A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[Adrift]

And somebody who is planning to go on a killing spree is going to practice. The Florida killer even figured out that tripping the fire alarm would negate the "code red" security already built into the school. These people are not idiots.

You keep repeating this claim, but I'm curious, do you actually have any links to articles or something that suggest that those who attempt killing sprees are proficient in the weapons they use?

[Cow Poke]

We seem to be back to the argument: if the law is not universally effective, forget it. By that rule, we should eliminate all laws because none of them are universally effective. This does not seem a rational argument, to me.

No, that's just goofy -- we're not talking about existing laws -- we're talking about (or you are) implementing new ones that will have pretty much ZERO effect on the issue it allegedly tries to mitigate.

But you will, over time, make them more difficult to acquire. Eventually, the high-capacity magazines in use will be mostly gone.

And, you know this how? I have half a dozen 30-round magazines - they're in my closet. Who's coming to get them from me?

You also provide another tool in the legal system for prosecuting those who use them.

Again, the mass shooter (that's what this is all about, eh?) is usually DEAD following the incident, and if he's alive, he's likely going to get a minimum of a dozen life sentences. You REALLY think he cares (assuming he didn't kill himself) about a fine for having high capacity magazines?

Look - if I make gas-guzzling, emission-emitting vehicles illegal - then their manufacture will become illegal. Over time, the ones that exists "in the wild" will fail and their total number will be reduced. To say, "I'm not going to outlaw gas-guzzling emission-emitting vehivles because they will still be out there" is a formula for never doing anything.

I don't want to drive a gas-guzzling emission-emitting vehicle just for the purpose of driving one, do you? When they produce (and they do) vehicles that still serve my need, AND are more "green", that's great - I have one!

So, let's get back to... how do we keep another mass shooter event from happening this year - not just when you and I are long gone and buried.

[Cow Poke]

You keep repeating this claim, but I'm curious, do you actually have any links to articles or something that suggest that those who attempt killing sprees are proficient in the weapons they use?

Do you honestly believe that somebody who is going to go on a mass killing spree would NOT be proficient with their weapon of choice? The Florida shooter was a gun nut - his friends were reporting his facebook pages where he was bragging about his guns.

Sheriff Israel said that the authorities did not yet know the motive for the killing, but were learning more about Mr. Cruz through his social media pages, which he described as “very, very concerning.”

Screen shots of an Instagram page said to belong to Mr. Cruz show many photos of a man holding firearms and ammunition used in a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle. One photo shows several guns, including rifles with scopes, lying on a bed. Another appears to show a frog that had been killed.

[source]

15xp-suspect-blog427.jpg

ETA:

Ben Bennight, a bail bondsman in Mississippi, said in an interview that he reported a suspicious comment left on his YouTube channel last fall by a user named “nikolas cruz.”

“I’m going to be a professional school shooter,” the Sept. 24 comment said.

A "professional school shooter". What do you think that implies?

[RumTumTugger]

Moderator Notice

as posted in Demi's post which was edited out due to not following the OPs request that this thread be for civil discussion anyone who can't play nice will be banned from the thread.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Teallaura]

That doen't automatically require jail.

Who said it did? I do think criminal liability should follow wanton negligence (e.g: left it in the front yard, failed to secure it when a known hazard was present) or depraved indifference (e.g: failed to secure after clear indication of threat) but otherwise, let the civil liabilities have it - same as when you fail to put up a fence around a swimming pool.

[Cow Poke]

That doen't automatically require jail.

Who said it did?

In answer to Sparko's question, you did.

so if you got burglarized and someone else used your gun to commit a crime, you should go to jail? Does that sound fair to you?

If you left it unsecured, yes. Rights come with responsibilities.

I do think criminal liability should follow wanton negligence (e.g: left it in the front yard, failed to secure it when a known hazard was present) or depraved indifference (e.g: failed to secure after clear indication of threat) but otherwise, let the civil liabilities have it - same as when you fail to put up a fence around a swimming pool.

Even if it wasn't a legal or civil remedy, I would feel horrible if an innocent person were killed with a weapon I owned.

[Teallaura]

You keep repeating this claim, but I'm curious, do you actually have any links to articles or something that suggest that those who attempt killing sprees are proficient in the weapons they use?

Y'all need a definition of 'proficient'. I can shoot safely - but that doesn't mean I can effectively fight an urban warfare scenario.

Also, kids have simulators at home called video games. You don't need a lot of target practice if you have a lot of simulator time logged. It's not that hard to get used to recoil.

CP is making your case for abolition here.

[Cow Poke]

Y'all need a definition of 'proficient'.

In this case, the guy was a gun nut - I think there's no reason in the world to believe that 'swapping magazines' was not something he practiced, as he bragged he was going to be "a professional school shooter".

I can shoot safely - but that doesn't mean I can effectively fight an urban warfare scenario.

The school is a gun-free zone - pretty much the opposite of "urban warfare". There is no return fire - he has plenty of time to swap magazines as he moved throughout the building.

Also, kids have simulators at home called video games. You don't need a lot of target practice if you have a lot of simulator time logged. It's not that hard to get used to recoil.

CP is making your case for abolition here.

do tell

[Terraceth]

Y'all need a definition of 'proficient'. I can shoot safely - but that doesn't mean I can effectively fight an urban warfare scenario.

Also, kids have simulators at home called video games. You don't need a lot of target practice if you have a lot of simulator time logged. It's not that hard to get used to recoil.

CP is making your case for abolition here.

I'll admit I'm not a gun user so I could be wrong, but I highly question how effective as a simulator a video game is due to the many apparent differences between them and real life. Driving games certainly did essentially nothing to prepare me for learning how to actually drive.

[Jedidiah]

He who is negligent - or shows depraved indifference - should pay for their disregard for the safety of others. Had that principle been in effect in Arkansas, the two boys who ambushed their classmates would never have succeeded - they got their guns from their grandfather who hadn't bothered to get a gun safe. They could not access their own guns or their father's which were in his gun safe.

If he left the house unlocked he is liable. If the kids broke in, he is not liable - my rational evaluation, not some legal gobbelty gook.

[Jedidiah]

Unfortunately, you are probably correct. Even such a group's findings would likely be rejected by whichever side that sees itself as "losing."

I think more likely you would get a bunch of phony or warped data and the whole thing would fall apart.

I have to challenge that, Jedidiah. Doctors, teacher, and a wide range of professionals have to renew their licenses periodically. I have to renew my driver's license and, under certian conditions, may have to redo the test. If a background check is required to purchase a gun, why would we not require someone who owns a gun to periodically (i.e., every 5 years?) have to renew the background check? People's health can change. An innocent person can later commit a crime. Why would this be immoral?

1. Owning a piece of property is not the same as keeping up on a professional license.
2. It is just a back door to a national list.

So how would you respond to a HIPAA-like requirement that gun dealers maintain permanent sale/ownership records? (it's not clear to me why a database of gun ownership/registration is more of an intrusion into privacy than any ofh the other databases of information that are currently maintained).

Negatively, see 2. above. I am pretty much opposed to any federal government database on private individuals. HIPPA, like all or most Federal operations, is so convoluted that no one can really understand it. And it changes often.

Some do, Jedidiah. It's nto clear to me it is most or even many.

Most do not say it openly.

There is subjectivity in every field, Jedidiah. Medical doctors get it wrong. No field is perfect. If we refuse to engage in anything that does not meet the criteria of "error free," we won'y engage in very much.

Less than perfect is not the same as pretty much unreliable. There is no way to objectively make the sort of evaluations required. You simply shop around to get what you want. My early background is in psychology and I do not trust the practice at all.

And purchase firearms should occur well after they are out of high school and when there is at least a chance of frontal cortex development.
Actually, all kids would be subject to the same law. Gang members would, as they do for so many other things, be breaking the law - and subject to it's censure. This appears, again, to be a form of "if some people break it, don't bother." Personally, knowing what I know about adolescent brain development, I would nto advocate a young person owning a weapon until they are at least 21m preferably 25. That doesn't prohibit them from using one - I think sons should still be able to hunt with their dads - for example. But I think the right to go out and purchase firearms should occur well after they are out of high school and when there is at least a chance of frontal cortex development.

Pretty words but I do not see anything actually productive there. And as I have said before kids buying guns should be under the parents oversight not that of the government.

And how do you think making background checks universal, and creating a nationwide database of gon registrations would diminish this (still) great nation?

It puts more (way too much authority in the nanny state. I have no trust in them at all. Have you ever worked for the post office? I did once as a temp when I was in college. That has colored my view of big government, and that coloring has been reinforced over the following 50 some year.

[Jedidiah]

If the gun owner was negligent in securing their firearms, and they were then used in the commission of a crime, you don't think there is some responsibility there?

Some responsibility. But if someone had to break into your house that responsibility is gone. There is no reason to require a gun safe, that is overkill.

[Jedidiah]

No. I have to resist this position. That is how the right and the gun-advocate crowd is positioning it - but that is not what many (most?) of us looking to deal with the issue of gun violence are trying to do. Many (most?) of us want to find ways to reduce violence due to guns, while preserving gun rights.

You say this but make suggestions that make law abiding individuals more and more subject to the central government.

And Few of us are advocating "banning" guns. Some are - but most are not. To characterize the entire discussion as about "banning guns" is simply not a correct characterization.

A difference that seems much smaller to me than it does to you.

[Adrift]

Do you honestly believe that somebody who is going to go on a mass killing spree would NOT be proficient with their weapon of choice?

Yes, absolutely.

The Florida shooter was a gun nut - his friends were reporting his facebook pages where he was bragging about his guns.

Sheriff Israel said that the authorities did not yet know the motive for the killing, but were learning more about Mr. Cruz through his social media pages, which he described as “very, very concerning.”

Screen shots of an Instagram page said to belong to Mr. Cruz show many photos of a man holding firearms and ammunition used in a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle. One photo shows several guns, including rifles with scopes, lying on a bed. Another appears to show a frog that had been killed.

[source]

ETA:

Ben Bennight, a bail bondsman in Mississippi, said in an interview that he reported a suspicious comment left on his YouTube channel last fall by a user named “nikolas cruz.”

“I’m going to be a professional school shooter,” the Sept. 24 comment said.

You do realize that being a gun nut does not necessarily indicate that one is actually proficient with guns, right? In the military, we had tons of Soldier of Fortune types who couldn't shoot the broadside of a barn. So, again, I repeat, do you have any actual data or evidence that mass shooters are generally proficient with guns?

A "professional school shooter". What do you think that implies?

A nut. It certainly doesn't say anything about proficiency.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, absolutely.



You do realize that being a gun nut does not necessarily indicate that one is actually proficient with guns, right? In the military, we had tons of Soldier of Fortune types who couldn't shoot the broadside of a barn. So, again, I repeat, do you have any actual data or evidence that mass shooters are generally proficient with guns?



A nut. It certainly doesn't say anything about proficiency.

wow