School shooting Florida

[ponderingturtle]

Seriously my view is yes we should. People who are so stupid or so troubled that they think making such threats are OK should not be having access to firearms.

People need to accept responsibility for their actions.

Have you seen our president? There is nothing that the right wing hates more than the thoughts of being held accountable for their actions.

 

[lobosrul5]

No, according to a lot of dipsticks here the only purpose for a gun is to kill. They can not imagine someone enjoying the skill of achieving precision in longer range shooting or enjoying a day of shooting skeet (clays) simply because it's fun. Likely they live in a crowded city with no property available for shooting and think everyone else lives in the same environment or else have a dysfunctional family that gets in heated arguments sufficient to worry about someone harming another.

When I was a teenager my extended family routinely enjoyed many shooting events on holidays such as contests involving precision shooting rifle, pistol, and shotgun. No one ever considered that someone might shoot another human being. People who think that's the only purpose for guns obviously dysfunctional or mentally whacked and shouldn't ever be near a firearm. For them a society truly void of firearms may be the best thing that ever happen to them...

Yeah, and that's my whole mantra on gun control distilled. We need a better way to separate the "wheat from the chaff". There are people, and god knows I've met a few*, that shouldn't be allowed near a firearm. They are the exception rather than the rule though.

*My opinion started to shift around 2005 when a contractor at work decided to show me his conceal carry pistol, by taking it out, dropping the mag and racking the slide all while pointed right at my stomach. Given I was unarmed and he was buddies with boss I kept my obscenities to a minimum

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, and that's my whole mantra on gun control distilled. We need a better way to separate the "wheat from the chaff". There are people, and god knows I've met a few*, that shouldn't be allowed near a firearm. They are the exception rather than the rule though.

*My opinion started to shift around 2005 when a contractor at work decided to show me his conceal carry pistol, by taking it out, dropping the mag and racking the slide all while pointed right at my stomach. Given I was unarmed and he was buddies with boss I kept my obscenities to a minimum

But think about how much better a soldier he would be than you.

 

[IanS]

One view is that the American population need guns in case they need to fight their own government. Ironically the same reason the British government thought it wise to get guns out of circulation after WWI.

Whether the idea of a future tyrannical US government being overthrown by its own population is more or less realistic than the 1920s British establishment being overthrown by a socialist revolution is probably one for future historians, but my money's on the latter.

There were, I suppose, some who wanted or even expected the 1926 General Strike to tear down the UK establishment and build a Soviet-style workers paradise. With more weapons around there might have been attempts at armed insurrection even if it couldn't likely have succeeded.

Oh sure. I know that the NRA and many US gun enthusiasts would offer all sorts of reasons why they "need" guns. But of course their claims of "need" are patently absurd and obviously untrue (dishonest) - they do not "need" them for any such real issues (the believed issues are the actual "fantasy").

But in my case (and others who share my views), it might be better and less derogatory (I know you were not trying to be derogatory) to say I am an "idealist" ... just in the sense that I think the "ideal" outcome would be for no ordinary citizens to keep any loaded guns in private homes (it's way, WAY, too dangerous ... and the stats for gun deaths and injuries make that a certainty imho, i.e. it's just not arguable) ...

... is that an impossibility? Well right now it looks like a million to one shot that the US will ban all home ownership of guns in the foreseeable future (say within 50-100 years, though beyond 100 years who knows what may change). But as I suggested way back in this thread (a suggestion that probably shows that I am of course not a "fantasist"), one approach that a US government could take if it really did want to makes the US streets safer from the sort of gun crime that we are talking about here (i.e. school shootings and other spree shootings etc., but other sorts of public shootings too) is to gradually phase-in a program of more robust & really effective restrictions over a period of time (say 5, 10, 15 years) ... and the only reason for me suggesting that is (a) to diffuse some of the immediate hostility of gun owners who would be outraged at an instant ban on most of the guns they now own, and to give them time to get used to the idea that in the years ahead they will have to give up most of those particular types of guns (e.g. automatic and semi-auto rifles etc.), and to give gun manufactures and gun dealers and associated businesses time to plan for changes etc. ...

... that's not a magic bullet of course, but it might be one way to introduce a nation-wide program of really effective reform/change in US gun culture over what in the overall scheme of things would be a relatively short period of time. But it's just one idea that might be considered, and their might be much better ideas/suggestions, in which case lets hear them? ... what really effective changes could, or should, be introduced now?

 

[MikeG]

No, according to a lot of dipsticks here the only purpose for a gun is to kill...........

Is this really necessary? Couldn't we disagree without resorting to pejoratives? You'll get away with it because it's not aimed at a single poster, but it doesn't help foster good conversation if you use language like that.

Once you start generalising you make silly mistakes, such as assuming everyone who disagrees with you lives in a city. It's hard to get much more rural in the UK than where I live.

 

[Cheetah]

No, according to a lot of dipsticks here the only purpose for a gun is to kill. They can not imagine someone enjoying the skill of achieving precision in longer range shooting or enjoying a day of shooting skeet (clays) simply because it's fun.

It's a hobby then nothing more. Why are people so reluctant to having stricter gun control if it's a hobby? It makes your hobby a bit more effort, so what?

I'm not saying ban all guns, but even if you had to totally give up your hobby to save some lives, would that be a problem?

 

[IanS]

No, according to a lot of dipsticks here the only purpose for a gun is to kill.

OK, so what do you think all those guns were actually made for and designed for if not to kill things? Remember we are talking about all the guns of the type that people in the US typically keep in their own homes (the guns they can take out on to the streets for what they themselves are calling "self protection").

They can not imagine someone enjoying the skill of achieving precision in longer range shooting or enjoying a day of shooting skeet (clays) simply because it's fun.

I actually said several page back that although I personally do not see the attraction of spending my leisure time shooting at targets or skeets, I can understand that some people do find that fun. But nobody is stopping people from doing that! That's not stopped in the UK by any gun controls ... and you can always do that by having the guns kept securely on a club premises anyway (you don't need to keep loaded guns in your own home to do that).

 

[3point14]

It's a hobby then nothing more. Why are people so reluctant to having stricter gun control if it's a hobby? It makes your hobby a bit more effort, so what?

It's been sold, for years, as a 'right', so that's what people think it is. It isn't, it's a privilege, or should be, like driving a car or doing gas fitting.*


The trouble is, as it's been sold as a 'right' for years, it's really easy for those with a vested interest (people who sells guns, people who sell things about guns, those who own many guns, those that may one day want to go postal et al.) to link their right to a deadly weapon to, say, the right to free speech or the right to vote or the right to sack an employee without notice or reason. In the minds of the American people, and nowhere else, the right to own a firearm is equal and equivalent to the right to free speech. Nowhere else in the world is this the case.









*Of course, there's no such thing as a 'right', only privileges which can be won by force of action, but that's a whole other thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Really? It only takes a bit of "being inattentive" to kill yourself or others with a car. The driver is usually to blame, not the car.

Since you insist on this analogy...

Access to the car can make a difference.

Friends taking away the keys of the drunk friend at the party is an example.

The incorrigible 12 yr old left alone, the family's car keys hanging from the key board, car in the driveway gives the kid access to a dangerous device he could have been prevented from having.

Toddlers/young kids left playing in the car take it out of gear and take the brake off and the car rolls out into traffic wouldn't happen if the kids didn't have unsupervised access to the car.​

Access to guns is especially a problem for people with poor impulse control and anger management. If access were harder in a number of situations, less people would kill with guns.

 

[Craig B]

It's been sold, for years, as a 'right', so that's what people think it is. It isn't, it's a privilege, or should be, like driving a car or doing gas fitting.* ...

*Of course, there's no such thing as a 'right', only privileges which can be won by force of action, but that's a whole other thing.

That's a strange principle to propose. Take slavery, for example. It is a privilege, won by force of action, to own slaves; and if you're a slave it's a privilege, won by force of action, to become free. So in terms of "right" there is no difference.

For that matter, it's a privilege won by force of action to rob people of their money at gunpoint, and it's also a privilege won by force of action, to resist the assailant and keep your wallet, if you are the victim. But to say there is no distinction of right between these two people is to demolish the basis of all civilised society.

 

[smartcooky]

Virginia Tech was a pistol. And is still in the top 10 mass shootings though likely not for much longer.

Two pistols actually; a Walther P22 (.22 cal) and a Glock 19 (9mm)

 

[theprestige]

That's a strange principle to propose. Take slavery, for example. It is a privilege, won by force of action, to own slaves; and if you're a slave it's a privilege, won by force of action, to become free. So in terms of "right" there is no difference.

For that matter, it's a privilege won by force of action to rob people of their money at gunpoint, and it's also a privilege won by force of action, to resist the assailant and keep your wallet, if you are the victim. But to say there is no distinction of right between these two people is to demolish the basis of all civilised society.

And therefore...? What, exactly?

There's two general schools of thought on the subject of human rights. One is that "rights" are whatever you can compel by force, or that the government chooses to compel by force on your behalf. In this school of thought, slaves would not have a right to liberty, since their government did not compel it on their behalf. They might compel it themselves, but their ephemeral "right" to liberty would vanish the moment a prospective slave-owner took away their liberty.

Obviously that approach leaves a lot to be desired, especially if you've got hold of the "slave" end of the stick.

The other school of thought is that rights exist whether they're being compelled or not. Any government that permits slavery is violating human rights, regardless of how cromulent its free citizens find the arrangement.

 

[Bob001]

No, according to a lot of dipsticks here the only purpose for a gun is to kill. They can not imagine someone enjoying the skill of achieving precision in longer range shooting or enjoying a day of shooting skeet (clays) simply because it's fun. Likely they live in a crowded city with no property available for shooting and think everyone else lives in the same environment or else have a dysfunctional family that gets in heated arguments sufficient to worry about someone harming another.
.....

Reasonable people understand that firearms are an important part of U.S. history, and that they have legitimate uses for hunting, target shooting and self-defense. But all of those purposes can be fulfilled by revolvers, bolt-action rifles and double-barreled shotguns. The question is whether civilians need or should have semi-auto AR15s with 30-round magazines that fire 900 rounds a minute, or pistols with 17-round mags, which all came into the marketplace (very profitably for the makers) fairly recently. You don't have to ban them; just treat them like machine guns are now, with the same taxes and restrictions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just because something may take a generation or two does not make it not worth doing.

And just because you can't control all guns doesn't mean controlling some of them won't be of benefit.

And just because gun manufacturers will find ways around the law is no reason not to make the law. Laws can be rewritten or added to as needed.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

As you know, I have argued for 40 pages, and in previous threads, in favour of gun control in the USA. I don't agree with the extent of your proposals. It's difficult to understand why the USA would be expected to go from having the loosest gun regime in the modern industrialised world to a having a more restrictive regime than we have here in the UK. I think we might be better for arguing for something that is sensible, realistic and achievable, rather than providing ammunition for the paranoid who think everyone is out to get their guns.

I second this unreservedly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As long as there was no blood, he can't deal with blood: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-t...ust-while-a-man-bled-to-death-in-front-of-him

"...“I’m not good for medical. In other words, if you cut your finger and there’s blood pouring out, I’m gone,” he told Stern. ...“So what happens is, this guy falls off right on his face, hits his head, and I thought he died. And you know what I did? I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s disgusting,’ and I turned away,” said Trump. “I couldn’t, you know, he was right in front of me and I turned away. I didn’t want to touch him… he’s bleeding all over the place, I felt terrible. You know, beautiful marble floor, didn’t look like it. It changed color. Became very red. ... ..."

The most bizarre thing about that interview was using the word, "disgusting" to describe an injured bleeding person. That plus the rest of Trump's anecdote demonstrates a pathologic lack of empathy.

 

[smartcooky]

<polite snip>

In other words, one of the sources you cite at an example of someone wanting to ban guns is actually a quote from someone defending the right to own guns and opposing regulation of the international trade of guns.

"Shot himself in the foot" seems an appropriate response!

 

[Craig B]

And therefore...? What, exactly?


The other school of thought is that rights exist whether they're being compelled or not. Any government that permits slavery is violating human rights, regardless of how cromulent its free citizens find the arrangement.

The "what" is that I think that other school of thought is correct, in that if rights and compulsion were the same thing, organised society - never mind democracy - would become impossible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Virginia Tech was a pistol. And is still in the top 10 mass shootings though likely not for much longer.

From Wiki:

During this second assault, he had fired at least 174 rounds,[27][78] killing thirty people and wounding seventeen more.[6]:92 All of the victims were shot at least three times each; of the thirty killed, twenty-eight were shot in the head.[79][80] During the investigation, State Police Superintendent William Flaherty told a state panel that police found 203 live rounds in Norris Hall. "He was well prepared to continue on," Flaherty testified.[81]...

Cho's choice of 9 mm hollow-point ammunition increased the severity of the injuries.[83]

Surely he had some high capacity clips.

 

[3point14]

That's a strange principle to propose. Take slavery, for example. It is a privilege, won by force of action, to own slaves; and if you're a slave it's a privilege, won by force of action, to become free. So in terms of "right" there is no difference.

For that matter, it's a privilege won by force of action to rob people of their money at gunpoint, and it's also a privilege won by force of action, to resist the assailant and keep your wallet, if you are the victim. But to say there is no distinction of right between these two people is to demolish the basis of all civilised society.

There really isn't. A 'right' is something that enough people believe is a right at the time. There are no such things as born human rights, there are only enumerated rights, gained by force of numbers or force of arms.

"Rights" are situational, not a fundamental part of being a human.