Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[TX-Beau]

The law is truly crazy then. It appears that you are saying that registering isn't legal, because you have a law that protects people from incriminating themselves (and i want you to read that in context of gun responsibility), and that if someone has done something illegal (read:- misused their gun), the law would hurt them. Fancy that, a law that is unhelpful to criminals, no, mustn't allow such an abuse of people's (criminals) rights. Don't make me laugh.

The way he's interpreting that is obviously non-standard. Background checks are perfectly legal.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't see how my post was interpreted that way. Considering there are gun shows to escape getting back ground checks, show that it needs to be more of a thing.

You essentially admitted that background checks only affect the law-abiding.

And gun shows aren't much help for "escap[ing] getting background checks"; that's just a myth to get people emotional. All the same laws that apply outside gun shows apply there, to; there aren't any loopholes. In fact it's harder to escape a background check at a gun show; many gun shows now require them for all sales at the show, not just sales by licenses dealers, and even without that requirement many if not most private sellers won't sell to you if you won't voluntarily do a background check. More, if a felon is caught at a gun show buying a gun, he won't be going home: a good portion of the population at any gun show these days knows how to do a citizen detain, i.e. how a citizen can legally detain someone suspected of a crime and keep that person detained until law enforcement can arrive -- and law enforcement at most gun shows is about a half minute or less away. One reason that many gun owners despised Clinton was that he bragged about a hundred thousand felons prevented from buying guns under his administration, but did absolutely nothing to have those felons prosecuted for trying to buy those guns! It's hard to find a population more determined to keep guns from criminals than you'll encounter at a gun show.

Besides which, there's more murder committed by automobile annually than crimes with guns felons bought at gun shows. Heck, if the media would make a big deal about the felons caught at gun shows and arrested like they do about the animals who shoot fellow citizens, it would have more of an effect than any law -- felons would stay away!

That is why I said some, which indicates not everyone with mental health problems just snaps. Mental health issues are only a part of the problem and doesn't help very much only focusing on that.

A decent mental health care system such as I described would tackle most of the problem: when was the last time we had a mass shooter who didn't have mental issues?

It's nigh unto unforgivable the way we treat the mentally ill in this country; it should make us ashamed to call ourselves a people. Since our nation sort of began with the words "We, the people", we ought to act like a people and take care of the least among us. In short, we should be doing it just to be able to hold our heads up among nations and speak of being a people. But we also ought to be doing it because there's a high chance that three out of four, or four out of five of the mass shootings in the last twenty years would not have happened.

You can't claim this. This is not math where 2+2 will always equal 4. Cops are trained to do what they do and they even get hurt or killed in the line of duty. Your average citizen with an armed weapon doesn't mean they're going to handle the situation or stop it just because they are armed.

There were people present, with arms, with the training, who were willing: school policy said they had to do nothing and let people die.

Besides that, do you have any idea how long it takes to train someone to act in a mass shooting? Once the basics of firearm safety and handling are covered, it takes about fifteen minutes, including practice shooting of ten rounds. In such a situation, ordinary citizens acting in defense of self and others have been seen to stop the threat more accurately, far more promptly, and with fewer innocents hurt that do police. The reason is simple: they're there already, they're motivated, they know who the bad guy is, and when you're looking right at the threat and you've had that fifteen minutes of training it's almost impossible to miss.

But let's say that half the time the armed citizens freeze up ad fail. That means that half the time they act, and thus half the time there's a good chance that the animal killing others is stopped and the killing ends. That falls under the category "the security of a free state", because it enhances security and keeps people free of injury.

If you read gun news blogs, you'll see that there's a fair portion of the armed populace with a "F U!" attitude, who wouldn't act to protect anyone but themselves. But in a mass shooting, if they're on the spot, acting to save themselves just happens to save others, too.

Now think about the Roseburg shooting: one man is credited with saving lives by charging the animal with the guns, taking a series of shots that could have killed others. If he could keep going, unarmed, after multiple shots, what if he'd been armed? As focused as he was, he could have gotten his own gun out, and killed the shooter while the shooter was still focused on him.
So -- just why is it you oppose making people safer this way?

 

[TX-Beau]

I will welcome that...at least i will after 30+ years of ever increasing spanner attacks.



There is at least 1 firearm for every American.
A third of households (well 32% at last study) have a firearm in the home.

So, we have 68% of households with zero guns.
The assumption would be that the number with just a single gun could be pretty high, given the huge number that don't even have one. There is not a lot of wiggle room to argue there aren't many people with 'arsenals' of weapons, given that those in that 32% have an average of 3 each, and that most of that 32% likely own just 1 (based on % with zero).
If we took a guess and said that 22% of the 32% had only 1 gun, then the remaining 10% would have their average of 3 guns, plus the remaining 2 guns from that 22% that only have 1, which equates to an extra 4+ guns for that 10%.
So 10% of those with guns have an average of several.
How many guns do you need to protect yourself with. 3 seems reasonable, two adults in the home, one each, and a spare if one is broke. Why several?
How many guns you own Kuli?
What constitutes an arsenal to you? I'd say several constitutes a personal arsenal.

If you use your guns for sporting purposes (hunting is what I'm ost familiar with) you probably have varying gauges of shotguns, probably a rifle and a handgun. Not that you're carrying all of them at once, and the handgun is usually there so you can quickly put down anything you wounded but didn't outright kill.

I suspect to some people that would be an "arsenal." These people are not the problem. Suburban commandos with several kinds of pseudo-assault weapons, multiple hand-guns, entitled attitudes and small minds do indeed assemble "arsenals." They think that makes two inches look like eight.

 

[TX-Beau]

You essentially admitted that background checks only affect the law-abiding.

And gun shows aren't much help for "escap[ing] getting background checks"; that's just a myth to get people emotional. All the same laws that apply outside gun shows apply there, to; there aren't any loopholes. In fact it's harder to escape a background check at a gun show; many gun shows now require them for all sales at the show, not just sales by licenses dealers, and even without that requirement many if not most private sellers won't sell to you if you won't voluntarily do a background check. More, if a felon is caught at a gun show buying a gun, he won't be going home: a good portion of the population at any gun show these days knows how to do a citizen detain, i.e. how a citizen can legally detain someone suspected of a crime and keep that person detained until law enforcement can arrive -- and law enforcement at most gun shows is about a half minute or less away. One reason that many gun owners despised Clinton was that he bragged about a hundred thousand felons prevented from buying guns under his administration, but did absolutely nothing to have those felons prosecuted for trying to buy those guns! It's hard to find a population more determined to keep guns from criminals than you'll encounter at a gun show.

Besides which, there's more murder committed by automobile annually than crimes with guns felons bought at gun shows. Heck, if the media would make a big deal about the felons caught at gun shows and arrested like they do about the animals who shoot fellow citizens, it would have more of an effect than any law -- felons would stay away!



A decent mental health care system such as I described would tackle most of the problem: when was the last time we had a mass shooter who didn't have mental issues?

It's nigh unto unforgivable the way we treat the mentally ill in this country; it should make us ashamed to call ourselves a people. Since our nation sort of began with the words "We, the people", we ought to act like a people and take care of the least among us. In short, we should be doing it just to be able to hold our heads up among nations and speak of being a people. But we also ought to be doing it because there's a high chance that three out of four, or four out of five of the mass shootings in the last twenty years would not have happened.



There were people present, with arms, with the training, who were willing: school policy said they had to do nothing and let people die.

Besides that, do you have any idea how long it takes to train someone to act in a mass shooting? Once the basics of firearm safety and handling are covered, it takes about fifteen minutes, including practice shooting of ten rounds. In such a situation, ordinary citizens acting in defense of self and others have been seen to stop the threat more accurately, far more promptly, and with fewer innocents hurt that do police. The reason is simple: they're there already, they're motivated, they know who the bad guy is, and when you're looking right at the threat and you've had that fifteen minutes of training it's almost impossible to miss.

But let's say that half the time the armed citizens freeze up ad fail. That means that half the time they act, and thus half the time there's a good chance that the animal killing others is stopped and the killing ends. That falls under the category "the security of a free state", because it enhances security and keeps people free of injury.

If you read gun news blogs, you'll see that there's a fair portion of the armed populace with a "F U!" attitude, who wouldn't act to protect anyone but themselves. But in a mass shooting, if they're on the spot, acting to save themselves just happens to save others, too.

Now think about the Roseburg shooting: one man is credited with saving lives by charging the animal with the guns, taking a series of shots that could have killed others. If he could keep going, unarmed, after multiple shots, what if he'd been armed? As focused as he was, he could have gotten his own gun out, and killed the shooter while the shooter was still focused on him.
So -- just why is it you oppose making people safer this way?

Point us all to this "regulation" that if you are armed and trained you must stand by and let people die.

Where is that exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

BLAME THE VICTIM!! IF ONLY the school didn't force gun owners to STAND BY AND LET PEOPLE DIE!!!!!!

 

[TX-Beau]

The problem is that a person with mental illness was able to acquire an ARSENAL!!!

LOL

Guns don't kill people, people WITH GUNS kill people

REGULATE!

 

[Kulindahr]

Crazy talk. That is all it is. If some of the students in that classroom had been armed, maybe it would be easier for them to go on a killing spree themselves. Maybe, because that is as most accurate as you can get when declaring what the outcome may be if students had guns in school. And in any case, you of all people, considering how much you've lambasted me for supposedly only seeing people as statistics, are being a hypocrite for supporting an idea that 'MAY' cut down the casualties, instead of supporting ideas that cut incidents.
For how many years have people been running to the gunstores for a solution, only to see nothing but increases in sprees.
You cannot make an environment safer from guns by using guns, because as you point out often enough, it's not REALLY the guns that are the problem.
You want to fight fire(power) with fire(power). Well water works better.
The ONLY effective ways of cutting gun related deaths, is to either cut the number of guns in society, or cut the numbers of people allowed to possess them.
The ONLY problem, is that some people, seem to place a greater value on their enjoyment of firearms, than on the security of society.

1. There hasn't been "increases in sprees".

2. You lie (in red, above).

3. Most of the sprees have only been stopped by good guys with guns.

So in fact at the moment we rely on guns to stop guns -- the county sheriff certainly didn't send people in unarmed! So your solution is . . . to make sure that people just keep getting killed until the "right" good guys with guns arrive.

The only possible way that makes sense is if guns are somehow evil objects that influence the minds of ordinary people to make them homicidal. In fact, that's pretty much what your first long sentence proposes, and it's a proposal that with monotonous regularity over the years has been hooted and screeched... and not happened. More Americans now own guns, more Americans now carry guns on a daily basis, and violence, including gun violence, just keeps dropping.

Cutting the number of guns in society means guaranteeing people will be killed, because they won't be able to defend themselves. Again, you treat people as statistics, not human beings; you have what is the firearm equivalent of a "spray the room" solution, targetting wide swaths of the populace who aren't any danger at all in order to catch a few who aren't going to cooperate at all.

Umpqua Community College placed its emphasis on "the security of society" in the fashion you advocate -- and guaranteed that students died. The staff there actively helped the shooter kill students by prohibiting those trained and willing from going to the rescue. That's all that the coward's approach to security, the one that regards guns as evil and their fellow citizens as shooting sprees waiting to happen, can possibly accomplish: it keeps the valiant from acting, requiring them to behave like cowards.

 

[Kabluey]

....
An armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. That security begins when I can stop an attack with my use of a firearm -- which I and others I know have done. Obama, so far, opposes the security of a free state.

You don't seriously believe that do you?
You might have more freedom to shoot other people in the US, but that's generally where your greater freedoms stop, relative to other western countries.
How about the freedom to not get shot indiscriminately as per almost everywhere else in the developed world?

Gun nuts want guns, no one else wants gun nuts to have guns. People fearful of gun nuts arm selves. Endless loop with the true crazies lusting after bigger and deadlier weapons for their next rampage.

From an outsider's perspective, it makes about as much sense as those 12 burner barbecues.

 

[Kulindahr]

I find it funny that if there is no requirement for a background cheek, any criminal can walk into any gun shop and buy any number of guns - so logically of course if we require background checks, people who'll pass them obviously won't buy one.

I find it sad that you can make shit like that up.

 

[TX-Beau]

I find it sad that you can make shit like that up.

Considering the amount of whoppers, exaggerations, shadings and delusions your're contributing, that comment amuses me.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

I am not going to bother to go through your whole post and nitpick through it because I have done it before and it doesn't get me anywhere. I am just tired of this song and dance with gun enthusiasts who refuse to take any real initiative to help.

Stating that it takes 15 minutes for someone to be properly trained to handle a mass shooting scenario is absolutely ridiculous, especially it being almost "impossible" to miss. I honestly can't believe someone actually believes what they're saying when saying things such as this.

A decent mental health care system such as I described would tackle most of the problem: when was the last time we had a mass shooter who didn't have mental issues?

When was the last time a place with more gun regulation in place, where guns weren't so readily available had as many mass shootings that the US has had?

So -- just why is it you oppose making people safer this way?

Because the alternative in having more gun regulations makes it even safer. And I consider the fact that just because someone is armed in such a situation doesn't mean every thing will work our in the favor of the armed citizen. That person can either get themselves killed or more innocence killed. I also consider the fact that just because people can be armed, doesn't mean they all want to be.

 

[TX-Beau]

You don't seriously believe that do you?
You might have more freedom to shoot other people in the US, but that's generally where your greater freedoms stop, relative to other western countries.
How about the freedom to not get shot indiscriminately as per almost everywhere else in the developed world?

Gun nuts want guns, no one else wants gun nuts to have guns. People fearful of gun nuts arm selves. Endless loop with the true crazies lusting after bigger and deadlier weapons for their next rampage.

From an outsider's perspective, it makes about as much sense as those 12 burner barbecues.

At it's root, this is about money creating a gun culture so it can sell more guns and ammo. LaPierre whored out his hole and the NRA - to the makers.

 

[Kabluey]

I actually think the first people authorities should seize guns from are the ones who advocate loudest about keeping them.
I figure the more paranoid ones are the people who are most likely to crack and go shooting strangers.

 

[Kulindahr]

The law is truly crazy then. It appears that you are saying that registering isn't legal, because you have a law that protects people from incriminating themselves (and i want you to read that in context of gun responsibility), and that if someone has done something illegal (read:- misused their gun), the law would hurt them. Fancy that, a law that is unhelpful to criminals, no, mustn't allow such an abuse of people's (criminals) rights. Don't make me laugh.

Huh? The law is fine for criminals -- they don't have to obey it (unless they're trying to buy a machine gun, BTW, but even there they're not required to incriminate themselves because the information can't be used against them; they have prior immunity). So criminals aren't hurt at all, just the rest of us.

The point is that if we allow the abuse of the rights of criminals, we allow the abuse of the rights of everyone -- all that has to be done is to make more things crimes. We already, according to people who understand the law, have a situation where any person at random could be plucked off the streets and convicted of three federal felonies in a day (see the book by that title). Watch the video: the law just happens to protect criminals; it's there to protect all of us.

And no prior "misuse of a gun" is required. If you yelled at your BF, and the neighbors reported it, and it was investigated as domestic violence, you can get put on the prohibited list. Besides the silly ways to get on that list, it's about as dependable as the "no fly" list for supposed terrorists, which in practice has resulted in the harassment of thousands of innocent people because of having the same name, or resembling a certain description. or because someone miss-spelled a name, or someone copied the wrong list, or.....

We were once a noble enough people to hold that it is better to allow a hundred guilty walk free than one innocent be punished. Now, a large portion seem to believe that it's better for millions to be made victims just to make it a little harder on a bad guy.
How far we have fallen.

 

[Kulindahr]

Are we living in 1776 again? Otherwise this is just silliness. Buy all the guns you can and become a serious threat to the state and they'll drop a bomb on your head and end of Kuli Problem. All that paranoid whining about "security of the state" is just crap. if The "State" decides to come for you, nothing you buy at the sporting goods store will help you. Period. THAT is reality, if you're really so fearful about black helicopters and such, it's time to look for a new game-plan.

In the meantime the majority of people who don't own guns and a bunch of us who do, are tired of the tantrums and excuses and posturings about "freedom" while people with guns (who generally aren't "criminals") shoot up grade-schools and movie theaters and college campuses.

If there are tantrums, it's because the proposals to deal with the problem are pointless: they're almost never aimed at the problem, and almost always at people who aren't the problem. They arise from a fantasy that passing laws will change the behavior of criminals (or nut cases), which is lunacy on the face of it. "Gun free zones" are quite properly mocked, because they're more useless than decreeing a "fat free zone" and expecting everyone who enters it to suddenly turn slim and svelte.

As for the security of the state, that was what was prohibited at UCC: there were people there, trained and willing, to defend the security of a free state, and they were prohibited from doing so.

 

[TX-Beau]

If there are tantrums, it's because the proposals to deal with the problem are pointless: they're almost never aimed at the problem, and almost always at people who aren't the problem. They arise from a fantasy that passing laws will change the behavior of criminals (or nut cases), which is lunacy on the face of it. "Gun free zones" are quite properly mocked, because they're more useless than decreeing a "fat free zone" and expecting everyone who enters it to suddenly turn slim and svelte.

As for the security of the state, that was what was prohibited at UCC: there were people there, trained and willing, to defend the security of a free state, and they were prohibited from doing so.

IF armed people are defending the "security of a free state," what kind of drooling incompetents are they if a Community College can stop them in their tracks?

This is just more deception, and deluded insistence that doing nothing but adding more guns is wisdom.

 

[Kulindahr]

I will welcome that...at least i will after 30+ years of ever increasing spanner attacks.



There is at least 1 firearm for every American.
A third of households (well 32% at last study) have a firearm in the home.

So, we have 68% of households with zero guns.
The assumption would be that the number with just a single gun could be pretty high, given the huge number that don't even have one. There is not a lot of wiggle room to argue there aren't many people with 'arsenals' of weapons, given that those in that 32% have an average of 3 each, and that most of that 32% likely own just 1 (based on % with zero).
If we took a guess and said that 22% of the 32% had only 1 gun, then the remaining 10% would have their average of 3 guns, plus the remaining 2 guns from that 22% that only have 1, which equates to an extra 4+ guns for that 10%.
So 10% of those with guns have an average of several.
How many guns do you need to protect yourself with. 3 seems reasonable, two adults in the home, one each, and a spare if one is broke. Why several?
How many guns you own Kuli?
What constitutes an arsenal to you? I'd say several constitutes a personal arsenal.

If you don't have enough, with proper equipment to go along, to outfit an infantry company, you don't have an arsenal. Back in the day when there were National Guard armories all over, they could outfit at least a company; anything less wasn't considered a proper arsenal.

How many guns I have is none of anyone's business. But I can think of five different common reasons I carry, and I have at least one gun per reason.

BTW, if you think that just one kind of gun is sufficient for defense of one's home, you are really ignorant about home-entry crime. In public, sure, you can only carry one, and maybe a back-up, so you pick what is best for you for whatever situations you might face. But at home you want to provide for all contingencies.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you use your guns for sporting purposes (hunting is what I'm ost familiar with) you probably have varying gauges of shotguns, probably a rifle and a handgun. Not that you're carrying all of them at once, and the handgun is usually there so you can quickly put down anything you wounded but didn't outright kill.

All-season hunters here tend to have three shotguns, three or four rifles, and three different handguns (then there's the guy who hunts elk with a handgun, but he's eccentric).

BTW, I would never use a handgun to put down what I hadn't killed outright: only a fool would get that close to a mortally wounded animal! The handgun on my hip while hunting is in case of some predator deciding I'm to be hunted and gets close enough my rifle is useless, or in case I need to fire three shots to indicate distress (though a former hunting partner actually used a .22 to shoot wildfowl disturbed ion the brush!).

I suspect to some people that would be an "arsenal." These people are not the problem. Suburban commandos with several kinds of pseudo-assault weapons, multiple hand-guns, entitled attitudes and small minds do indeed assemble "arsenals." They think that makes two inches look like eight.

Until your last line, you were doing well. That one indicates you're less in tune than the extremists you trash on.

Heck, the only guy I ever knew who had what I'd think of calling an arsenal had eight inches . . . we used to joke that he must think that because he was well endowed, his gun safes should be, too.

 

[TX-Beau]

Until your last line, you were doing well. That one indicates you're less in tune than the extremists you trash on.

Heck, the only guy I ever knew who had what I'd think of calling an arsenal had eight inches . . . we used to joke that he must think that because he was well endowed, his gun safes should be, too.

Don't even. You know as well as I who these guys are, and where they're at, you just don't want to admit they exist because that undermines everything you are so carefully trying not to look at.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you use your guns for sporting purposes ...

Given how many different sporting purposes there are, that could mean a lot of guns!

Personally I would only compete using something I have a practical reason for, but others have a different view.

 

[Kulindahr]

Point us all to this "regulation" that if you are armed and trained you must stand by and let people die.

Where is that exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

BLAME THE VICTIM!! IF ONLY the school didn't force gun owners to STAND BY AND LET PEOPLE DIE!!!!!!

You really ought to read the news about the topic. School staff kept veterans who wanted to go after the shooter from doing so, because school policy was "shelter in place". Though so far I haven't been able to find out if they were stuck behind a locked door and so literally could not go, or if they were merely obeying verbal commands (veterans I know have said they would have said "Fuck that! People are in danger!" and gone anyway if it was just verbal), or if they would have been expelled for violating policy, or what.