School Shooting in Parkland, Florida

BorneTobyWilde

Right to bear arms will never change, but maybe people should have legitimate reasons to buy machine guns. Selling them to anyone who wants one is stupid. Should be a reason to own one, and it should have very strict guidelines. Yes you can buy an automatic weapon, but if you want it to shoot up a school then no you can't buy it sorry.

BorneTobyWilde

Manic Moran

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

You are just like trump - blame mental health and leave the guns alone.

If you could wake up tomorrow and with a blink of an eye, rid US of the 300m guns would you? So nobody had one, not even the police?

Assuming suitable, less lethal alternatives are available, sure. But since we cannot rid the US of 300m firearms, such speculation is eminently unproductive.

With the greatest respect, you have not suggested anything remotely effective or indeed reasonable

I would argue that neither has the opposition then, if your definition of reasonable is 'something I agree with'.

What is unreasonable about "a simple process to ensure all firearms are sold with a background check (And correct input of the NICS data)"?

What is unreasonable about a program of instruction aimed at reducing negligent or accidental firearms death or injury? This is the US, firearms exist, and will be encountered. We can stick our heads in the sand, or we can accept that reality. Millennials are the first generation where firearms safety was -not- routinely taught in US schools (Much to their surprise).

You say "We have to reduce crime", with which nobody would argue, but how? Ay, there's the rub.

It's a good one, indeed, and I am no sociologist. I am, however, reasonably well versed in firearms legislation and "We must reduce the amount of firearms" and "We must reduce the lethality of firearms" are equally large rubs. News article on the radio this morning along the lines of "If Florida had the same laws as we do in California, the shooting may have been limited". Deluding themselves into thinking that the laws have any practical effect at all. San Bernadino shooting is a perfect case in point of the law being touted as being useless in intended effect. (They have since passed a new law effective last year. It took industry about eight weeks to develop workarounds).

You say "considered" but on reading your subsequent analysis, the word you really meant to use was "rejected".

For the benefit of others on this thread (And thank you for doing the legwork in finding it), here's the full post in question.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104918660&postcount=44

The four tracks I identified are "1) Physical features of the firearms themselves., 2) Restrictions on acquisition of firearms., 3) Conditions of Ownership. 4) Motivations for firearms usage." For those ideas which I rejected, I gave reasons as to why I felt they were either ineffective or impractical. If you believe that the rationale behind it is wrong, I will be most pleased to read the argument. Merely discounting it because I point out why I believe that some of the tracks won't work is not exactly an argument.

uncleoswald

Manic Moran wrote: »

What is unreasonable about "a simple process to ensure all firearms are sold with a background check (And correct input of the NICS data)"?

If it was so simple why has it not been implemented?

Manic Moran you, and others on your side of the debate, make it sound like you are in fundamental disagreement with those looking to ban guns but you are actually in general agreement*. If gun advocates spent half the time pushing government to enact responsible gun restrictions as they do online getting into pedantic arguments about gun bans maybe something would happen. As it is you are a silent majority that the likes of the NRA can claim to represent.

*Except the bit on teaching gun usage in schools. I'm not sure teaching the likes of Nicolas Cruz to better handle a gun would be a positive. Wasn't driving taught in US schools and didn't lead to a greater safety record on US roads. The US has an obsession with guns and I only see that as doubling down on the matter.

Franz Von Peppercorn

mcmoustache wrote: »

You don't think the killer's motivations and ideology are important?

I'm afraid I disagree. If this guy was radicalised by ISIS, Antifa, Nazis or someone else, it's pretty important to understand why he did what he did.

#notalltrumpsupporters

Manic Moran

If it was so simple why has it not been implemented?

Good question. The last time it was brought up in Congress (After Newton), such a proposal was put forward by Sen. Coburn (R-OK). It was not the one voted upon, however, in favour of a somewhat more complex and inconvenient system which garnered less support from firearms owners.

Why it has not been brought up since, now that the Republicans are in charge, is an issue I neither understand nor support.

suicide_circus

Any attempt to disarm the American public in a serious way will result in multiple Waco type sieges and countless deaths.

Failing to disarm the American public is resulting in 1000s of deaths.

Hmmmmm. ...Rock and a hard place.

Hitman3000

Over 11,000 gun related deaths each year. Good form of population control and just look at the economic activity. Funeral directors etc......

Edit
Just saw this little nugget online, over 1.5 million people shot and killed on American soil since 1968. Seems thoughts and prayers are the way to solve the problem.

BorneTobyWilde

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Over 11,000 gun related deaths each year. Good form of population control and just look at the economic activity. Funeral directors etc......

Edit
Just saw this little nugget online, over 1.5 million people shot and killed on American soil since 1968. Seems thoughts and prayers are the way to solve the problem.

37000 road deaths
It's a numbers game to the people in power. They just look at figures and ask '' what's the problem?''
They don't walk into those class rooms and mop up the blood, they don't look into the eyes of a dead kid.

uncleoswald

Manic Moran wrote: »

Good question. The last time it was brought up in Congress (After Newton), such a proposal was put forward by Sen. Coburn (R-OK). It was not the one voted upon, however, in favour of a somewhat more complex and inconvenient system which garnered less support from firearms owners.

Well maybe a little inconvenience is a small price to pay? That bill was voted down because of a proposal that gun sellers keep records of who they sold a gun to. An entirely reasonable idea to people from countries that don't have US level gun crimes. But the dog whistle blown by the NRA then was that it "might" lead to a national gun database, again, an entirely reasonable proposal.

Why it has not been brought up since, now that the Republicans are in charge, is an issue I neither understand nor support.

Sure they have already kicked the can down to "mental illness" now, so I expect a lot of do-nothing rhetoric on that topic until it all blows over. Because lets face it, they don't actually have the will/solution to tackle mental illness either, it's just about deflecting the topic away from gun control.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Millennials are the first generation where firearms safety was -not- routinely taught in US schools (Much to their surprise).

You say that like it's a bad thing? I only see this as good. Kids won't grow up to be as obsessed with guns so it will eventually lead to less guns in general circulation. When a kid gets handed down a gun from a enthusiast parent, they could be tempted to cash in on a government buy back program. If the US has no appetite to push laws to reduce gun ownership then time and social change will eventually solve the problem.

Hitman3000

BorneTobyWilde wrote:

37000 road deaths It's a numbers game to the people in power. They just look at figures and ask '' what's the problem?'' They don't walk into those class rooms and mop up the blood, they don't look into the eyes of a dead kid.

There are programmes to reduce carnage on the roads, police enforcement of the laws regarding dangerous driving, DUI etc..strangely they tolerate the unnecessary murder of their most vulnerable because of a provision from over 200 years ago when being armed was necessary for survival.
Read on another thread a post from a long winded contributer here describing a gun as no different than a fire extinguisher in the home. You really can't reply to that level of stupidity.

Grayson

everlast75 wrote: »

A nice shut down of the usual "Now is not the time to discuss gun control" BS..


https://twitter.com/car_nove/status/964122342464081921

I don't think the aftermath of an incident is the time to make a decision. In Norway after Brevik went on a rampage they said they'd wait a while to make changes.

So yeah, its the day after the shooting. Probably too soon.

However it's been more than long enough since Sandy Hook and all the other shootings.

Hitman3000

Grayson wrote:

However it's been more than long enough since Sandy Hook and all the other shootings.

It takes a while for thoughts and prayers to kick in.

Manic Moran

Well maybe a little inconvenience is a small price to pay? That bill was voted down because of a proposal that gun sellers keep records of who they sold a gun to. An entirely reasonable idea to people from countries that don't have US level gun crimes. But the dog whistle blown by the NRA then was that it "might" lead to a national gun database, again, an entirely reasonable proposal.

Why have the inconvenience at all if it is not necessary? We want background checks, this meets the requirement, there, on the spot, no charge, no delays.

The issue with the database, I've gone over before. Firstly, there is less political support for it than there is for universal background checks, so if you want the one, you may have to disassociate it from the other. And, sure enough, they tried for both, and got nothing. Secondly, with so many firearms out there, an attempt to create a database will lead to dollars spent for little practical gain. Both Canada and Maryland cancelled their databases as expensive failures. I see no reason a US one would be any more successful. Thirdly, what will the database do for you anyway? I don't think most shooters much care if the government knows they own a weapon after they have done their shooting.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

There are programmes to reduce carnage on the roads, police enforcement of the laws regarding dangerous driving, DUI etc..strangely they tolerate the unnecessary murder of their most vulnerable because of a provision from over 200 years ago when being armed was necessary for survival.

Yet witness the response just above yours. Heaven forbid that there be a program to reduce the carnage caused by stupid, poor-decisions, firearms usage. Better to just pretend the guns aren't out there and that they will not be encountered or acquired, apparently. Not that the right is not guilty of equally wishful thinking. "We don't want un-wanted pregnancies. Why are we teaching kids about sex? Then they'll have sex". The argument is just as daft.

Read on another thread a post from a long winded contributer here describing a gun as no different than a fire extinguisher in the home. You really can't reply to that level of stupidity

I'm sorry if I do not meet with your approved posting style. I can get if you dislike or disagree with our relative risk/reward calculations. Refusal to consider both risk as well as reward seems a bit narrow-minded.

Hitman3000

Manic Moran wrote:

Yet witness the response just above yours. Heaven forbid that there be a program to reduce the carnage caused by legal, if stupid, firearms usage. Better to just pretend the guns aren't out there and that they will not be encountered or acquired, apparently.

Sorry I saw some of your replies on a different thread. Not interested in engaging with your nonsense.

Hitman3000

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm sorry if I do not meet with your approved posting style. I can get if you dislike or disagree with our relative risk/reward calculations. Refusal to consider both risk as well as reward seems a bit narrow-minded.

Your posting style is not the issue, the idiocy in your posts is the issue.

Manic Moran

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Sorry I saw some of your replies on a different thread. Not interested in engaging with your nonsense.

And this is why the anti-gun crowd will never understand the pro-gun crowd. It's "nonsense", they won't even try.

Remember that epic viral rant by "Jonathan Pie" after Trump won the election, and the discussion on engagement and attitudes to the opposition? Absolutely appropriate here.

Hitman3000

Manic Moran wrote:

Remember that epic viral rant by "Jonathan Pie" after Trump won the election, and the discussion on engagement and attitudes to the opposition? Absolutely appropriate here.

Pro gun gob****es are not willing to address the issue of gun control. The multitude of idiotic responses on various sites that "if we give up our guns who will stop a tyrannical government". You guys are a special type of stupid and thank fcuk I don't live there. Over 1.t million shot and killed in America since 1968 and the stock response is guns ain't the problem, well you know what they clearly fcuking are but you and people like are to stupid to recognise it. Now fire off a long winded load of b.s. if you wish I won't be reading or responding.
I wonder will the next mass shooting have more or less victims than Parkland? Wonder how long we will have to wait, a week, a month?

Grayson

Manic Moran wrote: »

And this is why the anti-gun crowd will never understand the pro-gun crowd. It's "nonsense", they won't even try.

Remember that epic viral rant by "Jonathan Pie" after Trump won the election, and the discussion on engagement and attitudes to the opposition? Absolutely appropriate here.

This is apt then.

joe40

I'm currently watching a series of documentaries on sky atlantic called "active shooter" Each one is an in depth look at a mass shooting incident with interviews with survivors, families, police etc. It is truly heartbreaking to listen to some of the stories behind the headlines.
This is not meant as a flippant joke but they will probably get a second season at this rate.

evolving_doors

I haven't followed all the posts so apologies in advance if it's been posted already. A kid who was in one of the attacked rooms is giving an AMA on reddit! https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/7xzpac/im_sid_fischer_a_student_who_was_in_the_third/

Richard Hillman

suicide_circus wrote: »

Any attempt to disarm the American public in a serious way will result in multiple Waco type sieges and countless deaths.

Failing to disarm the American public is resulting in 1000s of deaths.

Hmmmmm. ...Rock and a hard place.

People honestly thinking if they cracked down on guns, the public will gladly hand over their weapons to the state, leaving just the state and the gangs with the guns. The logic is bafflingly stupid. Who on earth would hand over their Gun?

Heckler

Zirconia wrote: »

Well there's a big difference between a semi-automatic Ar15 and a point 22 magazineless single shot bolt action target rifle. No civilian should have access to automatic, semi-automatic, magazine/revolver, or concealable (i.e. handgun) weapons, ever!

I own a bolt action .22 5 round rifle.

I also own a semi-automatic 10 round .22 ( plugged to 5 rounds as per Irish law) handgun.

I use both for target shooting in a licensed gun club.

So do many I shoot with weekly. Some still have centerfire pistols licensed before the ban eg. 9mm.

Should any of those be taken away ?

The hoops you have to jump through in Ireland to get a firearms licence would put off anyone who might think "I wouldn't mind having a gun cos".

omega man

FBI will be blamed now and there’ll be no debate on gun control yet again. Deflection.

Gael23

Heads on plates time in the FBI

uncleoswald

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why have the inconvenience at all if it is not necessary? We want background checks, this meets the requirement, there, on the spot, no charge, no delays.

For compromise sake? It's how you pass bi-partisan legislation. The bill didn't go far enough for many from the pro gun-control lobby who thought Schumer was too soft on the issue. If gun owners are genuinely serious about this they would support a little bit of compromise. Also the "inconvenience" was considered necessary to ensure background checks were actually carried out. There is no point in closing loopholes in the system when you can just bypass it all together.

The issue with the database, I've gone over before. Firstly, there is less political support for it than there is for universal background checks, so if you want the one, you may have to disassociate it from the other. And, sure enough, they tried for both, and got nothing. Secondly, with so many firearms out there, an attempt to create a database will lead to dollars spent for little practical gain. Both Canada and Maryland cancelled their databases as expensive failures. I see no reason a US one would be any more successful. Thirdly, what will the database do for you anyway? I don't think most shooters much care if the government knows they own a weapon after they have done their shooting.

Again, the bill didn't actually propose a database, the NRA simply maintained it "could" lead to one. And anyway, Maryland's experiment involved cataloging gun casings and just because they tried it and it failed the whole idea of a database shouldn't be dismissed. And in Canada, Quebec has actually recently brought back the database.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

People honestly thinking if they cracked down on guns, the public will gladly hand over their weapons to the state, leaving just the state and the gangs with the guns. The logic is bafflingly stupid. Who on earth would hand over their Gun?

Guess who is not coming for you in your sleep? The US Government. And how many people are genuinely protected from 'gangs' by the fact they own a gun? It's partially a result of this paranoid mindset that leads to a populace swimming in guns and as a result gun violence.

BattleCorp

A couple of points.

People who are calling for gun control, what does that mean? Are you looking for all guns to be banned, some guns banned, only some people allowed guns or what?

If guns were banned in America today, what do you do about the +300,000,000 guns already in circulation? Time to get real. They can't be taken back from everybody. And if the Government tried, that'd lead to one he'll of a body count.

Hitman3000

BattleCorp wrote:

If guns were banned in America today, what do you do about the +300,000,000 guns already in circulation? Time to get real. They can't be taken back from everybody. And if the Government tried, that'd lead to one he'll of a body count.

Amazing how the Aussies managed this on a smaller scale without a hell of a body count. As I told another poster earlier 1.5 million people shot dead on American soil since 1968. So what do you suggest carry on, nothing can be done so why try?

JenovaProject

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Amazing how the Aussies managed this on a smaller scale without a hell of a body count. As I told another poster earlier 1.5 million people shot dead on American soil since 1968. So what do you suggest carry on, nothing can be done so why try?

Australia isnt the same as America...Im sure you copped that already.

pilly

BattleCorp wrote:

If guns were banned in America today, what do you do about the +300,000,000 guns already in circulation? Time to get real. They can't be taken back from everybody. And if the Government tried, that'd lead to one he'll of a body count.

It's like saying we give up on crime because there's millions of criminals out there. Ridiculous logic.

You call a halt, you stop that figure growing and eventually the older generation die off.