More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[JoeWeber 2,294]

Just now, airdvr said:

While all of this is great conversation I think right now we need to take action at a local level.  I say we need to make our schools safe by employing armed guards.  It's a sad testament but necessary.  Until enough people can be hired deploy the national guards.

Yes...I'm serious.

Yes, well, er, um, the thing is, being serious requires seriously thinking about the suggestion. As long as we're being ridiculous instead, my suggestion is that before we raise the nations kids in armed military camps we first deploy the National Guard, fully supported by every Red State Governor of course, in every gun shop and shooting range. Not happening, right? 

[kallend 1,620]

45 minutes ago, airdvr said:

While all of this is great conversation I think right now we need to take action at a local level.  I say we need to make our schools safe by employing armed guards.  It's a sad testament but necessary.  Until enough people can be hired deploy the national guards.

Yes...I'm serious.

Those tough Texas cops in Uvalde sure showed how it can work.

[billvon 2,380]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Hardening the targets will merely cause the shooters to choose softer targets. Or to target the guards as the first victims.

I'm not even worried about that.  I don't think school shooters do much thinking before they head to the school.

I am more worried about some clueless rightie passing a law that says schools have to have at least one armed guard per 200 students (or something equally absurd.)  So a school of 450 suddenly needs 3 guards.  Where do they come from?  Do they hire cops who work part time at the school?  They cost $$$.  Do they hire from reputable guard companies?  They cost $$, and the school already can't afford textbooks.  So they let one teacher go and hire two full time guards from the pool of people who couldn't make it as cops or actual employed armed guards.  Then they get a part time guard and hope that flies with the local government.

The part timer is a kid who dropped out of school two years ago because he was beating other kids up and torturing animals.  But he was never convicted of anything, and heck, now they are going to PAY him to carry a GUN!  He's ecstatic and shows his gun to all the kids in school who seem very impressed.  Sure, he occasionally leaves it on the sink when he's taking a dump in the school bathroom, but it's between classes when no kids are supposed to be in the bathroom anyway.  And he's not a fan of all that loser lib gun safety stuff, because he's smart enough to know when it's loaded and when it's not.

And then a kid is accidentally shot at that school.  And they fire that guard, and the conservatives think-and-pray themselves a bit, while patting themselves on the back that they did something to protect kids.

And another kid is dead.

But at least they sold more guns, I guess.

[gowlerk 1,903]

4 minutes ago, billvon said:

I'm not even worried about that.  I don't think school shooters do much thinking before they head to the school.

The Nashville shooter is said to have had a shopping centre in mind as her first choice but rejected it because it was too well protected. But I do agree that turning Schools into armed camps is over the top, expensive, and potentially dangerous.

[Phil1111 908]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The Nashville shooter is said to have had a shopping centre in mind as her first choice but rejected it because it was too well protected. But I do agree that turning Schools into armed camps is over the top, expensive, and potentially dangerous.

Well it does fit in well with the NRA/FOX/MAGA narrative. That the only way to defeat a armed criminal. Is to arm everyone else.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

22 minutes ago, billvon said:

They cost $$$. 

Could you imagine if that money was spent on actual education and maybe easier access to (mental) healthcare....

The Republican answer to mass shootings seems to be ban books and put the kids in military camps. Maybe next you can ban females from attending school so they can be preserved for breeding purposes.

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Maybe next you can ban females from attending school so they can be preserved for breeding purposes.

As God intended.

[airdvr 197]

This is one reason why it will keep happening.  You're searching for a rational answer to an irrational problem.

We'll talk again after the next school shooting.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 minutes ago, airdvr said:

This is one reason why it will keep happening.  You're searching for a rational answer to an irrational problem.

We'll talk again after the next school shooting.

I'm not in favor of banning or confiscation of guns.

But it's kinda 'funny' that we are the ONLY country in the world that has this happen on a regular basis.

[airdvr 197]

Just now, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm not in favor of banning or confiscation of guns.

But it's kinda 'funny' that we are the ONLY country in the world that has this happen on a regular basis.

Agreed.  There are too many guns in circulation now to even consider some type of rollback as being effective, if it was even doable.

So if you really care about protecting children in schools make sure the next shooter has to at least deal with some opposition before entering.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

Just now, airdvr said:

This is one reason why it will keep happening.  You're searching for a rational answer to an irrational problem.

We'll talk again after the next school shooting.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, are you really that disconnected? It happens because we glorify guns and have too many, and too many of the worst kinds, of them flooding society. We do not need armed camps for schools. We need serious gun regulations, some guns confiscated, huge taxes on gun sales, red flag laws that count, and major campaigns to show people what bullets actually do to kids bodies. We do not need idiot, freaked out armed guards in schools as a first effort.

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, airdvr said:

Agreed.  There are too many guns in circulation now to even consider some type of rollback as being effective, if it was even doable.

It's very doable over the long term. Confiscation would not be possible politically. But restrictions on new sales and a voluntary buy back program could slowly reduce the hazard. It took decades to reach the point it is at and it would take decades to improve it.  

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

On 3/28/2023 at 9:17 AM, BIGUN said:

The point IS: Every state that has enacted permit-less (open carry) has had a mass school shooting in less than a year after it passed.

The point IS: There is NO criteria restricting the use of carrying any specific type of weapon. Once its open carry; you can carry anything, cause ya know its your fuckin right to off children. 

And, before you start the looky looky, ban assault weapons - that is a silly premise. Every weapon is an assault weapon. It's what they were designed to do. Assault. Until America wakes the fuck up and realizes we need owner responsibility that is mandated (because God knows your fucking freedom is more important than a child's life) 

And, the dems will decry the almighty AR-15 or repeal the 2nd which will only raise more fucking money and the reps will blame trans and every fucking thing else until more children are fucking dead.  Rinse. Repeat. 

How many times are we going to let this record skip before we change the tune. That's the fucking point. A complete Gun Owner's Responsibility Bill. Ownership tracking from cradle to grave, weapon education and recurrency, proper storage, 10 years for use of a gun in the commission of a crime (bet domestic violence with a gun would go way down), etc. etc. we can discuss it more with the next fucking school shooting, cause ya know  . . . we'd rather spend more time typing on SC than spending a few minutes writing in the text box to our congressional and senatorial leadership.  

Get it, now? 

Open carry & 'permitless' carry are not the same thing. Open carry means you can go armed. "Permitless' or "Constitutional" carry means carrying concealed with no permit (no checks, no training, no nothing).

Most of these shootings are done with military style semi autos. Most often an AR platform, but others have been used.

I used the term "assault weapon" because that was the title of the 94 law. I fully agree that it's a misnomer. But that's the term.

The idea of that "responsibility law" is a bit ridiculous.

"Cradle to grave" ownership tracking?

How do you propose to make that happen?

That would require full registration of every gun. I think that would be less likely to happen than a ban/confiscation of military style rifles. 

I agree that mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes would be helpful, but the prisons are overcrowded as it is. 
Unless you propose to release anyone convicted of a minor drug crime, now that weed is legal in so many places, there really isn't anywhere to put all those 'gun criminals'.

[airdvr 197]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

It's very doable over the long term. Confiscation would not be possible politically. But restrictions on new sales and a voluntary buy back program could slowly reduce the hazard. It took decades to reach the point it is at and it would take decades to improve it.  

OK.  So for the forseeable future copycat shooters will continue unopposed.

[gowlerk 1,903]

Just now, airdvr said:

OK.  So for the forseeable future copycat shooters will continue unopposed.

The lastest shooter was 28 years old and had recently legally acquired 7 weapons. Making it hard to get those weapons could very well have prevented this event. But that is not really the main point. Most gun deaths to both children and adults are not from mass shootings. They are spectacular but they are only the very visible tip of the iceberg sized problem.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

While all of this is great conversation I think right now we need to take action at a local level.  I say we need to make our schools safe by employing armed guards.  It's a sad testament but necessary.  Until enough people can be hired deploy the national guards.

Yes...I'm serious.

How are you planning on paying for that?

Not being snarky, honest question.

The NG is not an 'armed guard' force. It has a lot of roles, but that really isn't one of them.

The other problem is that, despite the "huge" number of these types of shootings, they are really not common. Any particular location is highly unlikely to see one.

So, the knee-jerk reaction is to hire guards. And pay them. And when nothing happens in that particular school for a year, 5 years, 10 years, everyone will ask 'why are we paying for this. We can use that money better somewhere else.

Volunteers? I'm sure there are lots of qualified adults (former cops, military, security guards) who'd be willing to show up...

For a while. But not forever.

I'm not saying 'do nothing'.

I AM saying 'don't do something that will look good but accomplish nothing'.
 

[BIGUN 1,049]

22 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The idea of that "responsibility law" is a bit ridiculous.

"Cradle to grave" ownership tracking?

How do you propose to make that happen?

That would require full registration of every gun. I think that would be less likely to happen than a ban/confiscation of military style rifles. 

I agree that mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes would be helpful, but the prisons are overcrowded as it is. 
Unless you propose to release anyone convicted of a minor drug crime, now that weed is legal in so many places, there really isn't anywhere to put all those 'gun criminals'.

You're right, Joe. 

My mistake.

We shouldn't do anything. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

16 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

We shouldn't do anything. 

Or you should do the right thing. Which is whatever it takes to fix the problem caused by the 2nd Amendment. I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of the "root cause".

Edited March 30, 2023 by gowlerk

[JoeWeber 2,294]

Just now, airdvr said:

OK.  So for the forseeable future copycat shooters will continue unopposed.

No, they're fully opposed by all rational people. The problem is that they are fully supported by everyone who thinks we can do nothing. What we need is a movement like when we marched against the Vietnam War. But you would need to be there, some Brent-likes would need to be there, it would need to be seen as a statement of our society such that our minority party rulers might realize it's now a different world. KLM, Kids Lives Matter, if you will. That's surely worth marching for.

Edited March 30, 2023 by JoeWeber

[billvon 2,380]

45 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Agreed.  There are too many guns in circulation now to even consider some type of rollback as being effective, if it was even doable.

It's worked in other countries.  It might take longer here - so best get started.

Quote

So if you really care about protecting children in schools make sure the next shooter has to at least deal with some opposition before entering.

In Uvalde they had an armed guard assigned to the school.  He drove right by the shooter and chased a teacher instead.  And the entire Uvalde police force showed up to stop him after he entered the school.  And they couldn't.

Pretty good evidence that "just use an armed guard" and "just add more armed guards" doesn't work.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Just now, billvon said:

It's worked in other countries.  It might take longer here - so best get started.

In Uvalde they had an armed guard assigned to the school.  He drove right by the shooter and chased a teacher instead.  And the entire Uvalde police force showed up to stop him after he entered the school.  And they couldn't.

Pretty good evidence that "just use an armed guard" and "just add more armed guards" doesn't work.

Don't forget Parkside and the cop that ran away.

I'm not saying we should do nothing.

But I'm opposed to some sort of 'theatrical' law or policy or 'armed guards everywhere' or bullshit similar to the TSA since 2001. 

The only real solution would be to get the guns out of the hands of the people.

But I can't see that happening.

Especially after Y'all Queda learned that white males can take all sorts of guns and stuff to protests, even entering state capitols with them and have ZERO consequences.

Do you think that Vanilla ISIS wouldn't do the exact same thing if any serious gun laws were proposed?

[BIGUN 1,049]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I'm not saying we should do nothing.

But I'm opposed to some sort of 'theatrical' law or policy

You keep saying what we shouldn't do. What would you do. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 hours ago, BIGUN said:

You keep saying what we shouldn't do. What would you do. 

I don't know. I honestly can't think of anything that would make any real difference that would be feasible to implement.

The 94 'ban' was only for new sales.

Since it expired, everyone, his brother, sister, cousin, neighbor & kid have bought at least one AR platform.
When Obama was elected in 08, everyone thought he was going to 'ban everything' and there was a huge run on guns and ammunition.
Then after the Sandy Hook shooting, there were proposals to limit stuff, and again, a huge run on everything.

Since those attempts at gun limits failed, there haven't been any serious proposals at the federal level.

It's abundantly clear that the Rs, the NRA and the 'alt-right' types are perfectly willing to have dead kids on a fairly regular basis, as long as they get to keep all their guns.

They still have enough power to make any changes virtually impossible.

[wmw999 2,116]

And that's where Bigun's plan is an entry point. It's not comprehensive, and might not move the dial noticeably on the number of guns, but it's more likely to move the dial on people's perception that guns are, in fact, part of the problem, and should be regulated. Small steps are better than no steps.

Wendy P.

[RonD1120 58]

On 3/28/2023 at 2:54 PM, gowlerk said:

 Unless you are an ivermectin user of course.

I use Ivermectin to enhance Rx enzalutimide. So far the results are positive.