didn't have enough for what he wanted and the gun shop owner took pity on this kid who had obviously emptied his piggy bank and let him have something suitable at a knock-down price. The kid exited the shop with the gun. I don't think he even had to give his name.

It was written as if this was entirely normal and nothing out of the ordinary. Somehow we got from there to here.

I have read other literature that suggests the problem in the USA is the mentality of the people, not gun ownership and availability as such. They point to countries like Canada and Switzerland where people are apparently armed to the teeth, but this sort of thing happens rarely if at all.

But it's not just Mericans, it happened in Australia and in Britain too. And people tend to be people wherever they are. There's something uniquely toxic about the mixture in America and I don't entirely know why.

 

[Darat]

I do not know enough about Australian gun control to be able to say for any certainty. I suspect they did not have anything like the amount of guns the USA has, far more of those guns were licenced so that the authorities knew who had guns and the gun culture is not so strong, that after the Port Arthur massacre, people were willing to give up guns.

I do know that the UK had its guns well under control already, with strict licensing, before Hungerford and then Dunblane. It was an easy enough process to remove mass fire automatic and then handguns from circulation, because we knew exactly who had what gun. Add that to the UK gun culture, which is primarily one of "why does anyone need a gun?" and it is easy to see how the UK is pushing an open door when it comes to gun control.

I would image Australia is somewhere between the UK and USA, but closer to the USA in terms of already have many of its guns under control and a culture where giving up guns is seen as a solution to mass shootings.

I remember pointing out that prior to the Dunblane restrictions there were just over 3 million people legally owning guns in the UK, and after the changes there were still just over 3 million people legally owning guns. The post-Dunblane changes took away about 50,000 guns.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I remember pointing out that prior to the Dunblane restrictions there were just over 3 million people legally owning guns in the UK, and after the changes there were still just over 3 million people legally owning guns. The post-Dunblane changes took away about 50,000 guns.

At least in the US, the mid 90's were a time of pretty radical change within the shooting community. There was definitely a shift away from "sporting arms" into more fascination with tactical and military weapons.

The modern day NRA and shooting culture is a far cry from the fudds in hunter orange of yesteryear.

The fact that such restrictions didn't actually take that many guns away just shows how popular certain types of weapons hadn't become yet. Meanwhile, in the US, semi-auto rifles and pistols have been selling like hotcakes for decades.

 

[Bob001]

I remember pointing out that prior to the Dunblane restrictions there were just over 3 million people legally owning guns in the UK, and after the changes there were still just over 3 million people legally owning guns. The post-Dunblane changes took away about 50,000 guns.

I note that "legally owning guns" means something different in the UK than in the U.S. As I understand it, handguns are so tightly restricted as to be effectively banned, and licensing, registration, background checks, police interviews and other measures are imposed on every owner of rifles and shotguns, self-defense is not a valid reason for possession, and there are no AR15s and other semi-automatics. In the U.S., pretty much anybody other than convicted felons can legally get any kind of firearm short of a machine gun.

 

[Bob001]

Gov. Abbott is on TV now holding forth about how the solution to mass killings is improved mental health services.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Gov. Abbott is on TV now holding forth about how the solution to mass killings is improved mental health services.

Wow, wouldn't have thought a Republican would have come out in support for free medical care.

Surely this is what he means, right?