After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Yeap so lets look at mental health and taking threats seriously before nuts do nutty things.

Its simple things like that.

 

They have already told my sister they want to pay her to open carry. She's an elementary school teacher who is not comfortable with this. But she teaches in a small farm town which is of course pro gun. So as a young teacher she is worried she does not have reputation to be hired someplace else. She is still young. Odd thing is they already have teachers who do this it's on a sign at the door and you have to be buzzed into the building. When I visited she had to give the office ladies the OK that she knew me. Seems like the school is safe already.

 

Pfft. Just change tactics. Get a big fat truck and run people over in the parking lot. Seems there's a serial bomber in Austin. Sends packages in the mail that blow up in peoples faces. If someone wants it badly enough people will ge got.

 

So what's being done about improving mental health? In my state, nothing. In fact, the trend is in the opposite direction, because the state legislature has given away all the money in tax breaks and tax cuts. Mental health is just a slogan used to divert attention from gun control.

 

I think you need an at-the-source implementation of mental health standards. No disconnect between who is crazy and who gets a gun. If you haven't been evaluated, you don't get one. Let that be that.

As long as we're at it, we might mention that the Dickey Amendment needs repealing.

 

Consistent evaluations, insurance, and a license that needs to be renewed often all at the gun owner's expense just like cars and a home.
Regardless of how much a of a "good guy" you fancy yourself you are taking a HUGE financial and physical liability on yourself and those around you with that gun. Americans needs to know you can handle that. It's not some big brother oppression it's just common sense.

The NRA will hate it but long term they will have to compromise. The youth are not really invested in guns, some are but most are not. I think that's why they have made such a point to shame the Florida kids and make them feel stupid for trying to do something. All they have is the old "fucking millennial" argument to satisfy their base. A base that is already pissed off because they can see that America is still not what they want. All they have is an electoral college not the true change in culture to kill the liberal. So deep down they fear what happens in 5 or 10 years.

More companies are not wanting to deal with this in your face gun attitude. Plenty of them would rather you take your money elsewhere than open carry in their store. You have a lawful right perhaps but they have the right to refuse service to anyone. Sometimes it's a cake sometimes it's an AR-15 but either way they do not agree with your lifestyle.

One lady is trying to sue because she was making Facebook posts about open carrying and she was fired from her job. Her employer said what if you want to have the gun here? Any HR department with half a brain sees that legal liability coming a mile away. She probably has some sort of case because HR made the mistake of hiring her already. Had they done the simple Facebook check they would see the truth.

 

Mental health and free speech. Even the most deranged individual can speak up.

 

Not according to the study done by the government after the ban was lifted.

First off, The 2nd amendment isn't about need. You don't need a Lamborghini or a 5,000 sq. ft house. Secondly, the AR has many practical implications for civilians.

Evidence?

I see no reason not to ban sports cars by your logic.

Like how the ban on drugs reduced the number of drugs found on the street?

I have no problem with it whatsoever. And I don't see how a barrel shroud adds to the pistol's deadlyness.

I'd think twice before telling me that I don't understand what an assault weapon is and how are they implemented. After all who has a gun and Bible in his avatar? First off, a true assault weapon is a select fire rifle. Meaning it can go from semi automatic to burst or full automatic fire. They are extremely hard to get for their price and the amount of paperwork and background checks. Hardly anyone owns such weapons. Second, the assault rifle was designed to sustain a firefight. Not necessarily killing a lot a people in a short amount of time. In fact the AR's 5.56mm round was actually designed to wound as it'll cause the enemy to dedicate men to tend to the wounded.

As explained above, that's not true. And going with what you think is an assault weapon that's not true either.

Here's a man with a hunting AR.



Here's a competition (target shooting) AR.

There is no evidence that banning "high" capacity magazines will decrease the number of deaths. Both the most deadliest school shooting and the recent school shooting the shooter used ten round magazines. preventing easily removable magazines didn't prevent the San Bernardo shooting in California which bans such magazines. Please define high velocity because all guns that shoot semi automatic shoot as fast as the shooter pulls the trigger. Pistol grips means nothing to a person who isn't trained. Pistols are even more compact than the AR. Shooting from the hip with a rifle with a pistol grip is actually harder than doing it with a traditional stock, not to mention the fact that hip shooting is extremely inaccurate. Silencers aren't that silent. they are as load as a jackhammer or a loud rock concert. Why ban bayonet lugs? Has there been an epidemic of bayonet charges in the streets that I wasn't aware about? Even the military hardly fix bayonets anymore. What's wrong with muzzle brakes? Bump stock do not turn any gun into an automatic weapon by legal and mechanical definition. I don't mean to be rude but your post sounds like you searched up "common anti gun phrases" and C&Ped it here.

 

I think that by high velocity, Balbus means ballisticaly in feet per second.

Which is a ridiculous metric to use for gun control as far as I can tell.

 

Would the gun lobbyists stop fucking repeating the same crap over and over

This has already been covered and as pointed out it isn’t ‘simple’ and to do it correctly it would cost money that many on the right would refuse to a lot.

Some in the right wing gun lobby have complained that gun issue threads always seem to end up been ‘circular’ with the same argument been repeated.

I will say again - honest and rational debate is supposed to be linear – someone presents an argument, the presentation or statement is criticised, then the next step is the person addressing the criticisms or if unable to do so adapting or dropping that argument or taking back the statement.

The problem and reason why so many arguments involving the gun lobbyists here go circular is because many of them are not honest or rational debater’s because while being unable to address the criticisms they refuse to adapt or drop their arguments.

In other words they repeat the same crap argument knowing full well they are crap and have already been covered and the criticisms against them are still very much outstanding.

 

OK - AGAIN –

It’s not that simple to decide who is a ‘nut’ who constitutes a ‘serious threat’.

A number of people on this forum and in the gun lobby have said openly that they have guns specifically or in part so they can kill police officers if they feel the need. Are they are ‘serious threat’ should they be not allowed to own guns?

Many in the gun lobby seem to hold views that I (and others) would say were delusional and borderline paranoid with beliefs that are mentally unhealthy, does that make them ‘nuts’ and likely to do ‘nutty things’.

Also as many here have pointed out the problem with easy access to guns in the US is not just limited to what are termed ‘mass shootings’ done by ‘nutters’ but involves the day to day incidences of crime and domestic disputes that make up an even larger number of deaths not to mention the high level of gun related suicides.

And many of these can also be connected to mental health issue brought on by socio-economic factors that can turn up the fear and stress levels to the point of aggression or depression, when people do things that they otherwise would not do.

*

The best way to tackle mental health in its broader sense is though policy and infrastructure changes – welfare, social services, drug regulation, universal healthcare, education and training etc. This is already done in many countries in the UK most mental health issues are dealt with by the NHS and Social Services and in extreme case people can be Sectioned hospitalise for you own good if you are seen as a threat to yourself or others (but that is often after they have tried to ‘do’ something).

The problem in the US is that many on the right and in the gun lobby oppose the financing of such programmes.

And now we come to where ease of access to guns comes in – in the UK there is not ease of access in the US there is. This means that the potential for guns to getting into the hands of people is much more likely and supposedly one in five Americans have experience mental health problems at some time in their life.

So ease of access to guns is a major factor in the numbers of people that may act out of a mental health problem (do nutty things) with a gun.

 

Would the gun lobbyists stop fucking repeating the same crap over and over

This has already been covered

Some in the right wing gun lobby have complained that gun issue threads always seem to end up been ‘circular’ with the same argument been repeated.

I will say again - honest and rational debate is supposed to be linear – someone presents an argument, the presentation or statement is criticised, then the next step is the person addressing the criticisms or if unable to do so adapting or dropping that argument or taking back the statement.

The problem and reason why so many arguments involving the gun lobbyists here go circular is because many of them are not honest or rational debater’s because while being unable to address the criticisms they refuse to adapt or drop their arguments.

In other words they repeat the same crap argument knowing full well they are crap and have already been covered and the criticisms against them are still very much outstanding.

 

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city – Philadelphia* – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).

So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons?

*I was comparing a couple of urban areas of roughly the same size and population density

Philadelphia - population density of 11,457 people per square mile
London - population density of 11,760 people per square mile

 

Yes some Americans are more murderous than others.

 

It won't get 20 minutes of media interest. Doesn't fit the liberal agenda. The shooting earlier in the week, doesn't even get discussed why it wasn't worse. Not hard to figure out why.

 

Would the gun lobbyists stop fucking repeating the same crap over and over

This has already been covered

Some in the right wing gun lobby have complained that gun issue threads always seem to end up been ‘circular’ with the same argument been repeated.

I will say again - honest and rational debate is supposed to be linear – someone presents an argument, the presentation or statement is criticised, then the next step is the person addressing the criticisms or if unable to do so adapting or dropping that argument or taking back the statement.

The problem and reason why so many arguments involving the gun lobbyists here go circular is because many of them are not honest or rational debater’s because while being unable to address the criticisms they refuse to adapt or drop their arguments.

In other words they repeat the same crap argument knowing full well they are crap and have already been covered and the criticisms against them are still very much outstanding.

 

OK let’s play -So you think some Americans are hereditarily, genetically, more violent than other humans beings and so which Americans are these?

 

What the fuck are you on about?

We are talking about prudent gun control much of it supported by people on the right and some 66% of Americans.

I know the far right want to portray the call for any gun control as some left wing conspiracy theory woow the liberal agenda but I don't think any rational person would.

 

You tell us. Youre the smart one.

We didn't always have these problems in America. It's been created in recent decades of our history.

Let's see, we've heard it's complicated. It's socio economic, it's lack of education, it's lack of opportunity, it was about family values but then it wasn't. It will take scholars with advanced degrees to explain it to us simple minded folk. All of this has been said for years. And yet the problem continues unabated. We have more human trash in this country than we ever have.

Explain how we have managed to do that?

 

Not

That was only first draft – it was changed to

OK let’s play -So you think some Americans are hereditarily, genetically, more violent than other humans beings and so which Americans are these?

*

Anyway – so you don’t know – you are asking me - because you don’t know – why don’t you know I mean why the fuck say it - if you don’t fucking know?

Again what are you going on about –what has been created in the recent decades of American history?

Who are these ‘human trash’ you are talking about?

 

Here is an excerpt from an article about the need to ban high capacity magazines.

Why We Must Ban High-Capacity Gun Magazines | HuffPost

On a side note, I think it's ridiculous that there are no statistics being used by the gun advocates on this site. Those who favor gun control have diligently provided links, submitted statistics, and argued fairly and with dignity in favor of stronger and better gun control measures. None of your arguments seems to be as scientific. It's easy - copy & paste, insert link, done.

My thoughts: It just so happens that there is an amendment that presently blocks the CDC from participating in this debate. The CDC is the Center for Disease Control. The Dickey Amendment currently blocks them. I think we can all agree that if we want better gun control it ought to be based on sound data. Can we agree to repeal the Dickey Amendment?

Also, many times mental health has been brought into the discussion as a fix all remedy for gun violence. The argument seems to go: the only people committing murder are crazy. What if there were a requirement that a gun owner must first be evaluated for mental health risks before purchasing a gun? That could be a requirement for owning one. Otherwise the mental health programs are playing catch up.

 

Ahhh, a crazy until proven otherwise provision added to our already comprehensive gun control laws.

 

Well, it says they were "injured'--meaning not killed. Kids died in the school shootings. Nobody died in the stabbings. And the school was not equipped with metal detectors. Here is some of the national and local media coverage of the event, which happened in 2014, by CNN, the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.
After Pennsylvania school stabbing, authorities, community ask: 'Why?' - CNN
Teen charged as adult in stabbings at Pa. school - CNN
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis
Student Stabs 21 People at a High School Outside Pittsburgh
22 injured in stabbing rampage at Pa. high school
NBC News
https://nypost.com/2017/10/24/man-pleads-guilty-to-high-school-stabbing-rampage/
24 Injured In Stabbing At Franklin Regional High School Franklin Regional attacker Alex Hribal claims bullying, gets up to 60 years in prison

 

He's on about other stuff than gun control. Yet the main reason why no other western country has developed this sick and excessive problem with gun violence is because of gun control.
It's fair and sensible too to consider other options as being part of the problem. I personally find it obvious that there is a pill problem in the US, and not implausible it has something to do with these disturbed people shooting up crowds. But motives and the whole picture matters.
As NotMyRealName made clear with his proposal of only banning the AR15 and his preferred and false outcome his motive of that experiment with gun control, or his arguing for other solutions in this thread, is not a sincere craving to decrease mass and/or school shootings. It is to make sure gun control is not improved.