More mass shootings

[Erroll 49]

5 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Australia did a pretty good job of stopping these kinds of attacks (maybe*). They took away almost all of the guns. But they had a fairly small population and the guns were all registered with the government, so they knew exactly who had what.

Alas....

From CNN.

At least four people were killed in the city of Darwin 

Edited June 5, 2019 by Erroll

[mistercwood 287]

6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

* - I say 'maybe' because Australia took the extreme measure of banning virtually all repeating firearms in the wake of a single shooting incident. It was the first one in their history. Would they have had another one had they not banned the guns? Perhaps. 

Minor quibble, but it wasn't our first by any stretch, but it was the worst by a significant margin.

I don't believe what worked for us would work for you, the starting environments are too far apart. I think a combination of a national registry and much stricter enforcement of existing laws are the starting points for gun reform in the US... though I know the former will never get anywhere because it will always be painted as the gateway to confiscation, regardless of whether that fear is valid.

So, you get what you have.

Edited June 5, 2019 by mistercwood

[mistercwood 287]

EDIT: Duplicate, first time posting since the move.

Edited June 5, 2019 by mistercwood

[DJL 232]

12 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

As I posted before, that sort of solution would have a very hard time of it in the US. The destruction of a variety of other civil rights that would have to happen in the process would get ugly. 

The best we could do is put laws into effect that doesn't require confiscation and let time do its work.  Require all sales to be through a FFL holder at penalty of X dollars if the weapon is found out of that person's control (Wups, didn't know it got stolen = $XXX.XX fine).

12 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The problem with most (all?) of the proposals so far is that they limit the rights of those who don't break the laws while having little or no effect on the ones who commit these acts.

Yes, there will be a period in which law abiding people have some more difficulty in having a firearm but that statement isn't accurate.  Almost all weapons used in the perpetration of a crime started in the legal market and got out of it because of lax oversight.  There are also many examples of legislation restricting the type of weapon that's available that consequently restrict it in the criminal world.  Take fully automatic weapons for example, 100 years ago we made laws that tightly restricted their use, now they're an anomaly in the crime world.  If you think one type of gun is great for home defense, please explain how a machine gun wouldn't be even better.  Same can apply to semi-auto weapons with X bullet type, X magazine size.  (And before anyone says you can just add a drum clip to any receiver, all new weapons, not existing.  No more bottom/open clip receivers.)

Edit: This doesn't address the issue of mass shootings, simply gun crimes.  There simply is no quick fix for mass shootings considering the quantity of firearms in the US.  The only measures we could make are for magazine size and gun type and that would still take a long time to work it's way out and would only help in making the outcomes less severe.

Edited June 5, 2019 by DJL

[normiss 622]

13 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The problem with most (all?) of the proposals so far is that they limit the rights of those who don't break the laws while having little or no effect on the ones who commit these acts.

This could easily be seen as an innocent dead victim perspective.

Their right to life has been seriously limited.

[billvon 2,394]

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Shootings like the last one in Virginia Beach don't happen as often as that.  Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there were 150 mass shootings so far this year, but about half of those didn't have any fatalities - and that's why you don't hear about them in the news.

Agreed.  I was referring to the Texas shooting that killed 2 and wounded 3; it happened a few days before the Virginia shooting.   

There have been 148 mass shootings in the US so far this year, counted as 4 or more wounded or killed by the same shooter.  There have been 11 mass killings this year, counted as 4 or more killed by the same shooter.  That's why the next shooting won't get as much attention - because they happen very, very often.  Even if they kill a bunch of people.

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, normiss said:

This could easily be seen as an innocent dead victim perspective.

Their right to life has been seriously limited.

Yeah, nevermind those inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Edited June 5, 2019 by DJL

[SkyDekker 1,121]

15 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

That depends. Would the 'change that limited rights' have any real effects?

 

The problem with most (all?) of the proposals so far is that they limit the rights of those who don't break the laws while having little or no effect on the ones who commit these acts.

Mandate biometric devices on all guns, severe penalties for those with guns without biometric devices.

[timski 80]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Mandate biometric devices on all guns, severe penalties for those with guns without biometric devices.

https://filmgoblin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/judge-dredd-under-arrest.jpg

[airdvr 197]

Frankly it doesn't seem to be the criminal element that's involved in the mass shootings (except in Chiraq where ti seems to be the social norm).  What do you do about the mentally unbalanced?  I'm certain this guy wouldn't have shown up on anyone's radar.

[DJL 232]

49 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I'm certain this guy wouldn't have shown up on anyone's radar.

Except he didn't.  And what radar?  And I'm certain that if single shot bolt action weapons were the only choice available to the civilian market then this guy might think it would just be easier to go on a nice vacation and jump off a cliff somewhere rather than gun down the people he had worked with for years.

Edited June 6, 2019 by DJL

[Coreece 190]

8 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Frankly it doesn't seem to be the criminal element that's involved in the mass shootings (except in Chiraq where ti seems to be the social norm).

They call it Chiraq to make a clear distinction between the poverty stricken gun-plagued black neighborhoods of chicago and and the safe rich white people neighborhoods with hi-rise condos and gated communities - and then they have the balls to say, "see, chicago isn't THAT bad!"

I think the top 10 gun-plagued cities in the U.S are all run by democrats that have done virtually nothing over the past 60+ years to address de facto segregation in the north along the with a variety of other issues plaguing black communities that have actually been exacerbated by democrat policies that have been royally fucking over minorities for the past 25+ years.

Way to fight the power guys!

[DJL 232]

7 minutes ago, Coreece said:

I think the top 10 gun-plagued cities in the U.S are all run by democrats t

It's a statistical fact that cities have more D voters than Rs so that's an oversimplification of the "why" for violence in cities.  As for 60 years, nobody is off the hook for the cultural segregation that persists to today.  Just start with the White-Flight from urban school systems after integration and move forward from there.  As for policy, Republicans have fought tooth and nail against programs that bring minorities out of the blue collar workforce whether it be penalties for racist practices or affirmative action.

So Candace Owens can spout off as much as she likes but when you line up what the Republican Party has done vs what the Democratic party has done there's a profound difference.

[yoink 321]

Edit: In Reply to Coreece, because I can't copy paste quotes.

 

 

I have never advocated for an outright ban.

Somewhere in this monster of a thread I've made a number of suggestions on how gun control might be implemented from crowd-sourced social reporting and monitoring to technological implementation that simply prevents a weapon being used in any non-approved area and others

 

My preferred solution would be for a technology that would enable a gun you own to be fired on your property or any registered firing range by default but would simply be disabled everywhere else unless you apply for a permit to use it in a specific location at a specific time (if you wanted to go hunting, for example). This would (over time) drastically reduce not only mass murders by irritated co-workers and depressed teenagers but also the instance of criminals using guns for the cost of you not being able to fire your gun in a public place.

If you only use your guns for practice and home defense then literally nothing would change. In fact it would give you more rights because we could undo the stupid magazine and ammo regulations.

 

Yes. I know the technology doesn't exist right now, but that's because there's no call for it. But if there was will to implement this type of solution the the technology is the easy part. 

The day-licensing would need to be quick and easy - go online, draw a circle where you want your gun enabled and it gets reviewed by a human. If it's in a reasonable hunting or open area it's approved quickly and if it includes a school it gets denied and you get a visit from the sheriffs.

 

No solution will ever be 100% effective or solve all of the fringe cases. No solution will be quick or cheap to implement. Any solution MIGHT have unintended consequences, but a lot of pro-gun advocates use those reasons to dismiss any potential change out of hand. That's why I've given up on even discussing it.

Edited June 6, 2019 by yoink

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, DJL said:

As for 60 years, nobody is off the hook for the cultural segregation that persists to today. 

Right, that was kind of the reason for my post because democrats often champion themselves as the purveyor of civil rights and use that to garner black votes yet are apparently unbeholden to black voters and held unaccountable for policies that have had a detrimental effect on that community and the inner city in general.

Most democrat politicians  have acknowledged this and learned from their mistakes, which may have been one of the reasons why they seemed reluctant to pass gun control legislation when they had the chance.

It just seems to me that democrats have almost given up on the black community and are just going through the motions and keeping up appearances while focusing their efforts on the LGBT and Hispanic communities.  It's almost like they believe the lie that the issues plaguing blacks are just the result of the natural forces of capitalism at work.

 

3 hours ago, DJL said:

So Candace Owens can spout off as much as she likes

The only thing I know about Candace Owen is what's been posted in this forum, so not much.

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, yoink said:

My preferred solution would be for a technology that would enable a gun you own to be fired on your property or any registered firing range by default but would simply be disabled everywhere else unless you apply for a permit to use it in a specific location at a specific time. . .

. . .The day-licensing would need to be quick and easy - go online, draw a circle where you want your gun enabled and it gets reviewed by a human.

Good idea.  That way when a Crip shows his circle of preference, the human bureaucrats can deny any areas not within his gang's territory, thus saving hundreds of innocent new Bloods.

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself, but you see where I'm going with this, right?)

Edited June 6, 2019 by Coreece

[turtlespeed 212]

10 hours ago, DJL said:

Except he didn't.  And what radar?  And I'm certain that if single shot bolt action weapons were the only choice available to the civilian market then this guy might think it would just be easier to go on a nice vacation and jump off a cliff somewhere rather than gun down the people he had worked with for years.

Just because you are certain, doesn't negate that you are probably wrong.

[yoink 321]

12 hours ago, Coreece said:

Good idea.  That way when a Crip shows his circle of preference, the human bureaucrats can deny any areas not within his gang's territory, thus saving hundreds of innocent new Bloods.

(Sorry, I couldn't help myself, but you see where I'm going with this, right?)

Not really?

It may be a cultural thing I’m not getting.

 

First priority - stop the shootings of innocent kids and workers en mass. That’s the low hanging fruit so it makes sense to target that first. 

If as a result it becomes more difficult over time for a gang member to shoot another gang member then that’s a bonus. They’ll just go and stab each other instead but it’s much harder for Joe Public to be caught in the crossfire by a stray drive by knifing, in that case.

 

But I do see you didn’t get my earlier point about gun rights advocates ALWAYS using a fringe case to avoid any sort of developmental discussion...

Thanks for rather neatly proving why I’m absolutely right about giving up posting stuff in here though. I find it an utterly pointless and frustrating exercise.

 

Edited June 7, 2019 by yoink

[DJL 232]

13 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Just because you are certain, doesn't negate that you are probably wrong.

No, I'm certain.  If we only had muzzle loaders and bolt action weapons we wouldn't have mass shootings.  That's just not realistic because we're never going to do that.  So it's not a matter that we can't eliminate mass shootings, we're just unwilling to.

[turtlespeed 212]

46 minutes ago, DJL said:

No, I'm certain.  If we only had muzzle loaders and bolt action weapons we wouldn't have mass shootings.  That's just not realistic because we're never going to do that.  So it's not a matter that we can't eliminate mass shootings, we're just unwilling to.

You would have to take all non-muzzle loading and non-single shot bolt action technology away from the entire world.

Then somehow get the entire world to forget how to make them.

So - yeah the reality doesn't agree with any of that.

 

I also don't want any more limitations on any of my choices than have already been imposed.

Its not my fault that there are people that can't handle a weapon.

Don't take my choices away from me because of someone else's actions.

[DJL 232]

20 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Don't take my choices away from me because of someone else's actions.

But how about the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?  There's a middle ground were we realize in order to limit people's ability to kill we have to limit our ability to have the specific weapon they prefer to use.  There are many more ways you can keep from getting killed other than having a firearm at your side especially since we don't know who is going to do the killing, we don' t know who should or shouldn't have that weapon.

Edit:  It's even a basic principle of warfare (Art of War) that you're only ever going to have a stalemate if you use the exact same strategy and force as your opponent.

Edited June 7, 2019 by DJL

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

But how about the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness?  There's a middle ground were we realize in order to limit people's ability to kill we have to limit our ability to have the specific weapon they prefer to use.  There are many more ways you can keep from getting killed other than having a firearm at your side especially since we don't know who is going to do the killing, we don' t know who should or shouldn't have that weapon.

Edit:  It's even a basic principle of warfare (Art of War) that you're only ever going to have a stalemate if you use the exact same strategy and force as your opponent.

Correct - In some ways - 

All you have to do is make sure that the bad guys don't have weapons, and follow the law - then a new law on guns will make sense.

[DJL 232]

12 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Correct - In some ways - 

All you have to do is make sure that the bad guys don't have weapons, and follow the law - then a new law on guns will make sense.

I can get away from from any weapon that doesn't fire projectiles.

[turtlespeed 212]

28 minutes ago, DJL said:

I can get away from from any weapon that doesn't fire projectiles.

Good for you - You must be able to run very fast.

I would suggest counting on your belief in that skill as an absolute, though.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

I can get away from from any weapon that doesn't fire projectiles.

How about multiple attackers?
How about getting cornered?
How about people who are unable to run? Or run fast enough?

The idea that if nobody has guns, there won't be any real crime is really simplistic.

 

There's a regular at the range I'm part of. He's down once or twice a week, practicing with a pistol.
He used to be moderately anti-gun. He mainly didn't see the point of civilians having guns, let alone carrying them.

 

Then he was cornered in a parking ramp stairway by three teens. They demanded his stuff. He complied, didn't say anything back or any thing like that. The good old 'give them what they want and they won't hurt you.' 
He didn't realize that he was putting himself at the mercy of thugs who had none.
For no apparent reason, they decided to beat the crap out of him. 
No weapons, just fists and feet.

He could have died. He ended up with a skull fracture, multiple facial fractures, broken ribs (not quite a 'flailed chest' but close) and a number of other, lesser injuries. Multiple surgeries later and his face still isn't 'quite right'. And never will be. 

 

He made the decision that he wasn't going to allow himself to be put in that situation ever again. 

So he now carries. He understands full well that what he went through was a 'lightning strike' and is unlikely to happen again.  He's unwilling to take the chance.