|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 6, 2018 0:52:32 GMT
We have many “common sense” laws on the books. Felons are not allowed to purchase or even possess a firearm. If you have a domestic violence conviction you will not pass a NICS check and be denied. Of course the government has to actually report the domestic violence conviction to the FBI. As was the case with the USAF NOT following the law a prohibited person passed a NICS check as the law was not followed. If existing laws don’t work how will piling on more laws help? Gun free zones are obviously not working as only the bad guys have the guns, and as was seen in Florida the police are not always that gung ho to intervene to save lives. Chicago. Need I say more? How do you go about taking a right away? Is it the seriousness of the accusation? How does one handle due process? How can one be assured their property is returned if they are found to not be a prohibited person as many police organizations have a record of damaging or destroying guns before they can be returned. Then there is the elephant in the room. Why are so many people killing so many people. Whether a hammer or a gun, we need to answer that question. Anything else is a bandaid on a lacerated artery. the answer to that is NOT to refuse band-aids; which is what categorically yelling "but right to bear arms" at every suggestion we find a way to keep highly effective firearms out of the hands or other manipulatory appendages of the kind of people who go on killing sprees essentially is. my rescue team all carry basic first aid kits on our gear. if we have a patient in the bottom of a hole who is actively bleeding to death, we're not going to leave him bleeding because we don't have sutures in our kit. we're going to slap something onto the wound and apply pressure to slow down the bleeding until we can get the patient to the medics. I agree that the set of rules we have isn't working. your solution is to not change any rules. my solution is to change rules. einstein is credited with saying the definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. if allowing the air force to decide whether or not to tell civilian law enforcement they discharged a guy for not being trustworthy with a gun resulted in the mass murder in Texas, wouldn't the smart decision to be to change the law to say they HAVE to tell civilian law enforcement when they discharge a guy for not being trustworthy with a gun? That is the law, you have to report the domestic violence to the FBI which has to put it in the data base which the gun dealers have to use. The law is adequate as it is, it is the people who screw it up and apparently have not had to face any consequences. I guess if the law needs changed there should be more consequences for failing to follow it. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 6, 2018 7:04:56 GMT
The key thing to remember about gun control laws is that they only affect the law abiding. Criminals will always have a black market, even in Europe.
By the way, the NRA sells no guns. It simply promotes a human right. Education is its primary goal and expenditure--not lobbying.
The industry lobbying group is the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 6, 2018 15:26:55 GMT
The key thing to remember about gun control laws is that they only affect the law abiding. Criminals will always have a black market, even in Europe. By the way, the NRA sells no guns. It simply promotes a human right. Education is its primary goal and expenditure--not lobbying. The industry lobbying group is the National Shooting Sports Foundation. the million dollars they contributed to political campaigns in 2016 would beg to differ. www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=d000000082&cycle=2014and as far as laws only affecting the law abiding: compare the number of guns in the US black market to the number of guns in the EU black market. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 6, 2018 16:23:28 GMT
The key thing to remember about gun control laws is that they only affect the law abiding. Criminals will always have a black market, even in Europe. By the way, the NRA sells no guns. It simply promotes a human right. Education is its primary goal and expenditure--not lobbying. The industry lobbying group is the National Shooting Sports Foundation. the million dollars they contributed to political campaigns in 2016 would beg to differ. www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=d000000082&cycle=2014A link to a better source: 990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530116130/530116130_201012_990O.pdfBasically, they took in and spent about 243 million dollars last year. About 185 million were "program expenses". The top three programs: 39 million was for gun owner training and education. 36 million was for publications (they have several magazines). 21 million was for legislative purposes--and that's for the entire country. As for income sources, yes, they do get some from the gun manufacturers. But 100 million of their income is member dues. They also have 125,000 unpaid volunteers. They are listed as a 501(c)3 foundation, just like the American Red Cross and the Boy Scouts (charitable non-profits). That's hardly the profile of (as I said) a business that's primarily a lobbying group. You may not like what they're educating people on, but that's definitely what they do. They didn't stop Brevik, did they? Or Munich in 2016? Point being that a criminal is breaking the law already, and breaking another law that isn't going to be enforced anyhow is not going to be a deterrent. Only the law abiding will follow the law (by definition). The crooks and madmen won't. That's not to say we don't need laws, but fixing the ones we have before putting on another layer of useless, unenforced laws that are nothing but virtue posturing to make someone feel good is a bad idea. Currently, there is a " Fix NICS" law working its way through Congress. It's an attempt to tighten the NICS database by making sure it is updated with all reportable information. This would have stopped several recent madmen from passing background checks. The NRA supports at least one version of this legislation, by the way. But, that's not surprising, as they supported the original NICS law. Note: That link is to an NRA site, so beware of NRA cooties. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 6, 2018 17:12:01 GMT
you have to go back a lot less than two years to find a mass shooter in the US. not so sure about mass shooters who got their guns on the black market. every one I can think of except the juveniles who stole their guns from their parents bought them legally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 6, 2018 19:47:36 GMT
In Florida, the authorities deliberately avoided arresting or reporting the madman's crimes because they wanted to improve their "Pipeline to Prison" numbers. It seems a large amount of troubled students and young adults were ending up in prison, and that made the schools and certain minority representatives upset. Thus, the authorities tended to ignore crimes that otherwise might have resulted in imprisonment. In that case, the madman threatened to kill friends and family, including holding a gun to his mother's head.
This was why they made so many visits to his home. By not arresting him (or even filing a 5150 psych watch on him) he avoided the NICS database, thus could "legally" purchase a gun.
In Texas, a man who had been convicted of domestic assault and even smuggling arms into a military base avoided NICS because the military didn't update the database with his records. He went on to be the Suderland Springs shooter.
Point being that these laws and procedures exist and are not being enforced. Frankly, at least in these cases, it seems to be gross negligence.
I picked up a college textbook this weekend on serial killers and their victims--it's an Admin of Justice class. I was reading some details from the Columbine massacre, and it's another case of "letting things slide" with previous signs of violence. One of the kid's fathers even found a pipe bomb the kid made, and helped him set it off for fun.
Columbine is usually looked at as a shooting, but that was not the intention of the murderers. They actually planted propane bombs in the cafeteria, timed to go off during lunch. They wanted to pick off the survivors afterwards--the mass shooting was almost an afterthought in their plans. As such, they had backpacks full of pipe bombs they planned to set off around campus. It was only after the cafeteria bombs failed that the shooters entered the building.
They had even planned a diversionary explosion to draw off first responders to a park. That bomb did partially detonate.
In one of the videos the shooters made, they even say that they don't understand why their families ignored all the signs and signals the two were sending out. He said that any decent question would have ended the plans, but he was too full of "rage" to stop himself. And to top it off, in another video, he even genuinely thanked his parents for his upbringing.
Honestly, how do you stop someone like that? What law can we pass to spot that rage, when even their closest family members miss it?
It's also notable that these massacres are a recent development, and, luckily, are decreasing in number and frequency.
After all, back when laws were lax enough that you could mail order a gun or rifle (as Lee Harvey Oswald did), there weren't these massacres. What has changed?
And what law could stop them now that we haven't already addressed, and failed to implement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 6, 2018 19:51:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 6, 2018 20:04:19 GMT
In Florida, the authorities deliberately avoided arresting or reporting the madman's crimes because they wanted to improve their "Pipeline to Prison" numbers. It seems a large amount of troubled students and young adults were ending up in prison, and that made the schools and certain minority representatives upset. Thus, the authorities tended to ignore crimes that otherwise might have resulted in imprisonment. In that case, the madman threatened to kill friends and family, including holding a gun to his mother's head. This was why they made so many visits to his home. By not arresting him (or even filing a 5150 psych watch on him) he avoided the NICS database, thus could "legally" purchase a gun. In Texas, a man who had been convicted of domestic assault and even smuggling arms into a military base avoided NICS because the military didn't update the database with his records. He went on to be the Suderland Springs shooter. Point being that these laws and procedures exist and are not being enforced. Frankly, at least in these cases, it seems to be gross negligence. I picked up a college textbook this weekend on serial killers and their victims--it's an Admin of Justice class. I was reading some details from the Columbine massacre, and it's another case of "letting things slide" with previous signs of violence. One of the kid's fathers even found a pipe bomb the kid made, and helped him set it off for fun. Columbine is usually looked at as a shooting, but that was not the intention of the murderers. They actually planted propane bombs in the cafeteria, timed to go off during lunch. They wanted to pick off the survivors afterwards--the mass shooting was almost an afterthought in their plans. As such, they had backpacks full of pipe bombs they planned to set off around campus. It was only after the cafeteria bombs failed that the shooters entered the building. They had even planned a diversionary explosion to draw off first responders to a park. That bomb did partially detonate. In one of the videos the shooters made, they even say that they don't understand why their families ignored all the signs and signals the two were sending out. He said that any decent question would have ended the plans, but he was too full of "rage" to stop himself. And to top it off, in another video, he even genuinely thanked his parents for his upbringing. Honestly, how do you stop someone like that? What law can we pass to spot that rage, when even their closest family members miss it? It's also notable that these massacres are a recent development, and, luckily, are decreasing in number and frequency. After all, back when laws were lax enough that you could mail order a gun or rifle (as Lee Harvey Oswald did), there weren't these massacres. What has changed? And what law could stop them now that we haven't already addressed, and failed to implement? maybe we could start with a law that requires classes to be small enough that teachers can give each student individual attention and that teachers be paid well enough to care. because the biggest difference I see is the gradual transition of people from people to numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 6, 2018 20:09:33 GMT
unfortunately, the list leaves out school and workplace killings, which we include in our mass murder statistic. still way fewer than the US experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 6, 2018 20:27:09 GMT
maybe we could start with a law that requires classes to be small enough that teachers can give each student individual attention and that teachers be paid well enough to care. because the biggest difference I see is the gradual transition of people from people to numbers. Smaller classes are nicer. But, back when I was a kid at the tail end of the Baby Boom, classes were pretty big--I remember a lot of classes that had over 30 students per teacher. And yet, no shootings. I've been thinking that it may be a byproduct of social media--the appeal to instant fame and recognition does seem to drive some, and the rise of the Internet seems to fit the timeframe of Columbine and onward. Seems to be the case in at least one aborted shooter in Washington. He wanted "fame"... Add to that with too many parents who use TV and the net as a babysitter, or want to be the kid's "friend" rather than the disciplinarian, and that might be part of it. The death of the nuclear family, rising single parenthood, the demonization and feminization of boys...all this may contribute. Unfortunately, writing another redundant gun law is easier than dealing with the issues above--especially when we can't even discuss some of them without causing "triggering" and the need for "safe spaces" in today's environment. Even proposed solutions are labelled "toxic" or "patriarchy" or other buzzword. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 6, 2018 20:47:11 GMT
maybe we could start with a law that requires classes to be small enough that teachers can give each student individual attention and that teachers be paid well enough to care. because the biggest difference I see is the gradual transition of people from people to numbers. Smaller classes are nicer. But, back when I was a kid at the tail end of the Baby Boom, classes were pretty big--I remember a lot of classes that had over 30 students per teacher. And yet, no shootings. I've been thinking that it may be a byproduct of social media--the appeal to instant fame and recognition does seem to drive some, and the rise of the Internet seems to fit the timeframe of Columbine and onward. Seems to be the case in at least one aborted shooter in Washington. He wanted "fame"... Add to that with too many parents who use TV and the net as a babysitter, or want to be the kid's "friend" rather than the disciplinarian, and that might be part of it. The death of the nuclear family, rising single parenthood, the demonization and feminization of boys...all this may contribute. Unfortunately, writing another redundant gun law is easier than dealing with the issues above--especially when we can't even discuss some of them without causing "triggering" and the need for "safe spaces" in today's environment. Even proposed solutions are labelled "toxic" or "patriarchy" or other buzzword. the current average seems to be 12.2 students per teacher. I agree that many of the recent school shooters and would be school shooters cited notoriety as their goal. I agree that the lack of effective parenting - symbolized by TV as a babysitter and buddy over disciplinarian also contributes. as someone said, it is the place of the teenager to rebel, and if you give them no rules to rebel against, they have to go out and find some. the decline of the nuclear family also cuts in to the parent's ability to parent, but so does the decline of the single wage earner family. both lead to what used to be referred to as latchkey kids, which was debated as being a bad thing when I was a latchkey kid - except I could easily visit my parents at work, and once work was over they made a point of parenting. demonization and feminization of boys is countered by the left's point about teaching toxic masculinity. what needs to be done is to teach kids to be the best version of themselves they can be - and that "best" isn't defined by how many people they can dominate, but instead by whether they can contribute to society. part of that is by allowing their decisions to affect their outcomes, which the left finds abhorrent, but also by requiring graciousness in defeat, which the right finds abhorrent. or worse, requiring cooperation, which everyone seems to find abhorrent. and we have to stop letting bullies get away with it. have you looked at how toxic masculinity is defined? it is defined as teaching boys that their self worth is directly connected to their ability to accomplish masculine objectives - which are all basically dominance exercises. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 6, 2018 21:31:42 GMT
But the problem is that "dominance exercises" can be defined to be anything as normally inoffensive as holding the door for someone. That's part of the problem--definitions are not settled into any sort of consensus for a wide variety of topics.
It's insane, in my opinion. Between drugs and demonization, it's hard to be a boy, especially.
When it comes to the idea of toxic masculinity, the science isn't there, and what science there is often contradicts what the "experts" assert.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 6, 2018 21:55:57 GMT
But the problem is that "dominance exercises" can be defined to be anything as normally inoffensive as holding the door for someone. That's part of the problem--definitions are not settled into any sort of consensus for a wide variety of topics. It's insane, in my opinion. Between drugs and demonization, it's hard to be a boy, especially. When it comes to the idea of toxic masculinity, the science isn't there, and what science there is often contradicts what the "experts" assert. actually, they're pretty solidly defined as making more money, getting more promotions, doing better in sports, driving a more expensive car, having sex with more women (or being seen as having sex with more women) being able to drink more alcohol, and having more people in subservient positions to them. meanwhile, your feminization is just as fluffy in the definition part. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 6, 2018 22:20:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 7, 2018 0:31:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Mar 7, 2018 3:41:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 7, 2018 3:52:18 GMT
this could be interesting to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by oscardeuce on Mar 7, 2018 7:29:09 GMT
this could be interesting to watch. We have also seen you have to sell something (wedding cake) to someone even if it conflicts with your personal (religious) beliefs. I would think this would be similar. the store has to sell a legal item to a legal buyer. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Mar 7, 2018 7:36:59 GMT
Reply to a question is there a black market for "guns" in europe?.
Of course there is, because however foolish you think we got, there will be one or two who wanna go the whole way to green blooded dyed in the wool absolute pillock tainted stupid goit [donkey]hole at mach 3 for "gangsta" reasons...
Are they a problem?. More of a nuisance really than a problem.
And thats because of their other anarchist views rather than brandishing weapons problem.
This is Manchester, Britain's "second city" if you ask some people, which I dont, because its Manchester, and one thing it prides its self on is its NOTHING to do with London.
But on a nightly basis on a clear quiet night, I can here clear across Manchester for miles, and there is never the sound of Gunshots.
Having a shooting, any shooting, at all, is national news time, its that rare.
Fireworks are a greater hazard than Gunshots.
It does happen, yes, there are the occasional shootings, but you could count them on one hand per YEAR, not per night, and most of them are accidental discharges.
You never can say too often check the damn thing aint loaded when your cleaning it eh?..
More of a problem is "BB" guns, air pistols that shoot small plastic ball bearings, not lethal, but sting like hell.
For some reason, they are sold as "Toys" for grown up kids who didnt grow up yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Mar 12, 2018 4:40:10 GMT
I've been away for a while and was reading through all of this from around page 20. I went through 4 pages of posts before someone (oscardeuce) finally touched on what I believe to be the real problem and that's the cultural idea that seems so much more prevalent in America than anywhere else in the West that you can solve your problems or right wrongs by being violent. Throw relatively easy access to guns into that culture and you're going to have some problems with shootings.
Yes, part of the fix is to limit access to guns. After all, shooting someone if you don't have a gun is about as easy as farting if you don't have an a**hole, so limiting the amount of guns in circulation and the access to the ones that are left is definitely part of the solution, but you also have to look at the cultural way of "solving problems". As far as that goes, let's get a couple of myths out of the way right off the bat and we can do this with nothing but the application of common sense:
Violent video games and movies aren't to blame for the increase in gun violence in the US. Neither is rock music, death metal or gangsta rap. If any of that was to blame, you would have seen the same rise in violence all over the world as those cultural phenomena leaked out of the US and across international borders and that just hasn't happened.
The decline of the nuclear family also can't be blamed. Again, other countries - including my own - are seeing that decline at about the same rate as the US and again, we're not steeped in violent crimes and massacres as a result of it.
So, what IS the difference between the US and the rest of the West? What systemic flaw is producing this disregard for human life that seems much more prevalent in the US than any other nation that you would normally compare with?
I claim no expertise, but as an outsider looking in, one thing that immediately catches my eye is the bullying culture in American schools. It's not that we don't have bullies in Europe or other nations, but if the cultural emmisaries you send overseas in the form of movies and TV shows (including news and documentary type programs) are any indication of the true state of things in your country, systematic and prolonged bullying from as early as kindergarten and up is much more violent and organized than what kids generally go through in most other countries. Not only that, but the response to bullying from teachers and parents seems to be severely lacking.
One of the things that seems to be enabling this is the construct of social groups in the American school system. You have your jocks, your nerds, your cool kids, your outsiders and so forth, all neatly labeled and put into boxes. I can't speak for other countries, but we certainly don't have that. Not to that degree, anyway. Sure, there are groups and cliques and you fit in better with some than you do with others, but we just don't have that razor-cut division between social groups where the jock has to hide the fact that he's good at math or likes musicals if he doesn't want to be ostracized.
What really seems toxic to me about this social construct is this almost tribal idea of "you're either with us or against us" where people can feel forced by their group to do things they might not actually want to, like jocks beating up on nerds or "the cool kids" performing almost psychological torture on the outsiders on a daily basis. Once you're part of one of these groups, it seems the best you can do is stay in the background and just not actively take part, but if you find what your group is doing abhorrent - like seeking out the same kid every day, beating him up, taking his lunch money and dunking him in the toilet - you'll not only get kicked out of the group for speaking up against that behavior, but might actually become a victim yourself.
Back to the parents and teachers. The fact that you hear about these things taking place as often as you do (and many a school shooter has been a self-reported victim) tells me that there's a quiet acceptance of this behavior among adults. It's like they're all burying their heads in the bushes and going, "Well, that's just the way it works..." I don't know if it's some misunderstood notion of their kids "growing hair on their chests" by being subjected to this or if it's just downright fear of challenging the status quo, but it seems like they're simply not doing enough to stop this, which is effectively teaching your children that if you're strong enough, you have the right to take whatever you want from whoever you can and no one will stop you.
Over here, we're having trouble with some people migrating from other countries and "having trouble adjusting" to put it diplomatically. What I'm noticing is that they come from cultures that have the same basic ideology. If you can take it, it's yours and it doesn't matter who you have to trample on to get it. If you can't take it, you're simply not strong enough. And that's usually when knives and guns start to enter the equation...
|
|
