Another School Shooting

[Thermal]

A little googling tells me that an AR with a folding stock and 16" barrel comes in a little longer than I thought, at around 28"., up to an 18" barrel and the more common collapsible buttstock coming in around 32".

 

[Thermal]

My understanding is that Colts mom called the school in panic warning mode, so the school was looking for colty boy and presumably anything he could be carrying a gun in. They may well have been looking for a handgun, having no real reason to rule one out at the time

 

[Andy_Ross]

Just pull two pins and the AR-15 is two separate parts, barrel with upper receiver and stock with lower receiver. Much shorter and easier to pack.

 

[HansMustermann]

Ah. Thanks for the information.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ah. Thanks for the information.

You pull the rear pin and the upper pivots forwards on the front pin to allow you to withdraw the bolt and bolt carrier for cleaning.

 

[RolandRat]

Not enough people want to change the Constitution to change it. Were you offering a solution to that. Or are you agreeing with me that the problem is intractable?

Is that true? Seems to be a hell of a lot of people in the USA that want stricter gun laws. Just seems the politicians listen to the vocal minority.

 

[HansMustermann]

I think that's more of a source bias. If you listen to the democrats, almost everyone (except a few loonies from the opposite side of the aisle) is against guns, if you listen to the republicans, everyone (ditto) would rather die than give up their guns.

In more grounded in reality terms, while the USA has more guns than people (including children), and generally 46% of the guns owned by civilians in the WHOLE WORLD... most PEOPLE in the USA actually don't own one, nor even live in a household with someone who does.

And, when you compensate for the fact that the former statistic is about total population, and the latter is about adults, it becomes even more skewed.

Basically what's skewing the statistic is that a minority own like 20+ guns each. It's just illustrating the difference between average and median. If you take the average of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 20, it will come back as 5, which sure as heck ain't the same as the median

But just try to convince some conservatives which don't even have a gun, or just have it locked away in a safe and never used it in the last 10 years, that one needs to limit access to guns, and they'll go butt-hurt that you want to disarm them to make them easy victims for some nefarious government conspiracy

 

[jeremyp]

As I said, the U.S. constitution guarantees that a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. That makes it next to impossible (at least under the current Supreme Court) to pass gun control laws that would pass constitutional muster, and it is next to impossible to amend the Constitution.

Everybody is quick to say how easy it should be to fix the gun violence problem in America, but when pressed, nobody can ever think of a viable solution.

As I understand it, people who have been convicted of a felony are not allowed to own guns. This is a gun control law that the supreme court has not struck down (as far as I know: the current SC might just do it). This gives the lie to your assertion.

Anyway, I can think of several ways to control guns that might have prevented this shooting and that would probably not fall foul of 2A.

Mandatory insurance would probably be a good one. The government can't place restrictions on gun ownership, but insurance companies can refuse to insure bad risks or raise the price to the point where owning a gun is not attractive. They might also mandate restrictions like "keep your gun in a cabinet to which any minors do not have access".

Liability for crimes committed with your gun would also help. If your gun is used to kill people, you are in the frame for a hefty prison sentence. A few well publicised cases would concentrate gun owners' minds on that one.

Banning the carrying of firearms in public spaces would help. Even just banning the carrying of firearms in business spaces where permission is not expressly granted would also have an impact. Going to a restaurant with the possibility of being arrested and doing jail time would be a strong incentive to leave your gun at home - or not own one.

You just need to think creatively and not go round wailing that you can't do anything because of 2A.

On that note, why not get rid of ******* 2A? I must admit that I have heard that "the US Constitution is set in stone, it can't be amended". But was from some peanut brain gun nut. Sure it's hard to get rid of 2A, but that doesn't mean you can't start trying. If people start campaigning to repeal 2A, one day it might happen. It sure as hell won't happen while you are just wailing that it's impossible while the bodies pile up around you.

 

[RolandRat]

I think that's more of a source bias. If you listen to the democrats, almost everyone (except a few loonies from the opposite side of the aisle) is against guns, if you listen to the republicans, everyone (ditto) would rather die than give up their guns.

In more grounded in reality terms, while the USA has more guns than people (including children), and generally 46% of the guns owned by civilians in the WHOLE WORLD... most PEOPLE in the USA actually don't own one, nor even live in a household with someone who does.

And, when you compensate for the fact that the former statistic is about total population, and the latter is about adults, it becomes even more skewed.

Basically what's skewing the statistic is that a minority own like 20+ guns each. It's just illustrating the difference between average and median. If you take the average of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 20, it will come back as 5, which sure as heck ain't the same as the median

But just try to convince some conservatives which don't even have a gun, or just have it locked away in a safe and never used it in the last 10 years, that one needs to limit access to guns, and they'll go butt-hurt that you want to disarm them to make them easy victims for some nefarious government conspiracy

Sounds like you're agreeing with me? I don't think the majority of people are against gun ownership per se, they just understand that sensible control is needed to try and limit them getting into the hands of the mentally ill/unsuitable.

 

[Darat]

I think that's more of a source bias. If you listen to the democrats, almost everyone (except a few loonies from the opposite side of the aisle) is against guns, if you listen to the republicans, everyone (ditto) would rather die than give up their guns.

...snip...

Who and where?

 

[Carrot Flower King]

As I understand it, people who have been convicted of a felony are not allowed to own guns. This is a gun control law that the supreme court has not struck down (as far as I know: the current SC might just do it). This gives the lie to your assertion.

Anyway, I can think of several ways to control guns that might have prevented this shooting and that would probably not fall foul of 2A.

Mandatory insurance would probably be a good one. The government can't place restrictions on gun ownership, but insurance companies can refuse to insure bad risks or raise the price to the point where owning a gun is not attractive. They might also mandate restrictions like "keep your gun in a cabinet to which any minors do not have access".

Liability for crimes committed with your gun would also help. If your gun is used to kill people, you are in the frame for a hefty prison sentence. A few well publicised cases would concentrate gun owners' minds on that one.

Banning the carrying of firearms in public spaces would help. Even just banning the carrying of firearms in business spaces where permission is not expressly granted would also have an impact. Going to a restaurant with the possibility of being arrested and doing jail time would be a strong incentive to leave your gun at home - or not own one.

You just need to think creatively and not go round wailing that you can't do anything because of 2A.

On that note, why not get rid of ******* 2A? I must admit that I have heard that "the US Constitution is set in stone, it can't be amended". But was from some peanut brain gun nut. Sure it's hard to get rid of 2A, but that doesn't mean you can't start trying. If people start campaigning to repeal 2A, one day it might happen. It sure as hell won't happen while you are just wailing that it's impossible while the bodies pile up around you.

Yeahbut, Jeremy, you, like me and various others here, are a Nogunz Brit and we've already been told that we are not worthy of respect and that our views, no matter that we think them sensible, are not worth considering.

Just remember that something someone or other decided in a quite different society some time ago means that is it: no change can be allowed...

 

[Darat]

Why not require that all guns when not being used must be stored locked up and the same for the ammunition (separately from the gun)?

Nobody is being denied the right to own a firearm.

 

[HansMustermann]

Sounds like you're agreeing with me?

Mostly.

I don't think the majority of people are against gun ownership per se, they just understand that sensible control is needed to try and limit them getting into the hands of the mentally ill/unsuitable.

Sorta, sorta not. I'm under the impression that even that meets with some resistance.

Not that it would actually make a difference anyway, at least not the way some of those are willing to make the concession. Nobody spends their 80 year long life being schizophrenic. (And I'm not using that as a pejorative.) People that were perfectly fine 10 years ago, slide into insanity at some point. Or someone is normal, gets bitten by some tick, gets Lyme disease, and shoots up the church. (Or at least that's literally what was blamed for at least one shooter.) Or whatever.

The idea that once you're checked, you're good to go for ever is kinda a problem. Is all I'm saying.

 

[Trausti]

Yeahbut, Jeremy, you, like me and various others here, are a Nogunz Brit and we've already been told that we are not worthy of respect and that our views, no matter that we think them sensible, are not worth considering.

Just remember that something someone or other decided in a quite different society some time ago means that is it: no change can be allowed...

LOL. In the UK people are thrown into jail for Tweets. Freedom of speech is meaningless without the right to bear arms.

 

[The Atheist]

Just remember that something someone or other decided in a quite different society some time ago means that is it: no change can be allowed...

It's pretty funny when you think about it. All the fuss about Trump v Harris, yet neither of them can do anything in the face of the scared document.

I feel it should be like a TV skit - whenever "THE CONSTITUTION" is mentioned, it should come with an echo and flashing lights.

 

[Trausti]

It's pretty funny when you think about it. All the fuss about Trump v Harris, yet neither of them can do anything in the face of the scared document.

I feel it should be like a TV skit - whenever "THE CONSTITUTION" is mentioned, it should come with an echo and flashing lights.

Do you feel that way about all the Bill of Rights?

 

[Thermal]

It's pretty funny when you think about it. All the fuss about Trump v Harris, yet neither of them can do anything in the face of the scared document.

I feel it should be like a TV skit - whenever "THE CONSTITUTION" is mentioned, it should come with an echo and flashing lights.

Americans have their rights trampled on daily. That little document can not only reverse some of the damage, but prevents some from trying in the first place, knowing they will eventually lose big. It ain't perfect (which is why it can be and has been amended, many times), but it still packs a punch.

 

[Thermal]

Why not require that all guns when not being used must be stored locked up and the same for the ammunition (separately from the gun)?

Nobody is being denied the right to own a firearm.

They'd stay in use constantly, ie carried. Which we ain't getting around any time soon courtesy of Bruen.

 

[sarge]

As I said, the U.S. constitution guarantees that a citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. That makes it next to impossible (at least under the current Supreme Court) to pass gun control laws that would pass constitutional muster, and it is next to impossible to amend the Constitution.

Everybody is quick to say how easy it should be to fix the gun violence problem in America, but when pressed, nobody can ever think of a viable solution.

The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does. To any high school graduate with a brain the 2A links bearing arms with participating in the national defense. We don’t need to change the constitution. We need only change two members of the Supreme Court, and then have the States and Congress start passing laws.

 

[theprestige]

The constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it does. To any high school graduate with a brain the 2A links bearing arms with participating in the national defense.

Participating in personal and community defense, in the absence of a national defense force that can reach a threatened community in time to make a difference.

That's what it meant at the time, and that context is still relevant today.

The residents of Koreatown mounting an armed defense of their community during the LA riots, when the LAPD and LASD couldn't or wouldn't defend them*, is exactly the kind of thing the 2nd Amendment provides for, now as much as then. And it's exactly the kind of thing that can't be provided for, without securing a personal right to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

Also, I think you're giving the modern American education system way too much credit, in terms of the quality of teaching and thinking it offers its students.

---
*Let alone the national armed forces!