MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU82 on May 17, 2022, 02:00:35 PM
-
According to numerous reports, the shooter had been writing for months that he wanted to kill Black people. He had made menacing, violent threats against high school classmates. He was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluations.
And yet he was able to walk into a store, plunk down money, pass an instant background check, and buy a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic rifle.
He then went home and removed the state-mandated restraining bolt that had limited the gun's capacity to a 10-round clip. That modification let him load multiple 30-round magazines, making it easier for him to hunt, target and kill Black people, according to the manifesto he posted online.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the manifesto cites rhetoric embraced by white supremacists, making references to a racist conspiracy theory called "great replacement," which asserts that political elites use immigration and other policies to reduce the white population. The conspiracy theory has been cited as inspiration for several violent attacks against Hispanics, Muslims and Jews in the U.S. and abroad.
-
Good try, Nads, butt sumwon will fook up dis tread again, aina?
-
IBTL.
-
Double Dribble
Hopefully, 82 and other posters can refrain from breaking the scoop rules. I would not bet on it, but time will tell.
-
Hopefully, 82 and other posters can refrain from breaking the scoop rules. I would not bet on it, but time will tell.
I specifically followed the moderator's suggestion in starting this thread.
We need to stop selling guns to people who advertise that they are violent and mentally unstable, not to mention conspiracy-believing racists. Once you publicly proclaim you want to kill people, in this case Black people, you officially give up your Second Amendment rights IMHO.
You're allowed to have a different opinion, Goose, but I hope you don't.
-
Is criticizing the purveyors of white nationalism and the deadly consequences of it "being political"?
-
Is this like bringing attention to all the crime happening near MU's campus?
If the kid gets the right jury, he will walk.
-
82
Every time there is a mass shooting it makes me sick to my stomach. I do not disagree with your post, possibly over why you think a demented person is still able to purchase a weapon, but not that he/she should not be allowed to purchase a slingshot, let alone a gun.
-
Is this like bringing attention to all the crime happening near MU's campus?
If the kid gets the right jury, he will walk.
No he won't.
-
If the kid gets the right jury, he will walk.
In Buffalo????
Uh, no.
I mean, even people found NGRI don't walk.
-
Is criticizing the purveyors of white nationalism and the deadly consequences of it "being political"?
That's the elephant in the room, so to speak.
-
If the kid gets the right jury, he will walk.
Please. Drama much? This dude is going away for a long time.
He better hope the Aryans or other white prison gangs protect him good. Otherwise, his prison sentence will be much briefer than the judge/jury intends.
-
Is criticizing the purveyors of white nationalism and the deadly consequences of it "being political"?
Agreed completely. Just because political operatives are the ones spouting racist theories does seem like it would be political to decry their actions.
It's like if I criticized Bo Ryan for murdering someone in the AutoZone parking lot. Just because I have a bias against the Badgers doesn't mean that bias is the reason I'm against murder. I'm against racism regardless of the political stripe, and when politicians or talk show pundits are blatantly spreading racist conspiracy theories, it isn't politics that leads to me being against them.
-
But the discussion on Scoop will inevitably turn political.
-
Agreed completely. Just because political operatives are the ones spouting racist theories does seem like it would be political to decry their actions.
It's like if I criticized Bo Ryan for murdering someone in the AutoZone parking lot. Just because I have a bias against the Badgers doesn't mean that bias is the reason I'm against murder. I'm against racism regardless of the political stripe, and when politicians or talk show pundits are blatantly spreading racist conspiracy theories, it isn't politics that leads to me being against them.
He did, you know. 😉
-
There’s no debate. Gun violence will never not be an issue in your lifetime. Racism and racially motivated crime will never not be an issue in your lifetime.
I’ll add, political violence against one another will be normalized at some point, too. We’re not a serious nation on these topics
-
According to numerous reports, the shooter had been writing for months that he wanted to kill Black people. He had made menacing, violent threats against high school classmates. He was ordered to undergo psychiatric evaluations.
And yet he was able to walk into a store, plunk down money, pass an instant background check, and buy a Bushmaster XM-15 semiautomatic rifle.
He then went home and removed the state-mandated restraining bolt that had limited the gun's capacity to a 10-round clip. That modification let him load multiple 30-round magazines, making it easier for him to hunt, target and kill Black people, according to the manifesto he posted online.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the manifesto cites rhetoric embraced by white supremacists, making references to a racist conspiracy theory called "great replacement," which asserts that political elites use immigration and other policies to reduce the white population. The conspiracy theory has been cited as inspiration for several violent attacks against Hispanics, Muslims and Jews in the U.S. and abroad.
It starts at home
-
There’s no debate. Gun violence will never not be an issue in your lifetime. Racism and racially motivated crime will never not be an issue in your lifetime.
I’ll add, political violence against one another will be normalized at some point, too. We’re not a serious nation on these topics
Sooner than most think. The advocates are already working on it.
-
Sooner than most think. The advocates are already working on it.
January 6th was a test run. This will probably lead to the thread being locked but don’t think that “tour” didn’t teach some valuable lessons
-
January 6th was a test run. This will probably lead to the thread being locked but don’t think that “tour” didn’t teach some valuable lessons
Michigan in May of 20 was the test run. January 6 was 2.0. More to come.
-
The MSLSD is strong on this topic.
-
The MSLSD is strong on this topic.
No, it isn’t.
The idea political violence is a one-way street is false. We’ve already had evidence of this and once we accept things like January 6 as the new normal or dismiss it, it becomes easy for the other guys to do it.
I’m not naive enough to think that could never happen. It absolutely could because we normalize it.
Gun violence and racism is a prime example of this. All we have is talking points. There’s no need for common ground from our leaders and citizens who we just repeat the talking points our side espouses.
That’s why I say the debate is pointless. There should be common sense, common ground on these topics. Instead, it’s rhetoric to score points
-
More civilians die in the US due to gun violence, than have died in the entire Ukraine war right now.
Let that sink in.
We have a problem that is largely unique to the US.
-
Agreed completely. Just because political operatives are the ones spouting racist theories does seem like it would be political to decry their actions.
It's like if I criticized Bo Ryan for murdering someone in the AutoZone parking lot. Just because I have a bias against the Badgers doesn't mean that bias is the reason I'm against murder. I'm against racism regardless of the political stripe, and when politicians or talk show pundits are blatantly spreading racist conspiracy theories, it isn't politics that leads to me being against them.
What is the whole story about this Autozone thing? I have seen several references since Bo retired but never anything specific.
-
More civilians die in the US due to gun violence, than have died in the entire Ukraine war right now.
Let that sink in.
We have a problem that is largely unique to the US.
Per year? So far this year? This is poorly worded and really needs a citation.
-
Per year? So far this year? This is poorly worded and really needs a citation.
An estimated 3,668 Ukrainian civilians have been killed since the war began.
7,185 Americans were killed with guns (not including suicides) last year.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293492/ukraine-war-casualties/
-
82
Every time there is a mass shooting it makes me sick to my stomach. I do not disagree with your post, possibly over why you think a demented person is still able to purchase a weapon, but not that he/she should not be allowed to purchase a slingshot, let alone a gun.
Glad we could agree on this very simple, but incredibly important, topic.
Just because political operatives are the ones spouting racist theories does seem like it would be political to decry their actions.
It's like if I criticized Bo Ryan for murdering someone in the AutoZone parking lot. Just because I have a bias against the Badgers doesn't mean that bias is the reason I'm against murder. I'm against racism regardless of the political stripe, and when politicians or talk show pundits are blatantly spreading racist conspiracy theories, it isn't politics that leads to me being against them.
Yessir.
We have a serious gun problem in this country. We have a serious problem with racism in this country. We have a serious problem with white supremacists and other domestic terrorists. We have a serious problem with seemingly smart people (and obviously stupid people, too) getting duped into believing debunked conspiracy theories. And we also have a serious problem with false equivalence (not saying you).
From the Anti-Defamation League:
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2022%2F05%2F17%2Fmultimedia%2F17-THE-MORNING-CHART%2F17-THE-MORNING-CHART-articleLarge-v2.png&t=1652792740&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1c83-0101bf013600&sig=_Z3T3iXNWtPVdIQ.hCYkwg--~D)
-
And we also have a serious problem with false equivalence (not saying you).
No worries at all...obviously we all know how serious the AutoZone situation was.
-
What is the whole story about this Autozone thing? I have seen several references since Bo retired but never anything specific.
Bo Ryan killed a hooker and dumped her body at the Auto Zone on E Wash across the street from Visions.
-
Bo Ryan killed a hooker and dumped her body at the Auto Zone on E Wash across the street from Visions.
If there is one thing all Scoopers agree to, Bo Ryan is a hooker killer
-
Per year? So far this year? This is poorly worded and really needs a citation.
My apologies. You are right it was both very poorly worded, and needed a citation.
Thank you to Pakuni for providing some of that.
What I was referencing were gun violence deaths per year in the US. In 2020, there were 45,222 death from gun related injuries (link below). Of those, 19,384 were murders. The rest were almost all suicides.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/)
Current counts of civilian deaths in Ukraine are 3381 (but likely too thousands too low). Even by high estimates though, we have more civilian deaths per year in the US due to gun violence than have died in Ukraine so far.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2022/05/plight-civilians-ukraine (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-briefing-notes/2022/05/plight-civilians-ukraine)
That is not to discount the tragic situation in Ukraine, rather to highlight how we just accept an insane level of tragedy in the US every year.
-
All good, forgetful. Can't make it easy to dismiss by not citing things when you are going to make bold proclamations.
-
4ever said in the Texas shooting topic:
"Just because I'm right leaning doesn't mean I buy the entire platform. I don't own a gun and frankly, probably never will. I will submit to you that, even with air tight gun laws, those with evil intentions will still find a way to obtain them."
Then why do we have laws about anything? Laws don't prevent bad stuff from ever happening. But they can make it harder for that stuff to happen and also make a societal statement about what is appropriate conduct in a responsible society.
I absolutely know that putting limitations on gun purchases isn't going to stop shootings. I also understand that the Constitution allows people to possess firearms. But I also believe that right isn't absolute. This is a perfect example of how reasonable gun legislation could have saved lives. He was someone with a clear mental health problem. He went out and purchased two weapons on his 18th birthday and less than a week later killed with them.
What about a background check that would include school records? What about a waiting period? What about limiting the types of guns that are available?
Could he have gotten a gun "outside the system" anyway? Sure. Then punish the seller.
But we aren't doing ANYTHING!! Absolutely nothing to attempt to fix the problem. Hell, maybe some of these are dumb and prove to be ineffective over time. But at least give it a try. But we don't even do that.
It's sad and it's immoral.
-
Skilled shooters could get off 3 shots in a minute when the Second Amendment was written. I (never having touched a gun before in my life) could get that off in under a second now. And I'd have no problem getting the gun to do so within hours of me deciding I wanted it.
-
Seatbelts don't prevent 100% of deaths during car accidents, therefore we shouldn't wear seatbelts.
Limits on BAC don't stop 100% of durnk drivers, therefore we shouldn't have DUI laws.
Age limits on smoking don't stop 100% of people from smoking underage, therefore we shouldn't have age limits for smoking.
I've never heard a reasonable counterargument to this. I believe that people who make these arguments know that they are logically and morally in the wrong. Unfortunately, they can't admit it because to admit it means that they have to do something about it. And doing something about it means voting against their party and today, that's a line that too many are just unwilling to cross.
-
Seatbelts don't prevent 100% of deaths during car accidents, therefore we shouldn't wear seatbelts.
Limits on BAC don't stop 100% of durnk drivers, therefore we shouldn't have DUI laws.
Age limits on smoking don't stop 100% of people from smoking underage, therefore we shouldn't have age limits for smoking.
I've never heard a reasonable counterargument to this. I believe that people who make these arguments know that they are logically and morally in the wrong. Unfortunately, they can't admit it because to admit it means that they have to do something about it. And doing something about it means voting against their party and today, that's a line that too many are just unwilling to cross.
Right.
Same goes for the argument that "if someone really wants to do something evil, they'll find a way."
This is likely true, but wouldn't we rather have that person intent on evil armed with a 10-shot pistol or a knife or a hunting rifle than with an AR-15 that can shoot 45 rounds per minute?
We're not going to save every life, but we can save some.
-
Seatbelts don't prevent 100% of deaths during car accidents, therefore we shouldn't wear seatbelts.
Limits on BAC don't stop 100% of durnk drivers, therefore we shouldn't have DUI laws.
Age limits on smoking don't stop 100% of people from smoking underage, therefore we shouldn't have age limits for smoking.
I've never heard a reasonable counterargument to this. I believe that people who make these arguments know that they are logically and morally in the wrong. Unfortunately, they can't admit it because to admit it means that they have to do something about it. And doing something about it means voting against their party and today, that's a line that too many are just unwilling to cross.
The only way to stop drunk drivers is more drunk drivers
-
Seatbelts don't prevent 100% of deaths during car accidents, therefore we shouldn't wear seatbelts.
Limits on BAC don't stop 100% of durnk drivers, therefore we shouldn't have DUI laws.
Age limits on smoking don't stop 100% of people from smoking underage, therefore we shouldn't have age limits for smoking.
I've never heard a reasonable counterargument to this. I believe that people who make these arguments know that they are logically and morally in the wrong. Unfortunately, they can't admit it because to admit it means that they have to do something about it. And doing something about it means voting against their party and today, that's a line that too many are just unwilling to cross.
It's that ziggy "logic" that states we shouldn't have laws because criminals don't care about laws. It goes hand-in-hand with 4ever's stupidity that we have a "soft on crime" problem when we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. But both of these lies fit what they want to hear, so they never think to wonder if they make any sense or are even true.
-
Skilled shooters could get off 3 shots in a minute when the Second Amendment was written. I (never having touched a gun before in my life) could get that off in under a second now. And I'd have no problem getting the gun to do so within hours of me deciding I wanted it.
Yeah, under the Original Intent bullcrap the radical Supreme Court Justices trot out when it is convenient, shouldn't ammunition be limited to musket balls?
-
Skilled shooters could get off 3 shots in a minute when the Second Amendment was written. I (never having touched a gun before in my life) could get that off in under a second now. And I'd have no problem getting the gun to do so within hours of me deciding I wanted it.
Yep. The folks who want government to get inside a woman's womb because "abortion isn't in the Constitution" have no problem with the fact that guns that can kill hundreds of people in a minute also aren't in the Constitution.
Though I guess it's possible that the damn lamestream media failed to correctly report that those Texas kids were killed by musket fire.
-
Age limits on smoking don't stop 100% of people from smoking underage, therefore we shouldn't have age limits for smoking.
And while not an apples to apples comparison, smoking regulations are great example of how regulation can completely change the culture on a topic and lead to meaningful change over time. Cigarettes have never been banned in this country, we just put some common sense regulations into place to limit their proliferation and improve public health. Over the past few decades we have seen smoking go from an activity that many or even most people partook in to something that only a minority engage in (CDC says about 12% of adults smoked in 2021). You can still be a chain smoker if you want to be, you can still smoke the occasional cigarette if you just want to dabble, and yes, some people still get health complications from smoking, but regulations have been massively successful in limiting the negative impacts of smoking. My guess is that in a few more decades, cigarettes will no longer be a meaningful concern.
-
And while not an apples to apples comparison, smoking regulations are great example of how regulation can completely change the culture on a topic and lead to meaningful change over time. Cigarettes have never been banned in this country, we just put some common sense regulations into place to limit their proliferation and improve public health. Over the past few decades we have seen smoking go from an activity that many or even most people partook in to something that only a minority engage in (CDC says about 12% of adults smoked in 2021). You can still be a chain smoker if you want to be, you can still smoke the occasional cigarette if you just want to dabble, and yes, some people still get health complications from smoking, but regulations have been massively successful in limiting the negative impacts of smoking. My guess is that in a few more decades, cigarettes will no longer be a meaningful concern.
Yes. And I am old enough to remember the "what can you do?" questions being asked about cigarettes at the time. And the seemingly unbreakable influence of the tobacco companies. Change can be made with courage.
-
And while not an apples to apples comparison, smoking regulations are great example of how regulation can completely change the culture on a topic and lead to meaningful change over time. Cigarettes have never been banned in this country, we just put some common sense regulations into place to limit their proliferation and improve public health. Over the past few decades we have seen smoking go from an activity that many or even most people partook in to something that only a minority engage in (CDC says about 12% of adults smoked in 2021). You can still be a chain smoker if you want to be, you can still smoke the occasional cigarette if you just want to dabble, and yes, some people still get health complications from smoking, but regulations have been massively successful in limiting the negative impacts of smoking. My guess is that in a few more decades, cigarettes will no longer be a meaningful concern.
Hmm...just replaced tobacco with weed, which is still illegal in some places.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx
-
Hmm...just replaced tobacco with weed, which is still illegal in some places.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx
A 2019 poll about something that was not legal in most states at the time is not a great barometer IMO
-
Hmm...just replaced tobacco with weed, which is still illegal in some places.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx
I'd have chosen vaping.
-
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!
The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.
Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order.
I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc.
My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that.
-
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!
The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.
Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order.
I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc.
My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that.
Careful, 🐷🐷 will question your logic.
-
Hmm...just replaced tobacco with weed, which is still illegal in some places.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/284135/percentage-americans-smoke-marijuana.aspx
So? Cigarettes are a completely different entity with much worse public health risks than marijuana.
Vaping as hards suggested is a better one to bring up. Even including vaping, smoking numbers are still way down from what they were and efforts are still being made to properly regulate vaping.
-
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!
The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.
Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order.
I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc.
My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that.
Seatbelts don't prevent 100% of deaths during car accidents, therefore we shouldn't wear seatbelts.
Limits on BAC don't stop 100% of durnk drivers, therefore we shouldn't have DUI laws.
Age limits on smoking don't stop 100% of people from smoking underage, therefore we shouldn't have age limits for smoking.
America is the only country in the world with mental health problems so that must be the real reason we lead the world in mass shootings.
You're better than this Dgies.
-
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!
The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.
How is it no other country's mental health problems lead to multiple mass shootings most everyday?
You also say:
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
and this:
My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc.
My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that.
Aren't those more laws that you say wouldn't do the trick?
-
How is it no other country's mental health problems lead to multiple mass shootings most everyday?
Because America rules
-
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are! Except it literally is who we are.
The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time. Lazyyyyyyyyyyy ass response. Explain why other countries don't have the same problem that we do with mass shootings and I may take this serious.
Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order. They're overworked, understaffed, and underpaid. Just getting through the day is the best they can hope for.
I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc. We already lock a ton of people up, and it clearly doesn't work. Instead it destroys families and is akin to blowing up terrorists in the hopes that we can eradicate terrorism. It doesn't work, never has, never will. Instead of a band-aid for the wound, why don't we figure out why the wound is being created. Invest in education, expand mental health services and make them a required part of annual physicals, AND regulate the requirements and permits for all firearms. You own a gun, you have that registered in a national database. People evading gun laws or committing crimes with guns get extended sentences (we already do this). BUT when we do this we provide assistance for the family of the offender as well as the victims.
My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that. We went to the moon, but guns are too hard. Okay boomer.
-
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!
Yes it is - "who we are" is a factual statement, not an aspirational one. If these things happen with us in a way they don't happen with anyone else, it very much is who we are.
I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there.
This is a willful misunderstanding of how narrative and statistics interact. We have orders of magnitude more guns than anyone else in the world and orders of magnitude more of these incidents. When someone is morally or mentally predisposed to commit one of these atrocities, it is easier and more likley that they will cross paths with the necessary firearms to follow through in America than anywhere else in the world. That's it. That's the reason. We keep applying this "if you want one bad enough" standard - but that's not how most mentally ill people operate. These incidents aren't carried out by unabomber types - its mentally ill teenagers. They act erratically and almost randomly. Even the smallest deterrents from obtaining these guns can have a big effect. That is more time for them to lose interest, to latch onto something else, to be nabbed by police or psychiatrists or whatever. This is blackjack, not three dimensional chess. We don't need to play Dick Tracy to stop these, we just need to apply simple probability. But that would require us coalescing around the general idea that "maybe just in sheer numbers there are too many guns floating around." But we find that very notion abhorrent to our self identity as a country, so yes, this is very much who we are.
-
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!
It's a perfect reflection of our culture and exactly who we are.
As for more laws ... it's worked in every other country that's tried it.
Meanwhile, doing nothing but praying and thinking hasn't gone so well here.
-
Right on queue after these events, The Onion posts it's "story" always with the same appropriate title.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
UVALDE, TX—In the hours following a violent rampage in Texas in which a lone attacker killed at least 21 individuals and injured several others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Idaho resident Kathy Miller, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
-
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!
The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.
Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order.
I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc.
My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that.
Doing nothing isn't working.
Doing something, even if it is a first step like required background checks and waiting periods, may help a lot. Not many people are seriously suggesting "banning guns." I mean, we do have a second amendment.
So yeah I do think that "more laws" could help. They just have to be the right kinds of laws.
-
I mean this only for discussion, I have no firm opinion on it either way. Someone posed something like "only land/home owning tax paying citizens with clean records can own guns". Ignoring the potential illegal immigrant dog whistle, it would start checking off boxes of a number of recent mass shootings.
-
And while not an apples to apples comparison, smoking regulations are great example of how regulation can completely change the culture on a topic and lead to meaningful change over time. Cigarettes have never been banned in this country, we just put some common sense regulations into place to limit their proliferation and improve public health. Over the past few decades we have seen smoking go from an activity that many or even most people partook in to something that only a minority engage in (CDC says about 12% of adults smoked in 2021). You can still be a chain smoker if you want to be, you can still smoke the occasional cigarette if you just want to dabble, and yes, some people still get health complications from smoking, but regulations have been massively successful in limiting the negative impacts of smoking. My guess is that in a few more decades, cigarettes will no longer be a meaningful concern.
Those regulations were stoopid. Cigarettes (and cigarette manufacturers) didn't kill people, smokers killed themselves. We need to get government out of our lives and let people kill themselves with tar and nicotine. And while we're at it, let's get rid of those stoopid laws requiring that kids riding in cars be buckled into child safety seats. They don't stop every kid from getting killed in car accidents, so that proves those laws aren't worth having.
Stop interfering, government! (Except when it comes to women's reproductive systems.) Jeesh.
Right on queue after these events, The Onion posts it's "story" always with the same appropriate title.
https://www.theonion.com/no-way-to-prevent-this-says-only-nation-where-this-r-1848971668
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
UVALDE, TX—In the hours following a violent rampage in Texas in which a lone attacker killed at least 21 individuals and injured several others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Idaho resident Kathy Miller, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”
Do we laugh or cry at this? Both, I guess.
So much senseless, needless death ... and those who defend our gun culture the loudest are those who scream from the All Lives Matter and All Life Is Precious soapboxes.
-
Smithy, why are always so bitter? Is it because you've realized you're not the smartest guy in the room, hey?
-
In the other thread, in response to me saying, " Right. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures. Right. Because no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives. Right. Because no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun. Right. Because all Republicans are the same as someone who shoots up the school."
Pakuni asked me,
"As for your latter comments, who actually said these things?"
My response was to Jockey saying, "Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow." So the answer is, Who is Jockey?
I, and plenty of republicans (including on this site) don't agree with the entire platform of the republican party, nor are we responsible for the actions of some idiot/deranged individual who commits such a horrific crime. Personally, I don't own a gun, would never own a gun, and I can't come up with a good reason why a background check and reasonable waiting period are unreasonable restrictions to buying a firearm. To group all republicans as thinking/believing everything that someone else did is, as I said, idiotic. And before anyone including Jockey, says he meant "every republican lawmaker" rather than "every republican", he would have said that. But based on Jockey's comments to other posters on Scoop, he didn't though because he sees everyone who doesn't agree with all of his thoughts, the same.
And to Tsmith, who said my feelings of sadness don't mean sh!t, three things can be true at once. One, a person can be right leaning. B, a right leaning person can be incredibly saddened by a mass shooting, especially when it involves children. And 3, you're an idiot.
-
And to Tsmith, who said my feelings of sadness don't mean sh!t, three things can be true at once. One, a person can be right leaning. B, a right leaning person can be incredibly saddened by a mass shooting, especially when it involves children. And 3, you're an idiot.
So long as you continue to support the politicians that refuse to do anything, your feelings are as useless as thoughts and prayers.
-
I, and plenty of republicans (including on this site) don't agree with the entire platform of the republican party, nor are we responsible for the actions of some idiot/deranged individual who commits such a horrific crime. Personally, I don't own a gun, would never own a gun, and I can't come up with a good reason why a background check and reasonable waiting period are unreasonable restrictions to buying a firearm. To group all republicans as thinking/believing everything that someone else did is, as I said, idiotic.
This is fair, L84, and I'm glad to hear this from you.
I do hope this means that you will not vote for politicians who oppose those reasonable restrictions you favor. Because until we get those people out of office and replaced by those who are willing to enact such restrictions, there will never be any meaningful change.
-
We're failing as parents, mentors, and educators. No amount of legislation will change this. Change your culture and change your outcome.
-
No amount of legislation will change this.
Other countries of the world disagree with you.
Change your culture and change your outcome.
Like...how?
-
In the other thread, in response to me saying, " Right. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures. Right. Because no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives. Right. Because no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun. Right. Because all Republicans are the same as someone who shoots up the school."
Pakuni asked me,
"As for your latter comments, who actually said these things?"
My response was to Jockey saying, "Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow." So the answer is, Who is Jockey?
I, and plenty of republicans (including on this site) don't agree with the entire platform of the republican party, nor are we responsible for the actions of some idiot/deranged individual who commits such a horrific crime. Personally, I don't own a gun, would never own a gun, and I can't come up with a good reason why a background check and reasonable waiting period are unreasonable restrictions to buying a firearm. To group all republicans as thinking/believing everything that someone else did is, as I said, idiotic. And before anyone including Jockey, says he meant "every republican lawmaker" rather than "every republican", he would have said that. But based on Jockey's comments to other posters on Scoop, he didn't though because he sees everyone who doesn't agree with all of his thoughts, the same.
You're being (generously) misleading here, Lighthouse.
When I asked "who actually said these things" I was responding to these statements you made:
1. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures.
2. Because no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives.
3. Because no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun.
What Jockey wrote is nothing close to that.
So, again, who is saying these things?
-
We're failing as parents, mentors, and educators. No amount of legislation will change this. Change your culture and change your outcome.
Why have laws?
Segregation in the South was a result of failings by parents, mentors and educators. It took laws to change the culture, which obviously still hasn't changed entirely.
Had we waited for the culture to change, how much longer would Black kids in Mississippi have been required to attend separate schools?
Anyhow, aren't laws the way any culture/society codifies its beliefs and values?
-
You're being (generously) misleading here, Lighthouse.
When I asked "who actually said these things" I was responding to these statements you made:
1. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures.
What Jockey wrote is nothing close to that.
So, again, who is saying these things?
He didn't? Direct quotes...
Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow.
Then doubled down with...
Virtually every republican supports more more more guns for everybody. That is not my opinion - it is fact.
That kind of speaks directly to that if you ask me. His whole persona is treating every conservative leaning person as a monolith.
-
At some point the only thing that matters is what the practical effect of a voting or political choice actually is, not the personally-held conviction of the voter. What is actually at play here are the relative priorities of the voter simply meaning one thing is more important to them than another.
Say I support Policies A and B and oppose Policies C and D. If I vote for a politician who enacts all 4 policies, as a practical matter I voted to support the ones I personally oppose as much as the ones I personally support.
If I hate gun violence, but dislike taxes. And I vote for a Republican Senator who will lower my taxes and ensure no gun control is enacted, my choice is, on a practical level, one in favor of no gun control and that's not changed by whether I hate gun violence and want gun control or if I want all gun regulations stripped away forever.
What everyone is really dealing with is handling the cognitive dissonance of their relative priorities. "I want sensible gun control reform but not enough to vote for a Democrat who would enact such gun control because I dislike these other aspects of their platform or I like the rest of the Republican position more than I want gun control enacted" is what it really boils down to. I'm not really condemning this framework, because I find it hard to imagine being 100% lockstep in approval of any one candidate's platform or policy choices so compromises are inherent in an electoral representative democracy.
But let's not kid ourselves, this is merely about priorities and painting oneself as one of the "good" ones.
-
Why have laws?
Segregation in the South was a result of failings by parents, mentors and educators. It took laws to change the culture, which obviously still hasn't changed entirely.
Had we waited for the culture to change, how much longer would Black kids in Mississippi have been required to attend separate schools?
Anyhow, aren't laws the way any culture/society codifies its beliefs and values?
You are right P… let me restate. No amount of additional legislation will deter these outcomes. It starts at home folks. Enforce what’s on the books and take notice of your neighbors. This kid like most others didn’t just materialize. Stability at home creates stability in the community.
the Mississippi comments have no bearing here.
You changing the Constitution?
-
He didn't? Direct quotes...
Then doubled down with...
That kind of speaks directly to that if you ask me. His whole persona is treating every conservative leaning person as a monolith.
No, he didn't.
In what reading of the English language is "Every Republican should hold his hang in shame" synonymous with "no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun"?
How are you reading "Virtually every republican supports more more more guns for everybody" to mean "no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives."
These statements aren't remotely similar, much less the same.
-
You are right P… let me restate. No amount of additional legislation will deter these outcomes. It starts at home folks. Enforce what’s on the books and take notice of your neighbors. This kid like most others didn’t just materialize. Stability at home creates stability in the community.
the Mississippi comments have no bearing here.
You changing the Constitution?
No one has really engaged with what the practical effect of "gun control" reform laws would be under a constitutional analysis in the post-Heller world (which is probably a testament to how effectively the "why bother it will never happen" headset has crystalized in everyone's mind, but that's neither here nor there).
I think it's probable that any regulation would have to past strict scrutiny to survive, which is damn near impossible, but not totally impossible. This means that any law would have to advance a compelling governmental interest and it would have to do so in narrowest means possible to achieve that interest. Typically, constitutionality arguments are over what form of scrutiny to apply and once the courts decide that a law is subject to strict scrutiny it's determinative of the outcome and that outcome is that it is not constitutional.
However, since we kinda take as a given that gun control is going to be subject to strict scrutiny, then as a practical matter the people crafting the law can earn their lobbying cash by writing one that can pass strict scrutiny analysis.
I've got real work to do so am not going to research or craft an analysis or argument but for funsies you all are welcome to try. I'll even get you started: I'll posit that preventing the mass murder of children in schools is a compelling governmental interest. Now all you have to do is propose laws that will will advance that interest *that are also the narrowest means of advancing that interest*.
Good luck.
-
You are right P… let me restate. No amount of additional legislation will deter these outcomes. It starts at home folks. Enforce what’s on the books and take notice of your neighbors. This kid like most others didn’t just materialize. Stability at home creates stability in the community.
the Mississippi comments have no bearing here.
You changing the Constitution?
1. Plenty of murderers and mass shooters came from loving, stable, two-parent homes. Eric Harris. Dylan Klebold. Seung-Hui Cho. Patrick Crusius. Payton Gendron. James Holmes.
I could go on for a while.
2. Of course the Mississippi comments have bearing. The suggestion that the only way to solve a societal problem is by changing the culture before the laws is nonsense. As the Civil Rights Movement showed,the legislation drove the change in culture, not the other way around.
3. Sure,let's change the Constitution. It's not like we haven't done it 33 times already.
-
This is fair, L84, and I'm glad to hear this from you.
I do hope this means that you will not vote for politicians who oppose those reasonable restrictions you favor. Because until we get those people out of office and replaced by those who are willing to enact such restrictions, there will never be any meaningful change.
I get what you're saying, but let me first ask you something, because you seem to be very philosophical.
This is sort of like back in the day sitting in Dr. Beach's Phil class:
Is it possible to believe in most, but not all, policies of a group, and still remain a member of that group? In other words, if one aligns with the majority of policies of one group or entity over those of another, is it possible to remain a member of the first group? If the answer is yes, it seems that one should align him or herself with the group that most closely represents his or her beliefs, even though there's not 100% agreement on all policy. If the answer is no, should the person choose to then be a member of no group? Because it's not logical for one to then be a member of the group whose policies are less aligned, so it would only make sense to either (a) remain a member of the first group because it best represents the majority of one's own beliefs, or (2) be aligned with no group.
Maybe we should ask Nancy Pelosi?
-
Ok gang, don't want to be contrarian, but do you really think more laws are going to do the trick?
I don't.
If they did, I'd stand up here and scream louder for laws and regulation than even our President. I'm sick and tired of waking up and asking who killed whom today. It's absurd and a very poor reflection on our culture and our society. It's not who we are!
The sad part is the real problem is mental health and detecting problems before they become problems. That falls largely to the parent and to friends. It falls largely to society at large to say something and to provide real mental health solutions. The latter is something we haven't done in a long time.
Having worked with school administrators and psychologists in my parental life, I find most are institutionally focused and care as much about the individuals as I do about wave height in the Central Indian Ocean. There is an inherent distrust between parents, students and school psychologists/therapists because few are focused on anything other than orderly behavior in school and preservation of existing social order.
I'm not sure there is an answer to this one. Yeah, try to ban guns. If one wants a gun in this country, one can find anything. High volume magazines and semi-automatics? As long as we have an Army, they'll be out there. My thought would be to get tough on gun crimes, beginning with owning illegal weapons and going all the way up to murder. Automatic prison sentences for anyone caught with an unregistered firearm and anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime goes to prison for a long time with no parole. Regardless of race, religion, national origin etc.
My idea ain't going to happen. Period. This country will never do that.
Plenty of mass shootings are NOT caused by mental illness. See the Deere district shootings 2 weeks ago for a recent example.
-
No, he didn't.
In what reading of the English language is "Every Republican should hold his hang in shame" synonymous with "no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun"?
How are you reading "Virtually every republican supports more more more guns for everybody" to mean "no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives."
These statements aren't remotely similar, much less the same.
Pak, read what I wrote and quoted again. I never addressed those. Thats why I chopped off 2 and 3, cause I thought those were projecting and stretching instead of actual points directly stated. He very clearly stated that no "republican" wants any reasonable gun control measures, just "more more guns" which kicks off plenty of other stuff.
If you disagree with point 1, that I quoted, you're being incredible generous and I'll just agree to disagree.
-
Look guys, I didn't just sit for a Public Policy Exam. I expressed my thoughts about crime and punishment.
So let's deal with reality in this country and come down from idealistic concepts that will never happen.
1) America is the most diverse society in the world. We're about the only country in the world not built around a tribe. Many of you are fantastic at pointing out our failings as a nation. We have them -- Buffalo, Texas, Parkdale etc are prima facia examples of some of our problems. But when you compare us to Europe or Asia, you conveniently forget that most of those nations are tribal in nature and subscribe to a common culture and a core set of beliefs about life. Try being Turkish in Germany! In America, even our core is being challenged by fringe elements on both the right and left.
2) We're not going to ban guns. Period. We're just not. The notion that because we went to the Moon, we can ban guns, eliminate high capacity magazines, provide universal mental health and be 100 percent successful at identifying every potential mass murderer is fallacious. We can do our best but our courts are not likely to change the wide-eyed interpretation of the Second Amendment or suddenly deny civil rights to folks that we think might be mass murderers.
3) Anybody who thinks the schools can be effective evaluators of mental health should be talking to me about buying a bridge between San Francisco and Marin County. There is a humungous lack of trust between most people who have had interaction with school therapists and school therapists/psychologists. Sorry gang, my children went to a diverse grade and middle school in the Northern Suburbs of Chicago and I'd argue the only thing stupider than a school therapist is the caterpillar crawling along the playground. They're marginally competent to maintain the social order of the school and regularly turn their backs on what's really happening in their schools. And you expect them to find mass murderers? The gay and lesbian community, for example, would be horrified at what we were told and how the school acted.
4) For the record, I don't own a gun and I think the gun culture in our country is absolutely outrageous. Probably the dumbest thing Florida ever did (and that's saying a lot) was enact Stand Your Ground and Concealed Carry.
5) If ya'll think I'm wrong, God love you. Go for it. That's the beauty of a democracy and a representative republic. Good luck!
-
Look guys, I didn't just sit for a Public Policy Exam. I expressed my thoughts about crime and punishment.
So let's deal with reality in this country and come down from idealistic concepts that will never happen.
1) America is the most diverse society in the world. We're about the only country in the world not built around a tribe. Many of you are fantastic at pointing out our failings as a nation. We have them -- Buffalo, Texas, Parkdale etc are prima facia examples of some of our problems. But when you compare us to Europe or Asia, you conveniently forget that most of those nations are tribal in nature and subscribe to a common culture and a core set of beliefs about life. Try being Turkish in Germany! In America, even our core is being challenged by fringe elements on both the right and left.
2) We're not going to ban guns. Period. We're just not. The notion that because we went to the Moon, we can ban guns, eliminate high capacity magazines, provide universal mental health and be 100 percent successful at identifying every potential mass murderer is fallacious. We can do our best but our courts are not likely to change the wide-eyed interpretation of the Second Amendment or suddenly deny civil rights to folks that we think might be mass murderers.
3) Anybody who thinks the schools can be effective evaluators of mental health should be talking to me about buying a bridge between San Francisco and Marin County. There is a humungous lack of trust between most people who have had interaction with school therapists and school therapists/psychologists. Sorry gang, my children went to a diverse grade and middle school in the Northern Suburbs of Chicago and I'd argue the only thing stupider than a school therapist is the caterpillar crawling along the playground. They're marginally competent to maintain the social order of the school and regularly turn their backs on what's really happening in their schools. And you expect them to find mass murderers? The gay and lesbian community, for example, would be horrified at what we were told and how the school acted.
4) For the record, I don't own a gun and I think the gun culture in our country is absolutely outrageous. Probably the dumbest thing Florida ever did (and that's saying a lot) was enact Stand Your Ground and Concealed Carry.
5) If ya'll think I'm wrong, God love you. Go for it. That's the beauty of a democracy and a representative republic. Good luck!
I appreciate your thoughts brother dgies but I'm not sure we're "the most diverse society in the world."
-
You're being (generously) misleading here, Lighthouse.
When I asked "who actually said these things" I was responding to these statements you made:
1. Because no Republican wants any reasonable gun control measures.
2. Because no republican has any feelings of sadness for the loss of human life, let alone children’s lives.
3. Because no Republican’s children ever get killed by a gun.
What Jockey wrote is nothing close to that.
So, again, who is saying these things?
In response to a school getting shot up and many people dying, Jockey states "Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow." I'm being misleading a lot less than you're being obtuse.
-
Look guys, I didn't just sit for a Public Policy Exam. I expressed my thoughts about crime and punishment.
So let's deal with reality in this country and come down from idealistic concepts that will never happen.
1) America is the most diverse society in the world. We're about the only country in the world not built around a tribe. Many of you are fantastic at pointing out our failings as a nation. We have them -- Buffalo, Texas, Parkdale etc are prima facia examples of some of our problems. But when you compare us to Europe or Asia, you conveniently forget that most of those nations are tribal in nature and subscribe to a common culture and a core set of beliefs about life. Try being Turkish in Germany! In America, even our core is being challenged by fringe elements on both the right and left.
2) We're not going to ban guns. Period. We're just not. The notion that because we went to the Moon, we can ban guns, eliminate high capacity magazines, provide universal mental health and be 100 percent successful at identifying every potential mass murderer is fallacious. We can do our best but our courts are not likely to change the wide-eyed interpretation of the Second Amendment or suddenly deny civil rights to folks that we think might be mass murderers.
3) Anybody who thinks the schools can be effective evaluators of mental health should be talking to me about buying a bridge between San Francisco and Marin County. There is a humungous lack of trust between most people who have had interaction with school therapists and school therapists/psychologists. Sorry gang, my children went to a diverse grade and middle school in the Northern Suburbs of Chicago and I'd argue the only thing stupider than a school therapist is the caterpillar crawling along the playground. They're marginally competent to maintain the social order of the school and regularly turn their backs on what's really happening in their schools. And you expect them to find mass murderers? The gay and lesbian community, for example, would be horrified at what we were told and how the school acted.
4) For the record, I don't own a gun and I think the gun culture in our country is absolutely outrageous. Probably the dumbest thing Florida ever did (and that's saying a lot) was enact Stand Your Ground and Concealed Carry.
5) If ya'll think I'm wrong, God love you. Go for it. That's the beauty of a democracy and a representative republic. Good luck!
1. We're nowhere close to being the most diverse country in the world. Unless, under your definition of diversity, all Africans are the same, all Asians are the same, all Latin Americans are the same, etc.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/
2. Not a single person here has said they believe we will or should ban guns. This paragraph is built upon straw man after straw man, and the oft-repeated/completely useless argument that no effort is worth undertaking unless it's "100 percent successful." That attitude is getting kids killed.
3.Your personal experience involving one child at one school district, as terrible as it might have been. proves nothing in the bigger picture. People who's actually study this say schools can be quite effective at identifying students with mental health needs.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.814157/full
-
In response to a school getting shot up and many people dying, Jockey states "Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow." I'm being misleading a lot less than you're being obtuse.
Nah. You just want to play victim and can't admit when you're wrong.
-
Pakumi, I appreciate your thoughts as well. When I look at the last 10 or so mass shootings Im trying to envision what laws that are being proposed would have actually prevented these from happening?
Maybe Im not seeing things as clearly as others but there are without question some (Las Vegas as an example) where literally the only way it could be prevented is a blanket gun ban.
Certainly I agree with the arguments that we need better background checks and schools themselves should be more secure in general. Obviously there's not going to be much agreement when it comes to having armed guards and fortress like buildings. But I do think electronic type systems with doors would be helpful.
There's no question that the vast majority of states with more stringent gun laws have fewer gun related deaths. I would imagine suicide is a huge stat among this and we seem to shrug our shoulders about it. There are also a number of gun homicides in our major cities from illegal purchases. When little kids are not safe in or near their homes or schools we need to look at what specific laws can be calibrated to stop these tragedies, nor simply echo political talking points.
So, I'm asking you and others to specifically look at the horrific events from yesterday and the last decade or so and explain how specific laws that have been proposed would have prevented what happened in these cases? I know there have been many red flags over the years including yesterday on social media or what have you.. But again. whether it be specifically how to background check, age requirements, security within schools, etc what would you say either has been suggested or needs to be done to thwart evil people committing mass murder? Ty.
-
1. We're nowhere close to being the most diverse country in the world. Unless, under your definition of diversity, all Africans are the same, all Asians are the same, all Latin Americans are the same, etc.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/
2. Not a single person here has said they believe we will or should ban guns. This paragraph is built upon straw man after straw man, and the oft-repeated/completely useless argument that no effort is worth undertaking unless it's "100 percent successful." That attitude is getting kids killed.
3.Your personal experience involving one child at one school district, as terrible as it might have been. proves nothing in the bigger picture. People who's actually study this say schools can be quite effective at identifying students with mental health needs.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feduc.2022.814157/full
Brother Pakuni:
I'm not going to waste my time in a senseless debate about the "might be." As I said, if you and the other liberals on this board think you can get it done, then go do it! God bless you and may you be successful.
Quit talking and start doing!
But I do want to address my personal experience. Dude, it's a data point and I will promise you there are more data points like mine than the theoreticians on this board will ever imagine. If school psychologists are so damn good, where are they when it comes time to identify those mass murderers on the South or West Side of Chicago? If the world's most highly paid, over-indulged teachers and administrators can't find the mentally ill who carry guns everywhere they go, what makes you think they can be at the forefront of mental illness.
Look, we have as many people die on a warm summer weekend night in Chicago as they did at the school. But, no one wants to talk about that -- unless it is to blame Republicans for it.
Again, I'm all for doing whatever weapons control we can. But it's not going to happen.
-
We're failing as parents, mentors, and educators. No amount of legislation will change this. Change your culture and change your outcome.
I concur. The gun culture in this country is a disgrace
-
Brother Pakuni:
I'm not going to waste my time in a senseless debate about the "might be." As I said, if you and the other liberals on this board think you can get it done, then go do it! God bless you and may you be successful.
Quit talking and start doing!
But I do want to address my personal experience. Dude, it's a data point and I will promise you there are more data points like mine than the theoreticians on this board will ever imagine. If school psychologists are so damn good, where are they when it comes time to identify those mass murderers on the South or West Side of Chicago? If the world's most highly paid, over-indulged teachers and administrators can't find the mentally ill who carry guns everywhere they go, what makes you think they can be at the forefront of mental illness.
Look, we have as many people die on a warm summer weekend night in Chicago as they did at the school. But, no one wants to talk about that -- unless it is to blame Republicans for it.
Again, I'm all for doing whatever weapons control we can. But it's not going to happen.
Brother dgies I think this is an important point. There should be far more passion and comprehensive discussions about Chicago violence and other major cities. Little kids have gotten killed there just like in Texas yesterday. The vast, vast, vast amount of gun related homicides are from handguns, not AR-15's. It's a terrible situation.
-
Nah. You just want to play victim and can't admit when you're wrong.
Ok hotshot. Give me your best spin on what Jockey actually meant. And when you put down Jockey's water, maybe he can clarify why "Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow." I'll wait.
-
Why don't we make everyone who wants a gun join a militia?
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim#:~:text=(a)%20The%20militia%20of%20the,the%20United%20States%20who%20are (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim#:~:text=(a)%20The%20militia%20of%20the,the%20United%20States%20who%20are)
-
Pakumi, I appreciate your thoughts as well. When I look at the last 10 or so mass shootings Im trying to envision what laws that are being proposed would have actually prevented these from happening?
Maybe Im not seeing things as clearly as others but there are without question some (Las Vegas as an example) where literally the only way it could be prevented is a blanket gun ban.
1. Raise the gun purchase age to 21. It's insane that we as a society believe teenagers are too immature and capricious to make smart decisions about alcohol use - and even in some places tobacco use - and yet believe they can make smart decisions with guns.
2. Bar public ownership of military-style rifles like the AR-15. This may not have prevented the Texas, Parkland and Buffalo shootings entirely, but it would have made them less deadly.
3. A federal red flag law. The vast majority of mass shooters give off hints to multiple people of what's to come, and yet fewer than half of U.S. states have laws on the books through which people can report that behavior and, if justified, authorities could temporarily remove firearms as a precaution.
-
Ok hotshot. Give me your best spin on what Jockey actually meant. And when you put down Jockey's water, maybe he can clarify why "Every republican should hang their head in shame tomorrow." I'll wait.
Yawn.
Jockey's a big boy who can speak for himself.
-
Quit talking and start doing!
We have. We've voted for people who are attempting to pass legislation to create new regulations that will hopefully make a meaningful impact in reducing gun vioence, specifically violence in mass shootings. We've done our part. We need help from our conservative brothers and sisters who claim to want this to, to hold their politicians to task and vote them out if they are unwilling to enact the will of the American People.
But I do want to address my personal experience. Dude, it's a data point and I will promise you there are more data points like mine than the theoreticians on this board will ever imagine. If school psychologists are so damn good, where are they when it comes time to identify those mass murderers on the South or West Side of Chicago? If the world's most highly paid, over-indulged teachers and administrators can't find the mentally ill who carry guns everywhere they go, what makes you think they can be at the forefront of mental illness.
You are letting your own personal experience cloud your judgement. I work in education as does my sister and the majority of school counselors, psychologists, social workers, etc are wonderful people who get paid sh*t and work impossible case loads because they are passionate about helping students. I don't know where you are getting this myth of a rash of "highly paid, over-indulged teachers and administrators."
Again, I'm all for doing whatever weapons control we can. But it's not going to happen.
Then you are part of the problem.
-
Yawn.
Jockey's a big boy who can speak for himself.
Then you just took it upon yourself to speak for him all this time? Got it.
-
2) We're not going to ban guns. Period. We're just not. The notion that because we went to the Moon, we can ban guns, eliminate high capacity magazines, provide universal mental health and be 100 percent successful at identifying every potential mass murderer is fallacious. We can do our best but our courts are not likely to change the wide-eyed interpretation of the Second Amendment or suddenly deny civil rights to folks that we think might be mass murderers.
Only the fringiest of the fringy think banning guns would ever happen. But, there are dozens an dozens of other suggestions, many of which have been discussed in this forum, that taken together would very likely drastically reduce the number of gun homicides.
You yourself, after saying new laws wouldn't work, suggested about 4 new laws that you'd like to see. There are plenty more that would work to reduce the number of guns sold to people that shouldn't have them (domestic abusers, red flag laws, waiting periods, etc.), and plenty more that would require people to continue to prove that they were responsible gun owners (licensing requirements, proof of safe storage, training requirement, etc.).
I do agree, sadly, that with the current configuration of the SC, creating laws that they don't reflexively deem unconstitutional is a challenge.
A society that allows 18-year-olds to purchase military grade weapons but won't let them have a beer or buy a cigarette truly has its priorities unnatural carnal knowledgeed up.
-
Why don't we make everyone who wants a gun join a militia?
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim#:~:text=(a)%20The%20militia%20of%20the,the%20United%20States%20who%20are (https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter12&edition=prelim#:~:text=(a)%20The%20militia%20of%20the,the%20United%20States%20who%20are)
A Well-Regulated Militia, not one of those Michigan Militias.
-
Look, we have as many people die on a warm summer weekend night in Chicago as they did at the school. But, no one wants to talk about that -- unless it is to blame Republicans for it.
Yeah, dgies, no one talks about gun violence in Chicago.
Thought you were a more serious person than this.
-
Then you just took it upon yourself to speak for him all this time? Got it.
nm
-
A Well-Regulated Militia, not one of those Michigan Militias.
Yes. The militia under the U.S. Code.
-
I get what you're saying, but let me first ask you something, because you seem to be very philosophical.
This is sort of like back in the day sitting in Dr. Beach's Phil class:
Is it possible to believe in most, but not all, policies of a group, and still remain a member of that group? In other words, if one aligns with the majority of policies of one group or entity over those of another, is it possible to remain a member of the first group? If the answer is yes, it seems that one should align him or herself with the group that most closely represents his or her beliefs, even though there's not 100% agreement on all policy. If the answer is no, should the person choose to then be a member of no group? Because it's not logical for one to then be a member of the group whose policies are less aligned, so it would only make sense to either (a) remain a member of the first group because it best represents the majority of one's own beliefs, or (2) be aligned with no group.
Maybe we should ask Nancy Pelosi?
Thanks for the conversation and I totally get what you are saying. jficke13 addressed this very idea with his eloquent post in this thread at 01:15:57 PM.
I certainly don't agree with 100% of what most politicians present. As jficke said, it's a matter of priorities. It's very easy for me to place an extremely high priority on keeping schoolkids alive. I'm willing to pay higher taxes to prioritize those kids' lives, I'm willing to give up a tiny tidbit of 2nd Amendment rights to do it, etc. I know that others prioritize the lives of the unborn when they vote; I don't get why one would want to force an 8-weeks-pregnant woman to keep a mass of cells inside her while not caring enough about 8 year olds to enact reasonable gun legislation that 70%-90% of Americans say they want, but that's me.
It's OK if you and others don't give such things as high priority, but then I do think you surrender a little of the high ground on this issue, if that matters to you.
Not sure what your last line was supposed to mean, though I'm pretty sure it didn't fit in with your otherwise thoughtful post.
-
Yeah, dgies, no one talks about gun violence in Chicago.
Thought you were a more serious person than this.
If the ones doing the shooting were consistently white guys, the violence in Chicago and other cities would be national news 24/7.
-
1. Raise the gun purchase age to 21. It's insane that we as a society believe teenagers are too immature and capricious to make smart decisions about alcohol use - and even in some places tobacco use - and yet believe they can make smart decisions with guns.... and voting age? Military service? I don’t think this is a age issue. There are platforms out there that want to reduce the voting age to 16... wth?
2. Bar public ownership of military-style rifles like the AR-15. This may not have prevented the Texas, Parkland and Buffalo shootings entirely, but it would have made them less deadly. What? You mean just rifles in general, right? The best hunting rifles these days are built on the AR platform and it’s also a platform that provides configurations that out preforms pretty much anything for home defense. Tough sell.
3. A federal red flag law. The vast majority of mass shooters give off hints to multiple people of what's to come, and yet fewer than half of U.S. states have laws on the books through which people can report that behavior and, if justified, authorities could temporarily remove firearms as a precaution. There’s something to this but what’s been proposed has fell short. High bar when removing a constitutional right.... and most sheriffs won’t enforce them.
Let’s take additional gun restrictions off the table. We’re playing defense. What can we do to mitigate these types of incidents... the high homicide rates in large cities... how about suicides ( some would argue these are inevitable and would occur regardless of having access to a fire arm)? I say more RomComs :D
Most discussions involving gun regulation start as non-starters...and don’t seek common ground. Where’s the step forward? What I see here is more division, glib remarks, and heel stomping... no reasoning. I picture most here having crazy eyes and I’m fairly certain that’s not the case.
Do you ever take a break from this board, P... ?
-
Thanks for the conversation and I totally get what you are saying. jficke13 addressed this very idea with his eloquent post in this thread at 01:15:57 PM.
I certainly don't agree with 100% of what most politicians present. As jficke said, it's a matter of priorities. It's very easy for me to place an extremely high priority on keeping schoolkids alive. I'm willing to pay higher taxes to prioritize those kids' lives, I'm willing to give up a tiny tidbit of 2nd Amendment rights to do it, etc. I know that others prioritize the lives of the unborn when they vote; I don't get why one would want to force an 8-weeks-pregnant woman to keep a mass of cells inside her while not caring enough about 8 year olds to enact reasonable gun legislation that 70%-90% of Americans say they want, but that's me.
It's OK if you and others don't give such things as high priority, but then I do think you surrender a little of the high ground on this issue, if that matters to you.
Not sure what your last line was supposed to mean, though I'm pretty sure it didn't fit in with your otherwise thoughtful post.
Nancy Pelosi is doing the same thing, but with the Catholic Church. She clearly doesn't agree 100% with all of the Church's policies, but it appears that she must feel the majority of the policies she does align with outweighs any that don't align with her beliefs.
I also appreciate the conversation 82. I Anytime I can conjure up an image of Dr. Beach sitting in class with his Wall Street Journal in hand, peering over the paper to ask a philosophical question, takes me back to a good place.
-
Is it possible to believe in most, but not all, policies of a group, and still remain a member of that group? In other words, if one aligns with the majority of policies of one group or entity over those of another, is it possible to remain a member of the first group? If the answer is yes, it seems that one should align him or herself with the group that most closely represents his or her beliefs, even though there's not 100% agreement on all policy. If the answer is no, should the person choose to then be a member of no group? Because it's not logical for one to then be a member of the group whose policies are less aligned, so it would only make sense to either (a) remain a member of the first group because it best represents the majority of one's own beliefs, or (2) be aligned with no group.
It is possible, but you have to understand that by aligning yourself with a group that supports a policy you don't agree with, you are sending the message that the negative impact of supporting that policy is less important to you than your support of other policies. Which is fine, but assuming you vote, you bear some small part of the responsibility for those negative impacts.
-
Let’s take additional gun restrictions off the table. We’re playing defense. What can we do to mitigate these types of incidents... the high homicide rates in large cities... how about suicides ( some would argue these are inevitable and would occur regardless of having access to a fire arm)? I say more RomComs :D
Most discussions involving gun regulation start as non-starters...and don’t seek common ground. Where’s the step forward? What I see here is more division, glib remarks, and heel stomping... no reasoning. I picture most here having crazy eyes and I’m fairly certain that’s not the case.
Do you ever take a break from this board, P... ?
He's a very successful person.
-
If the ones doing the shooting were consistently white guys, the violence in Chicago and other cities would be national news 24/7.
It is national news every day.
-
Thanks for the conversation and I totally get what you are saying. jficke13 addressed this very idea with his eloquent post in this thread at 01:15:57 PM.
I certainly don't agree with 100% of what most politicians present. As jficke said, it's a matter of priorities. It's very easy for me to place an extremely high priority on keeping schoolkids alive. I'm willing to pay higher taxes to prioritize those kids' lives, I'm willing to give up a tiny tidbit of 2nd Amendment rights to do it, etc. I know that others prioritize the lives of the unborn when they vote; I don't get why one would want to force an 8-weeks-pregnant woman to keep a mass of cells inside her while not caring enough about 8 year olds to enact reasonable gun legislation that 70%-90% of Americans say they want, but that's me.
It's OK if you and others don't give such things as high priority, but then I do think you surrender a little of the high ground on this issue, if that matters to you.
Not sure what your last line was supposed to mean, though I'm pretty sure it didn't fit in with your otherwise thoughtful post.
People (mostly wealthy people) love to make taxes their number one voting issue because they are self serving. I mean, lowering the top tax bracket 2% when you make 400k saves you enough for your next sports car over the course of a few years.
But yeah, they don’t like guns that much and would be willing to compromise. But not enough to vote for someone who might raise their taxes.
-
Nancy Pelosi is doing the same thing, but with the Catholic Church. She clearly doesn't agree 100% with all of the Church's policies, but it appears that she must feel the majority of the policies she does align with outweighs any that don't align with her beliefs.
I also appreciate the conversation 82. I Anytime I can conjure up an image of Dr. Beach sitting in class with his Wall Street Journal in hand, peering over the paper to ask a philosophical question, takes me back to a good place.
Ah, got it.
Biden does the same with regards to his Catholic beliefs ... and so does almost every Marquette friend I have. The guy who was the best man at my wedding goes to church every Sunday and he most definitely considers himself to be a religious Catholic, yet he believes in a woman's right to control her own reproductive system, believes priests should be able to have love lives and marriage, believes 100% in a person's right to use contraception, etc. And he's hardly unique among the men and women with whom I still associate from my Marquette days -- a few are pretty staunchly anti-abortion, but I don't know anyone who is against contraception. My very best MU friend, a lifelong Republican, voted for Trump in 2016 because he hates the Clintons, so that was the priority he established at the time; he was horrified by what he saw over the ensuing 4 years and voted for Biden in 2020 even though he disagrees with Biden on a lot of things.
Each of us has to prioritize what's important for himself or herself.
Stay well, L84.
-
It is national news every day.
And he actually could care less about what’s happening in Chicago but it’s a neat distraction
-
So remote learning wasn't all that bad then?
-
Most discussions involving gun regulation start as non-starters...and don’t seek common ground. Where’s the step forward? What I see here is more division, glib remarks, and heel stomping... no reasoning. I picture most here having crazy eyes and I’m fairly certain that’s not the case.
There is far more agreement and common ground than you may think:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4d/b2/IzxdYR82_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/IzxdYR82)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws-new-poll-says
-
There is far more agreement and common ground than you may think:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4d/b2/IzxdYR82_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/IzxdYR82)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws-new-poll-says
I know. I live in a wealthy Chicago suburb (Barrington), most of the people I interact with daily do not believe in assault weapon ownership and most are republican. They are all also mostly single issue voters (taxes). They also all probably make mid size figures or more.
Talk is cheap, deprioritizing taxes when one is already wealthy is apparently hard.
-
I know. I live in a wealthy Chicago suburb (Barrington), most of the people I interact with daily do not believe in assault weapon ownership and most are republican. They are all also mostly single issue voters (taxes). They also all probably make mid size figures or more.
Talk is cheap, deprioritizing taxes when one is already wealthy is apparently hard.
If you want to melt their brain, tell them that a comparable priced home in the city will cost them 33% less taxes and come with a ton more amenities.
-
ND sucks
-
There is far more agreement and common ground than you may think:
(https://images2.imgbox.com/4d/b2/IzxdYR82_o.jpg) (https://imgbox.com/IzxdYR82)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws-new-poll-says
1317 people polled (Most Americans?) by NPR/PBS? I’m sure that’s not a bias result... 🤔
-
1317 poll by NPR/PBS? I’m sure that’s not a bias result... 🤔
PBS is biased? Ok
It’s not like it’s a MSNBC poll. But, whatever. You do you.
-
1317 people polled (Most Americans?) by NPR/PBS? I’m sure that’s not a bias result... 🤔
Bringing me back to analyzing sample size for predictive effect in my polysci class taught by Dr. McAdams.
1317 is probably sufficient to have a decent predictive power. Most opinion polls aren't going to be much higher than that. The sampling methodology is where you'll find bias, not in the respondent count when you're in this range.
More to the point though, what is it about the responses in this poll that made you reflexively doubt its validity?
-
I know. I live in a wealthy Chicago suburb (Barrington), most of the people I interact with daily do not believe in assault weapon ownership and most are republican. They are all also mostly single issue voters (taxes). They also all probably make mid size figures or more.
Talk is cheap, deprioritizing taxes when one is already wealthy is apparently hard.
I am pretty familiar with Barrington and your description is spot on.
-
Yeah, dgies, no one talks about gun violence in Chicago.
Thought you were a more serious person than this.
C'mon Brother Pakuni, you're smarter than that.
Sure the Lovely Allison News exploits it for viewership every night they can, with the Lovely Natalie practically standing in a pool of blood decrying the violence.
When was the last time you saw the President of the United States get up in a press conference, speech or informal comment and decry the violence on the streets of Chicago? When did you last hear a President scream that we have to do something about it? Or when did Dick Durbin cry on the floor of the United States Senate?
They don't. Durbin runs from the Chicago violence issue so fast you'd think he was doing a four minute mile!
The President who spoke about the violence on the streets of Chicago was the last one -- the Orange Terror. He wanted to send in the Army or the National Guard to enforce the law. To restore order. To make children safe -- or at least safer. To take a leadership role that the Mayor of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois won't because it is not politically expedient.
For that, he was called a racist.
P.S. -- Before you go off on me, I'm no fan of the last President!
-
1317 people polled (Most Americans?) by NPR/PBS? I’m sure that’s not a bias result... 🤔
How about Forbes and Politico? Are Forbes and Politico too biased?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/25/most-voters-want-congress-to-pass-stricter-gun-laws-poll-finds/?sh=1be5d17b1564
How about CBS News? Too biased?
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3501380-more-than-half-of-americans-want-stricter-gun-laws-poll/
Here's a Morning Consult one from last year. Too biased? Quinnipiac, too. Too biased?:
https://www.newsweek.com/77-gop-voters-support-background-checks-gun-buyers-dems-push-forward-bill-1575449
"Overall, 84 percent of voters support universal background checks, while just 11 percent oppose the policy. An additional 5 percent of respondents said they did not have an opinion or don't know.
Furthermore, 77 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of independent voters approve of universal background checks, as do 91 percent of Democrats.
A 2019 poll conducted by Quinnipiac University showed even greater support for universal background checks. In that survey, 94 percent of respondents said all gun buyers should be subject to background checks, while just 4 percent said they were opposed. A July 2019 poll conducted by NPR/PBS/Marist showed a similar result, with 89 percent of voters approving of universal background checks. That included 84 percent of Republicans."
-
Nancy Pelosi is doing the same thing, but with the Catholic Church. She clearly doesn't agree 100% with all of the Church's policies, but it appears that she must feel the majority of the policies she does align with outweighs any that don't align with her beliefs.
I also appreciate the conversation 82. I Anytime I can conjure up an image of Dr. Beach sitting in class with his Wall Street Journal in hand, peering over the paper to ask a philosophical question, takes me back to a good place.
MU82 covered it very well at 2:52pm as pretty much all Catholics I know feel the same.
The very few I know who don't share are all well past retirement age. FWIW
As Papa Francesco said, "Who am I to judge?"
-
When was the last time you saw the President of the United States get up in a press conference, speech or informal comment and decry the violence on the streets of Chicago?
July 9, 2021
President Joe Biden has offered to send a "strike force" to Chicago to crack down on gun trafficking.
President Biden spoke with Mayor Lori Lightfoot on the tarmac at O'Hare Airport on Wednesday.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-joe-biden-mayor-lori-lightfoot-president/10873737/
July 13, 2021
Chicago police Superintendent David Brown said he had a “significant and substantive” discussion with President Joe Biden on Monday in Washington, D.C., about strategies to reduce surging violent crime.
Brown said he and other law enforcement officials who met with the president and Attorney General Merrick Garland had a “shared vision” over a sense of urgency to address these issues and the need for “real consequences for serious crimes.”
“We discussed both short-term and long-term solutions,” he said Tuesday during a news conference in Chicago. “There will be significant follow-up. This wasn’t a one-off meeting.”
https://news.wttw.com/2021/07/13/chicagos-top-cop-touts-significant-and-substantive-meeting-biden-violence-prevention
Or when did Dick Durbin cry on the floor of the United States Senate? They don't. Durbin runs from the Chicago violence issue so fast you'd think he was doing a four minute mile!
Dec. 23, 2021
U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today delivered an opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee field hearing entitled “Combating Gun Trafficking and Reducing Violence in Chicago.” In his opening statement, Durbin highlighted the efforts of key federal agencies to combat gun trafficking, pursue evidence-informed violence prevention strategies, and coordinate with other government and community stakeholders to make our communities safer. Violence fueled by illicit gun trafficking continues to take a devastating toll on Chicago, with Axios reporting that 2021 is shaping up to be one of the worst years for deadly violence in the city’s history.
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-delivers-opening-statement-in-senate-judiciary-committee-chicago-field-hearing-on-reducing-gun-trafficking-and-violence
-
C'mon Brother Pakuni, you're smarter than that.
Sure the Lovely Allison News exploits it for viewership every night they can, with the Lovely Natalie practically standing in a pool of blood decrying the violence.
When was the last time you saw the President of the United States get up in a press conference, speech or informal comment and decry the violence on the streets of Chicago? When did you last hear a President scream that we have to do something about it? Or when did Dick Durbin cry on the floor of the United States Senate?
They don't. Durbin runs from the Chicago violence issue so fast you'd think he was doing a four minute mile!
The President who spoke about the violence on the streets of Chicago was the last one -- the Orange Terror. He wanted to send in the Army or the National Guard to enforce the law. To restore order. To make children safe -- or at least safer. To take a leadership role that the Mayor of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois won't because it is not politically expedient.
For that, he was called a racist.
P.S. -- Before you go off on me, I'm no fan of the last President!
You mean The guy who wanted to shoot peaceful protesters so he could grab a photo op with a Bible outside a church he’s never been in?
Definitely the guy who I want firming public policy on the domestic use of force by our military.
He was called a racist mostly for being blatantly racist.
-
How about Forbes and Politico? Are Forbes and Politico too biased?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/25/most-voters-want-congress-to-pass-stricter-gun-laws-poll-finds/?sh=1be5d17b1564
How about CBS News? Too biased?
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/3501380-more-than-half-of-americans-want-stricter-gun-laws-poll/
Here's a Morning Consult one from last year. Too biased? Quinnipiac, too. Too biased?:
https://www.newsweek.com/77-gop-voters-support-background-checks-gun-buyers-dems-push-forward-bill-1575449
"Overall, 84 percent of voters support universal background checks, while just 11 percent oppose the policy. An additional 5 percent of respondents said they did not have an opinion or don't know.
Furthermore, 77 percent of Republicans and 82 percent of independent voters approve of universal background checks, as do 91 percent of Democrats.
A 2019 poll conducted by Quinnipiac University showed even greater support for universal background checks. In that survey, 94 percent of respondents said all gun buyers should be subject to background checks, while just 4 percent said they were opposed. A July 2019 poll conducted by NPR/PBS/Marist showed a similar result, with 89 percent of voters approving of universal background checks. That included 84 percent of Republicans."
I have a friend who changed his mind after Sandy Hook. He's an Air Force veteran and has some semi-automatic gun that he bought in Virginia but was pretty sure was illegal in Connecticut.
He said since then he's for stricter laws and willing to jump through hoops for gun ownership because the people who are willing to do such are the ones who you can count on being responsible with guns.
-
July 9, 2021
President Joe Biden has offered to send a "strike force" to Chicago to crack down on gun trafficking.
President Biden spoke with Mayor Lori Lightfoot on the tarmac at O'Hare Airport on Wednesday.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-joe-biden-mayor-lori-lightfoot-president/10873737/
July 13, 2021
Chicago police Superintendent David Brown said he had a “significant and substantive” discussion with President Joe Biden on Monday in Washington, D.C., about strategies to reduce surging violent crime.
Brown said he and other law enforcement officials who met with the president and Attorney General Merrick Garland had a “shared vision” over a sense of urgency to address these issues and the need for “real consequences for serious crimes.”
“We discussed both short-term and long-term solutions,” he said Tuesday during a news conference in Chicago. “There will be significant follow-up. This wasn’t a one-off meeting.”
https://news.wttw.com/2021/07/13/chicagos-top-cop-touts-significant-and-substantive-meeting-biden-violence-prevention
Dec. 23, 2021
U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today delivered an opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee field hearing entitled “Combating Gun Trafficking and Reducing Violence in Chicago.” In his opening statement, Durbin highlighted the efforts of key federal agencies to combat gun trafficking, pursue evidence-informed violence prevention strategies, and coordinate with other government and community stakeholders to make our communities safer. Violence fueled by illicit gun trafficking continues to take a devastating toll on Chicago, with Axios reporting that 2021 is shaping up to be one of the worst years for deadly violence in the city’s history.
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-delivers-opening-statement-in-senate-judiciary-committee-chicago-field-hearing-on-reducing-gun-trafficking-and-violence
You would think that dgies could do a simple Google search...
Not to mention the whole post is "whataboutism" at its worst. That if you can't speak out about everything, you shouldn't speak out against anything.
-
July 9, 2021
President Joe Biden has offered to send a "strike force" to Chicago to crack down on gun trafficking.
President Biden spoke with Mayor Lori Lightfoot on the tarmac at O'Hare Airport on Wednesday.
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-joe-biden-mayor-lori-lightfoot-president/10873737/
July 13, 2021
Chicago police Superintendent David Brown said he had a “significant and substantive” discussion with President Joe Biden on Monday in Washington, D.C., about strategies to reduce surging violent crime.
Brown said he and other law enforcement officials who met with the president and Attorney General Merrick Garland had a “shared vision” over a sense of urgency to address these issues and the need for “real consequences for serious crimes.”
“We discussed both short-term and long-term solutions,” he said Tuesday during a news conference in Chicago. “There will be significant follow-up. This wasn’t a one-off meeting.”
https://news.wttw.com/2021/07/13/chicagos-top-cop-touts-significant-and-substantive-meeting-biden-violence-prevention
Dec. 23, 2021
U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today delivered an opening statement at the Senate Judiciary Committee field hearing entitled “Combating Gun Trafficking and Reducing Violence in Chicago.” In his opening statement, Durbin highlighted the efforts of key federal agencies to combat gun trafficking, pursue evidence-informed violence prevention strategies, and coordinate with other government and community stakeholders to make our communities safer. Violence fueled by illicit gun trafficking continues to take a devastating toll on Chicago, with Axios reporting that 2021 is shaping up to be one of the worst years for deadly violence in the city’s history.
https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/durbin-delivers-opening-statement-in-senate-judiciary-committee-chicago-field-hearing-on-reducing-gun-trafficking-and-violence
How's all that working for you?
Have you seen that "strike force" on the Streets of Chicago? Does he mean Chicago White Sox pitchers? Uhh, the way the White Sox are playing -- he'd have to call it a "ball force..."
"Significant and substantive" are what Professor John Vivian, formerly of Marquette's College of Journalism, would call "abstract nouns." Ditto for "shared vision", "Sense of urgency" and "real consequences."
Gosh these people know how to speak Bureaucratese. And you wonder why our federal government is so hamstrung?
In plain English, it's a load of crap. They all said nothing. Durbin at least told us the Administrators were thinking like bureaucrats.
-
How's all that working for you?
Have you seen that "strike force" on the Streets of Chicago? Does he mean Chicago White Sox pitchers? Uhh, the way the White Sox are playing -- he'd have to call it a "ball force..."
"Significant and substantive" are what Professor John Vivian, formerly of Marquette's College of Journalism, would call "abstract nouns." Ditto for "shared vision", "Sense of urgency" and "real consequences."
Gosh these people know how to speak Bureaucratese. And you wonder why our federal government is so hamstrung?
In plain English, it's a load of crap. They all said nothing. Durbin at least told us the Administrators were thinking like bureaucrats.
You asked: "When was the last time you saw the President of the United States get up in a press conference, speech or informal comment and decry the violence on the streets of Chicago?"
When given an answer you don't like you massively shift the goal posts?
-
How's all that working for you?
Have you seen that "strike force" on the Streets of Chicago? Does he mean Chicago White Sox pitchers? Uhh, the way the White Sox are playing -- he'd have to call it a "ball force..."
"Significant and substantive" are what Professor John Vivian, formerly of Marquette's College of Journalism, would call "abstract nouns." Ditto for "shared vision", "Sense of urgency" and "real consequences."
Gosh these people know how to speak Bureaucratese. And you wonder why our federal government is so hamstrung?
In plain English, it's a load of crap. They all said nothing. Durbin at least told us the Administrators were thinking like bureaucrats.
You'd have done yourself a favor by simply stating "Oh, I hadn't seen those." It's OK to miss things once in a while. But now you just look silly first claiming that Biden and Durbin never discuss Chicago violence, then refusing to acknowledge when they do.
As for how it's working, I don't know. I do know that homicides and shootings are down in Chicago this year. No idea how much of that, if any, is attributable to any specific law enforcement initiative.
-
How's all that working for you?
Have you seen that "strike force" on the Streets of Chicago? Does he mean Chicago White Sox pitchers? Uhh, the way the White Sox are playing -- he'd have to call it a "ball force..."
"Significant and substantive" are what Professor John Vivian, formerly of Marquette's College of Journalism, would call "abstract nouns." Ditto for "shared vision", "Sense of urgency" and "real consequences."
Gosh these people know how to speak Bureaucratese. And you wonder why our federal government is so hamstrung?
In plain English, it's a load of crap. They all said nothing. Durbin at least told us the Administrators were thinking like bureaucrats.
Help me understand your argument:
Is it:
1. Since gang violence is bad in Chicago and democrats haven’t fixed it we should not take logical steps to curb the use of AR-15s on children?
2. Democrats are all lip service so you are justified in voting for republicans who just choose to ignore AR-15s being used on children
3. The federal government is poorly run just like city government so we should all give up and not do anything about AR-15s killing 2nd-4th graders
4. It’s all Bidens fault.
Just help me out here.
-
Think about this: The leading cause of death in children (age 0-19) in the United States is firearm related incidents beating out motor vehicle crashes.
Our children are more likely to die from a gun than any other cause.
That's insane.
-
Bringing me back to analyzing sample size for predictive effect in my polysci class taught by Dr. McAdams.
1317 is probably sufficient to have a decent predictive power. Most opinion polls aren't going to be much higher than that. The sampling methodology is where you'll find bias, not in the respondent count when you're in this range.
More to the point though, what is it about the responses in this poll that made you reflexively doubt its validity?
I agree with the methodology comment... for sure. Who was polled, context of the polling, location, etc...
1) mental health - sure/yes. How is the funding allocated. Who's the target. Does this help mitigate the homicide rate in densely populated areas or is this targeted at mass shootings not gang related?
2)background checks @ gun shows and private party sales - have you tried buying a gun at a gun show? They background check. I don't know about nationally, but my state requires all person to person sales goes through a FFL... with a background check. So these laws exist and are not difficult to follow. Now getting people to know they exist is another question. Now, what about inheritance... Mom dies and daughter inherits guns? ... are we approaching a registry here? Big brother? Got to remember why the 2nd amendment exists.
3) Red Flag Laws - I touched on this in the other thread... maybe this one, can't remember. There may be something here but the devil is in the details... they would need to have a high bar in what would be a qualifying circumstance for law enforcement to snag a someone's fire arm(s)... same with declaring someone mentally unfit. There would need to be some type of high bar criteria to act of a red flag claim. Simply being on a mild anti depressant for anxiety or a phone call from a jaded ex would be week sauce.
4) License to own a gun - It is a right and not a privilege to own a fire arm...Do you need to provide ID to authorities if found in possession? I don't know but maybe this should be a thing... are you in legal possession? It's a privilege to drive a car... it's a right to vote.
5) High capacity mags - I'm not digging the stats up but for law enforcement, I think it's 1 in 7 rounds find there target. I don't think that 1 round even counts as the stopping round, just contact with target. try to think of a situation involving multiple assailants and what would be needed to defend yourself. Example.. David Dorn wasn't armed but everyone favorite vigilante was. One is dead, the other alive.
5) Ban semi automatic weapons - that's a gun ban. Pretty much everything is semi auto. As some of the above could be worked with in some manner... this is crazy town.
6) Buy back assault weapons - My hammers are an assault weapons. I want my fire arms to assault, stop, and kill if needed. Come up with a universal definition and we can talk. Fully autos are already banned and one needs a special license for those. Of course there are go arounds and after market parts that can make this happen with no one knowing so there's something to attempting to restrict that market to enforce current law.
7) Allow teachers to carry - ugh. Not a fan. Not enough training time in a day and a year for me to be comfortable with this... The teacher would need to be coming into the position with a very select skill set for me to be comfortable with this.
What I wrote here isn't exhaustive but can shed some light on where some of the disagreement may come from.
Be better parents, mentors, educators, and neighbors... You won't need a fire arm if folks just abide by the Golden Rule.
Be angles, not devils... be saintly, not a sinner,.. choose good, not evil... and for those devils, sinners, and those who choose evil, we have fire arms for protection.
-
Is it possible to believe in most, but not all, policies of a group, and still remain a member of that group? In other words, if one aligns with the majority of policies of one group or entity over those of another, is it possible to remain a member of the first group? If the answer is yes, it seems that one should align him or herself with the group that most closely represents his or her beliefs, even though there's not 100% agreement on all policy.
'84 - is there any point at which this issue would be large enough for you to dissociate yourself with the group? IOW, what would it take for the gun violence issue to sufficiently outweigh the other issues that you would vote for the other side? Or is there no imaginable universe where the gun issue is important enough to you to vote Dem?
-
I agree with the methodology comment... for sure. Who was polled, context of the polling, location, etc...
1) mental health - sure/yes. How is the funding allocated. Who's the target. Does this help mitigate the homicide rate in densely populated areas or is this targeted at mass shootings not gang related?
2)background checks @ gun shows and private party sales - have you tried buying a gun at a gun show? They background check. I don't know about nationally, but my state requires all person to person sales goes through a FFL... with a background check. So these laws exist and are not difficult to follow. Now getting people to know they exist is another question. Now, what about inheritance... Mom dies and daughter inherits guns? ... are we approaching a registry here? Big brother? Got to remember why the 2nd amendment exists.
3) Red Flag Laws - I touched on this in the other thread... maybe this one, can't remember. There may be something here but the devil is in the details... they would need to have a high bar in what would be a qualifying circumstance for law enforcement to snag a someone's fire arm(s)... same with declaring someone mentally unfit. There would need to be some type of high bar criteria to act of a red flag claim. Simply being on a mild anti depressant for anxiety or a phone call from a jaded ex would be week sauce.
4) License to own a gun - It is a right and not a privilege to own a fire arm...Do you need to provide ID to authorities if found in possession? I don't know but maybe this should be a thing... are you in legal possession? It's a privilege to drive a car... it's a right to vote.
5) High capacity mags - I'm not digging the stats up but for law enforcement, I think it's 1 in 7 rounds find there target. I don't think that 1 round even counts as the stopping round, just contact with target. try to think of a situation involving multiple assailants and what would be needed to defend yourself. Example.. David Dorn wasn't armed but everyone favorite vigilante was. One is dead, the other alive.
5) Ban semi automatic weapons - that's a gun ban. Pretty much everything is semi auto. As some of the above could be worked with in some manner... this is crazy town.
6) Buy back assault weapons - My hammers are an assault weapons. I want my fire arms to assault, stop, and kill if needed. Come up with a universal definition and we can talk. Fully autos are already banned and one needs a special license for those. Of course there are go arounds and after market parts that can make this happen with no one knowing so there's something to attempting to restrict that market to enforce current law.
7) Allow teachers to carry - ugh. Not a fan. Not enough training time in a day and a year for me to be comfortable with this... The teacher would need to be coming into the position with a very select skill set for me to be comfortable with this.
What I wrote here isn't exhaustive but can shed some light on where some of the disagreement may come from.
Be better parents, mentors, educators, and neighbors... You won't need a fire arm if folks just abide by the Golden Rule.
Be angles, not devils... be saintly, not a sinner,.. choose good, not evil... and for those devils, sinners, and those who choose evil, we have fire arms for protection.
So...turns out there is actually common ground from which to work on solutions.
WRT to 2 above, there is no universal background check, its state-by-state. Which makes the patchwork of laws relatively useless since there is nothing stopping me from getting my military grade weapons in Texas and taking them to any other state, for example.
Texas...smh...where Gove Abbott was positively crowing about the legislature last session passing a law that allows for open carry with "no checks and no requirements".
Be angles, not devils... be saintly, not a sinner,.. choose good, not evil... and for those devils, sinners, and those who choose evil, we have fire arms for protection
And lead me not into temptation, with my easily available stockpile of weapons and massive pile of ammunition with which to smite my neighbor that I am momentarily upset with.
-
I agree with the methodology comment... for sure. Who was polled, context of the polling, location, etc...
1) mental health - sure/yes. How is the funding allocated. Who's the target. Does this help mitigate the homicide rate in densely populated areas or is this targeted at mass shootings not gang related? I am not a sociologist, but pretty sure that different approaches are required for each of these circumstances. Although some are trying to conflate the issue, the adults are talking about school shootings at the moment
2)background checks @ gun shows and private party sales - have you tried buying a gun at a gun show? They background check. I don't know about nationally, but my state requires all person to person sales goes through a FFL... with a background check. So these laws exist and are not difficult to follow. Now getting people to know they exist is another question. Now, what about inheritance... Mom dies and daughter inherits guns? ... are we approaching a registry here? Big brother? Got to remember why the 2nd amendment exists.Ergo the need for a federal law. It doesn't help when you can cross the state line and have way less barriers. Thanks for making our point.
3) Red Flag Laws - I touched on this in the other thread... maybe this one, can't remember. There may be something here but the devil is in the details... they would need to have a high bar in what would be a qualifying circumstance for law enforcement to snag a someone's fire arm(s)... same with declaring someone mentally unfit. There would need to be some type of high bar criteria to act of a red flag claim. Simply being on a mild anti depressant for anxiety or a phone call from a jaded ex would be week sauce. They won't be perfect, but let me give you a bad example to show why we shouldn't do this.
4) License to own a gun - It is a right and not a privilege to own a fire arm...Do you need to provide ID to authorities if found in possession? I don't know but maybe this should be a thing... are you in legal possession? It's a privilege to drive a car... it's a right to vote. Weird, you have to register to vote. It is also a limited right, (you can't vote in prison, when you are under 18, etc.
5) High capacity mags - I'm not digging the stats up but for law enforcement, I think it's 1 in 7 rounds find there target. I don't think that 1 round even counts as the stopping round, just contact with target. try to think of a situation involving multiple assailants and what would be needed to defend yourself. Example.. David Dorn wasn't armed but everyone favorite vigilante was. One is dead, the other alive. There might be a gang of assailants coming to your suburban home, so better have an assault rifle. Ok?
5) Ban semi automatic weapons - that's a gun ban. Pretty much everything is semi auto. As some of the above could be worked with in some manner... this is crazy town.Noone is calling for this.
6) Buy back assault weapons - My hammers are an assault weapons. I want my fire arms to assault, stop, and kill if needed. Come up with a universal definition and we can talk. Fully autos are already banned and one needs a special license for those. Of course there are go arounds and after market parts that can make this happen with no one knowing so there's something to attempting to restrict that market to enforce current law.
7) Allow teachers to carry - ugh. Not a fan. Not enough training time in a day and a year for me to be comfortable with this... The teacher would need to be coming into the position with a very select skill set for me to be comfortable with this.
What I wrote here isn't exhaustive but can shed some light on where some of the disagreement may come from.
Be better parents, mentors, educators, and neighbors... You won't need a fire arm if folks just abide by the Golden Rule.
Be angles, not devils... be saintly, not a sinner,.. choose good, not evil... and for those devils, sinners, and those who choose evil, we have fire arms for protection.
-
and for those devils, sinners, and those who choose evil, we have fire arms for protection.
In both cases good guys with firearms engaged the shooter. How did those firearms for protection work?
-
I agree with the methodology comment... for sure. Who was polled, context of the polling, location, etc...
2)background checks @ gun shows and private party sales - have you tried buying a gun at a gun show? They background check. I don't know about nationally, but my state requires all person to person sales goes through a FFL... with a background check. So these laws exist and are not difficult to follow. ... are we approaching a registry here? Big brother? Got to remember why the 2nd amendment exists.
Only 21 states require background checks at gun shows.
-
In both cases good guys with firearms engaged the shooter. How did those firearms for protection work?
Killed by a boarder patrol officer in one case... how did the store incident end? did people with guns show up? I really don't know.
-
Only 21 states require background checks at gun shows.
You sure? I didn't know that.
There's room to work here fellas...
-
You sure? I didn't know that.
There's room to work here fellas...
Agreed. Nothing will be perfect, but doing nothing--and worse-- got us to where we are.
-
Is this a burner account? Day drinking? Very snarky in your responses and not helping anyone who's willing to suffer through this thread process the situation.
-
You'd have done yourself a favor by simply stating "Oh, I hadn't seen those." It's OK to miss things once in a while. But now you just look silly first claiming that Biden and Durbin never discuss Chicago violence, then refusing to acknowledge when they do.
As for how it's working, I don't know. I do know that homicides and shootings are down in Chicago this year. No idea how much of that, if any, is attributable to any specific law enforcement initiative.
OK, you win Brother Pakuni.
They said something. It meant absolutely nothing, but they said something.
Their comments are about a valuable as those of the Lovely Natalie as she stands in a pool of blood pointing at the gunshot victim and decrying the violence. Unlike the Lovely Natalie, they're in a position to do something other than exploit the situation ... but don't.
Yeah, I guess I moved the goalposts only because Senator Durbin is a leader for the majority party in the Senate. The Democrats have the majority in the House and the President willing to sign legislation that gets to his desk. Maybe as the majority party, if this means something more than a soundbite, maybe you Democrats ought to start negotiating and compromising, rather than crying and talking like Durbin, Biden and the Police Chief.
By the way, As to AR-15s, many of us Republicans would be perfectly happy if we get them off the streets. We'd be perfectly happy if we get high volume magazines out of circulation, along with bump stocks, armor piercing bullets and handguns with a barrel of less than seven inches. They're good ideas that have all been proposed and gone down in flaming defeat. The hand gun proposal was made by, God forbid, a heinous, satanic Republican.
Tom Railsback.
-
'84 - is there any point at which this issue would be large enough for you to dissociate yourself with the group? IOW, what would it take for the gun violence issue to sufficiently outweigh the other issues that you would vote for the other side? Or is there no imaginable universe where the gun issue is important enough to you to vote Dem?
I think this is the issue of the current era of hyper partisan politics. And for better or for worse, I feel like so many politicians lead with financial plays. Whether it be LOWER TAXES or MAKE THE WEALTHY PAY THEIR SHARE.
So if they have a Dem who has gun control in their platform, but on the lower priority, while the campaign on healthcare/taxes/etc... against a GOP who campaigns on financial priorities they favor with gun control opposition on the back burner. You're gonna have trouble swinging there.
I most closely identify with Blue Dogs, but they're basically extinct. For someone like me, I'm as alienated by Ted Cruz or Josh Hawley as I am by The Squad or Elizabeth Warren. I'm very open to gun control legislation but as a small business stakeholder with significant international exposure, my financial concerns are more nuanced than some covetous "NO MORE TAXES" greed.
-
You sure? I didn't know that.
There's room to work here fellas...
Yes, if you are a private seller, meaning now, if its not your primary source of income, you dont need to do a background check. The law used to be 4 or less guns in a year=private seller.
-
OK, you win Brother Pakuni.
They said something. It meant absolutely nothing, but they said something.
Their comments are about a valuable as those of the Lovely Natalie as she stands in a pool of blood pointing at the gunshot victim and decrying the violence. Unlike the Lovely Natalie, they're in a position to do something other than exploit the situation ... but don't.
Yeah, I guess I moved the goalposts only because Senator Durbin is a leader for the majority party in the Senate. The Democrats have the majority in the House and the President willing to sign legislation that gets to his desk. Maybe as the majority party, if this means something more than a soundbite, maybe you Democrats ought to start negotiating and compromising, rather than crying and talking like Durbin, Biden and the Police Chief.
By the way, As to AR-15s, many of us Republicans would be perfectly happy if we get them off the streets. We'd be perfectly happy if we get high volume magazines out of circulation, along with bump stocks, armor piercing bullets and handguns with a barrel of less than seven inches. They're good ideas that have all been proposed and gone down in flaming defeat. The hand gun proposal was made by, God forbid, a heinous, satanic Republican.
Tom Railsback.
WTF are you even saying at this point? You made a massively wrong assumption and then keep doubling down on your foolishness.
-
This doesn't sound like a 'gun show' but a private sale... and can only do it four times. I'm still not understanding but what's new... right Mucubfan?
Yes, if you are a private seller, meaning now, if its not your primary source of income, you dont need to do a background check. The law used to be 4 or less guns in a year=private seller.
-
This doesn't sound like a 'gun show' but a private sale... and can only do it four times. I'm still not understanding but what's new... right Mucubfan?
Gun shows allow private sales. Prior to 1986, private sales were only up to 4 guns a year. Now, it can be as many as you like, as long as it isn't your primary source of income. Indiana is a good example of this. Indiana allows private sales/no background checks at gun shows, and many end up in crimes committed in Chicago.
-
Is this a burner account? Day drinking? Very snarky in your responses and not helping anyone who's willing to suffer through this thread process the situation.
Not a burner account. I said where I live further up in the thread. You want to know more?
I am intentionally being snarky. Most of the reasoning you gave in your long post is shaky reasoning. Listing a bunch of poor reasons that proposals might fail leads to complacency. It literally helps no one unless that us the point. Now is a time for action. You made one solid point and I gave you credit.
When you start out a post comparing Chicago gang warfare with school shootings, two VERY different issues, it appears that you are intentionally blurring the lines. It’s infuriating to me.
But, I apologize for my snarkyness, 19 dead children ya know?
-
Gun shows allow private sales. Prior to 1986, private sales were only up to 4 guns a year. Now, it can be as many as you like, as long as it isn't your primary source of income. Indiana is a good example of this. Indiana allows private sales/no background checks at gun shows, and many end up in crimes committed in Chicago.
I would agree Indiana would need to change this. Learning.
-
By the way, As to AR-15s, many of us Republicans would be perfectly happy if we get them off the streets. We'd be perfectly happy if we get high volume magazines out of circulation, along with bump stocks, armor piercing bullets and handguns with a barrel of less than seven inches. They're good ideas that have all been proposed and gone down in flaming defeat. The hand gun proposal was made by, God forbid, a heinous, satanic Republican.
Tom Railsback.
I mean, if you can name any gun control legislation that you can get 10 Senate Republicans to vote for, I bet you'd be able to bring the Dems along. But tell me what that that is, because I certainly don't know what it would be.
-
My 2 year old had to do an active shooter drill at daycare today. My 2 year old. I refuse to accept that nothing can be done and my only recourse is to either homeschool or be terrified that I might send my daughter to school and never see her again for the next 16 years.
I don't give a sh*t at this point if you don't think regulation will work. No regulation hasn't worked for decades. Try something new and see if it helps. We can adjust in the future if necessary.
-
My 2 year old had to do an active shooter drill at daycare today. My 2 year old. I refuse to accept that nothing can be done and my only recourse is to either homeschool or be terrified that I might send my daughter to school and never see her again for the next 16 years.
I don't give a sh*t at this point if you don't think regulation will work. No regulation hasn't worked for decades. Try something new and see if it helps. We can adjust in the future if necessary.
Yep yep.
-
My 2 year old had to do an active shooter drill at daycare today. My 2 year old. I refuse to accept that nothing can be done and my only recourse is to either homeschool or be terrified that I might send my daughter to school and never see her again for the next 16 years.
I don't give a sh*t at this point if you don't think regulation will work. No regulation hasn't worked for decades. Try something new and see if it helps. We can adjust in the future if necessary.
What about Chicago?
-
I am pretty familiar with Barrington and your description is spot on.
So, Barrington was on your paper route, hey?
-
By the way, As to AR-15s, many of us Republicans would be perfectly happy if we get them off the streets. We'd be perfectly happy if we get high volume magazines out of circulation, along with bump stocks, armor piercing bullets and handguns with a barrel of less than seven inches. They're good ideas that have all been proposed and gone down in flaming defeat. The hand gun proposal was made by, God forbid, a heinous, satanic Republican.
A wise man once said "Quit talking and start doing!"
So, if you believe this way, why aren't you doing something. I suspect members of the Republican base would have far more influence over the policy decisions of Republican lawmakers than us bleeding heart lefties.
Start doing, Brother dgies. Start doing.
-
So, Barrington was on your paper route, hey?
🐷🐷
-
Yeah, I guess I moved the goalposts only because Senator Durbin is a leader for the majority party in the Senate. The Democrats have the majority in the House and the President willing to sign legislation that gets to his desk. Maybe as the majority party, if this means something more than a soundbite, maybe you Democrats ought to start negotiating and compromising, rather than crying and talking like Durbin, Biden and the Police Chief.
By the way, As to AR-15s, many of us Republicans would be perfectly happy if we get them off the streets. We'd be perfectly happy if we get high volume magazines out of circulation, along with bump stocks, armor piercing bullets and handguns with a barrel of less than seven inches. They're good ideas that have all been proposed and gone down in flaming defeat. The hand gun proposal was made by, God forbid, a heinous, satanic Republican.
Cool, but it takes 60 votes. There are maybe 4 or 5 Republicans that would go for a limited compromise.
"Many" Republicans won't get jacksh!it done unless a significant % of them give up their top priorities of killing trans kids and controlling women.
-
Yeah, I guess I moved the goalposts only because Senator Durbin is a leader for the majority party in the Senate.
Everyone says this, but it's not true. The Dems do not have a legislative majority in the Senate. They are in the legislative minority 52-48 as long as the filibuster exists.
-
Breaking News
NRA Agrees To Gun Ban - oh, it's only at the NRA convention in Texas this week.
-
Breaking News
NRA Agrees To Gun Ban - oh, it's only at the NRA convention in Texas this week.
I’d think there’d be a lot of good guys with guns to stop any shenanigans.
-
I’d think there’d be a lot of good guys with guns to stop any shenanigans.
What a bunch of idiots, gun bans don’t work.
-
What a bunch of idiots, gun bans don’t work.
Gonna be a lot of bad dudes with guns showing up. What’s gonna stop them?
-
Everyone says this, but it's not true. The Dems do not have a legislative majority in the Senate. They are in the legislative minority 52-48 as long as the filibuster exists.
And you can only argue a majority if there were any in the minority willing to negotiate in good faith. My faith in that was gone after Sandy Hook - the quality of Republican in congress has not exactly gone up since then
-
Cool, but it takes 60 votes. There are maybe 4 or 5 Republicans that would go for a limited compromise.
"Many" Republicans won't get jacksh!it done unless a significant % of them give up their top priorities of killing trans kids and controlling women.
That’s up there with “gun owners are actually super happy about mass killings” for dumbest attempts to hysterically vilify people you don’t agree with in this thread. Dumb as a Biden ice cream joke
-
Gonna be a lot of bad dudes with guns showing up. What’s gonna stop them?
That call is coming from inside the house.
-
That’s up there with “gun owners are actually super happy about mass killings” for dumbest attempts to hysterically vilify people you don’t agree with in this thread. Dumb as a Biden ice cream joke
Fine, but I think the semantics between "super happy" and "don't care enough to vote to change it" don't mean much to the families of 19 dead 4th graders today.
-
That’s up there with “gun owners are actually super happy about mass killings” for dumbest attempts to hysterically vilify people you don’t agree with in this thread. Dumb as a Biden ice cream joke
Fair.
They're not trying to kill trans kids. They're just trying to make them as ostracized and marginalized as possible.
They can breathe and all, just don't expect to be accepted in any way.
-
Fine, but I think the semantics between "super happy" and "don't care enough to vote to change it" don't mean much to the families of 19 dead 4th graders today.
That’s despicable BS and you know it.
Fair.
They're not trying to kill trans kids. They're just trying to make them as ostracized and marginalized as possible.
They can breathe and all, just don't expect to be accepted in any way.
Something something moving goalposts. Or whatever you like to say when people state opinion as fact, get called out, and then trying to change the statement?
-
That’s despicable BS and you know it.
How, when the difference in practice is wholly indistinguishable? I'll hang up and listen.
-
Something something moving goalposts. Or whatever you like to say when people state opinion as fact, get called out, and then trying to change the statement?
Not sure what you're getting snarky about, Wags. I'm agreeing with you.
-
Has anyone seen an explanation about how the shooter made it inside the school?
I've seen the details that he crashed grandma's truck near the school. Then walked to the school. There, there was an "engagement" with armed officers. And then he just gets into the school to start murdering grade schoolers?
-
If I vote for someone primarily because they want to outlaw guns but who also wants to abolish all police forces. I’ve also voted for the abolition of police even if personally I think they’re fine.
GB is being flippant, but if you vote for a GOP candidate who prevents any reform, you’ve voted for the prevention of any reform even if you mostly just wanted the tax cut.
It happens. I voted for plenty of people in 2020 who espouse many positions I oppose because they held the one I valued more than any others. Doesn’t mean I don’t own their other positions too.
-
That’s up there with “gun owners are actually super happy about mass killings” for dumbest attempts to hysterically vilify people you don’t agree with in this thread. Dumb as a Biden ice cream joke
You're right. It was a ridiculously hyperbolic comment.
But LGBTQ kids commit suicide at an inordinately high rate, largely because they've been made to feel they are "less than" by society.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/05/1096920693/lgbtq-youth-thoughts-of-suicide-trevor-project-survey
So yes, it was an unnecessarily dopey comment by GB Warrior ... unnecessary because all he had to do was state the truth: Policies that ostracize LGBTQ individuals statistically lead to suicide attempts at an alarmingly high rate, and those policies are enacted in the United States by only one political party. Members of that party in the various states seem to enjoy playing leapfrog as they vie for the "honor" of which state can be the most heartless.
And of course, the ease at which these and other marginalized people can obtain guns just makes suicide all the easier.
So if all lives actually matter, as so many in that party like to claim, maybe they should stop electing people who go out of their way to be cruel to an already emotionally fragile segment of society and who also believe in guns, guns and more guns for everybody.
-
Has anyone seen an explanation about how the shooter made it inside the school?
I've seen the details that he crashed grandma's truck near the school. Then walked to the school. There, there was an "engagement" with armed officers. And then he just gets into the school to start murdering grade schoolers?
Cops got scared and disengaged.
They tried claiming he was armored (body armor doesn’t really work like that. It’s not an iron man suit) but then it’s been reported that his plate carrier had no armored plates in it.
For all the “put cops in schools to protect them” arguments, well… last two times that’s not exactly worked.
-
If I vote for someone primarily because they want to outlaw guns but who also wants to abolish all police forces. I’ve also voted for the abolition of police even if personally I think they’re fine.
GB is being flippant, but if you vote for a GOP candidate who prevents any reform, you’ve voted for the prevention of any reform even if you mostly just wanted the tax cut.
It happens. I voted for plenty of people in 2020 who espouse many positions I oppose because they held the one I valued more than any others. Doesn’t mean I don’t own their other positions too.
Bingo. I don't agree with all of the platforms of the candidates I vote for, but one of my biggest is that all parents, including me, get to see their kids every day.
You only get one top issue. Own the rest.
-
Fair.
They're not trying to kill trans kids. They're just trying to make them as ostracized and marginalized as possible.
They can breathe and all, just don't expect to be accepted in any way.
It's bullying behavior.
-
It's bullying behavior.
The cruelty is the point.
-
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1529617687894274048?s=21&t=P9S1QFd3TBUAzBtD_kCr-A
-
So, Barrington was on your paper route, hey?
Yeah, something like that. It's no Fond du Lac, let me tell you.
-
God Bless Steve Kerr!
-
Another priority - cancel public schools! https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/25/tragedies-like-the-texas-shooting-make-a-somber-case-for-homeschooling/ (https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/25/tragedies-like-the-texas-shooting-make-a-somber-case-for-homeschooling/)
-
Another priority - cancel public schools! https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/25/tragedies-like-the-texas-shooting-make-a-somber-case-for-homeschooling/ (https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/25/tragedies-like-the-texas-shooting-make-a-somber-case-for-homeschooling/)
Well, we’d finally get rid of teachers that way
-
You get what you pay for:
Lobbying by gun rights groups hit a spending record in 2021. They outspent gun control by more than 5x
https://fortune.com/2022/05/25/nra-contributions-politicians-lobbying-gun-rights-groups-record-2021-ted-cruz/
"Spending on House and Senate races generally pales in comparison to the amount these groups spend on presidential and gubernatorial elections. For instance, in 2020, the NRA alone spent over $12 million campaigning against Biden and another $4.5 million in favor of Donald Trump. (Some high-profile Senate races, like Jon Ossoff vs David Purdue in Georgia in 2020, capture millions in spending, but the NRA’s candidates lost those races.)
That said, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been the biggest beneficiary of those groups when it comes to campaign spending. A separate study by OpenSecrets looking at funds received by gun rights groups from 1989-2020 shows he has received a disproportionately larger amount of funds from those groups, compared to other lawmakers.
Cruz received $442,333 in that time period, compared to $248,058 to Steve Scalise, the second-largest recipient of funds from gun rights groups.
Ted Cruz (R, Texas) – $442,333
Steve Scalise (R, La.) – $248,058
John Cornyn (R, Texas) – $238,875
Pete Sessions (R, Texas) – $202,926
Ron Johnson (R, Wis.) – $197,993
John Thune (R, SD) – $186,260
Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.) – $179,557
Ken Calvert (R, Calif.) – $166,116
Pat Toomey (R, Penn.) – $162,676
Marco Rubio (R, Fla.) – $161,044
-
Yeah but that nets out with the money Cruz is losing from the doors lobby
-
Interesting to see Toomey on that list, as he’s been willing to try to find some bipartisan solutions regarding gun violence.
Perhaps the NRA wants to make sure that any of his solutions don’t solve too much.
-
Not a great look for the cops.
UVALDE, Texas (AP) — Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school where a gunman’s rampage killed 19 children and two teachers, witnesses said Wednesday, as investigators worked to track the massacre that lasted upwards of 40 minutes and ended when the 18-year-old shooter was killed by a Border Patrol team.
“Go in there! Go in there!” nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the attack began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers did not go in.
https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-44a7cfb990feaa6ffe482483df6e4683
-
Not a great look for the cops.
UVALDE, Texas (AP) — Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school where a gunman’s rampage killed 19 children and two teachers, witnesses said Wednesday, as investigators worked to track the massacre that lasted upwards of 40 minutes and ended when the 18-year-old shooter was killed by a Border Patrol team.
“Go in there! Go in there!” nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the attack began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers did not go in.
https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-44a7cfb990feaa6ffe482483df6e4683
So much for the good guys with guns garbage.
-
You get what you pay for:
Lobbying by gun rights groups hit a spending record in 2021. They outspent gun control by more than 5x
https://fortune.com/2022/05/25/nra-contributions-politicians-lobbying-gun-rights-groups-record-2021-ted-cruz/
"Spending on House and Senate races generally pales in comparison to the amount these groups spend on presidential and gubernatorial elections. For instance, in 2020, the NRA alone spent over $12 million campaigning against Biden and another $4.5 million in favor of Donald Trump. (Some high-profile Senate races, like Jon Ossoff vs David Purdue in Georgia in 2020, capture millions in spending, but the NRA’s candidates lost those races.)
That said, Texas Senator Ted Cruz has been the biggest beneficiary of those groups when it comes to campaign spending. A separate study by OpenSecrets looking at funds received by gun rights groups from 1989-2020 shows he has received a disproportionately larger amount of funds from those groups, compared to other lawmakers.
Cruz received $442,333 in that time period, compared to $248,058 to Steve Scalise, the second-largest recipient of funds from gun rights groups.
Ted Cruz (R, Texas) – $442,333
Steve Scalise (R, La.) – $248,058
John Cornyn (R, Texas) – $238,875
Pete Sessions (R, Texas) – $202,926
Ron Johnson (R, Wis.) – $197,993
John Thune (R, SD) – $186,260
Mitch McConnell (R, Ky.) – $179,557
Ken Calvert (R, Calif.) – $166,116
Pat Toomey (R, Penn.) – $162,676
Marco Rubio (R, Fla.) – $161,044
Scalise being #2 on that list is rich given he himself was shot by a lunatic…but given that he’s a moronic dinosaur, not entirely surprising he’s lacking sense.
-
Interesting to see Toomey on that list, as he’s been willing to try to find some bipartisan solutions regarding gun violence.
Perhaps the NRA wants to make sure that any of his solutions don’t solve too much.
I’m not surprised. I always thought his ‘moderate’ schtick was a joke.
-
So much for the good guys with guns garbage.
The good guys just need more guns.
-
So much for the good guys with guns garbage.
Sounds like the police were useless, but wasn’t the suspect neutralized by a good guy with a gun?
-
I’m not surprised. I always thought his ‘moderate’ schtick was a joke.
I don’t know enough about his politics overall. I do know that he was working with Manchin on bipartisan gun violence legislation but his party wouldn’t let it happen.
-
Sounds like the police were useless, but wasn’t the suspect neutralized by a good guy with a gun?
19 dead children later.
Seems not the most effective method of prevention
-
Yeah but that nets out with the money Cruz is losing from the doors lobby
He really is the dumbest supposedly smart man around, isn't he?
-
Not a great look for the cops.
UVALDE, Texas (AP) — Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school where a gunman’s rampage killed 19 children and two teachers, witnesses said Wednesday, as investigators worked to track the massacre that lasted upwards of 40 minutes and ended when the 18-year-old shooter was killed by a Border Patrol team.
“Go in there! Go in there!” nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the attack began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers did not go in.
https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-44a7cfb990feaa6ffe482483df6e4683
I know a Chicago cop who said after the Parkland incident, he wasn’t sure what he would do in that situation.
-
The security guard/retired police officer engaged the shooter in Buffalo. He actually hit the body armor clad mass murderer.
-
Apparently Uvalde also has a SWAT team that toured the schools earlier this year.
Look I don’t know enough to criticize the police response here, but here we had an expensive SWAT team in a city of 25,000 who looked cool when they posed for pics on Facebook, but actually didn’t really keep the community safer.
We really suck at doing the hard stuff and focus on the superficial.
-
IDK if this actually means anything, but I have seen more “we gotta do something” comments from the conservative, Trump supporters on my Facebook feed the last couple of days than I have after previous incidents like this. Perhaps this was so horrific, and so many of the myths around these incidents have been shown to be wrong, that there actually might be movement on some sensible legislation.
-
Not a great look for the cops.
UVALDE, Texas (AP) — Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school where a gunman’s rampage killed 19 children and two teachers, witnesses said Wednesday, as investigators worked to track the massacre that lasted upwards of 40 minutes and ended when the 18-year-old shooter was killed by a Border Patrol team.
“Go in there! Go in there!” nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the attack began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers did not go in.
https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-44a7cfb990feaa6ffe482483df6e4683
1. The Thin Blue Line was too thin
2. Uvalde didn’t back the blue enough
-
Scalise being #2 on that list is rich given he himself was shot by a lunatic…but given that he’s a moronic dinosaur, not entirely surprising he’s lacking sense.
The Simpsons covered this 25 years ago
Sideshow Bob got out of prison for his attempted murder of Krusty the Clown. He claimed he was reformed and ran for Springfield mayor.
They show the residents voting including Krusty who says, "Well he did try to kill me. But I sure could use that tax cut.". Then votes for him.
Then it turns out Bob was scamming everyone again
-
IDK if this actually means anything, but I have seen more “we gotta do something” comments from the conservative, Trump supporters on my Facebook feed the last couple of days than I have after previous incidents like this. Perhaps this was so horrific, and so many of the myths around these incidents have been shown to be wrong, that there actually might be movement on some sensible legislation.
The devil is in the details. What is the something they want to do?
-
Brother dgies I think this is an important point. There should be far more passion and comprehensive discussions about Chicago violence and other major cities. Little kids have gotten killed there just like in Texas yesterday. The vast, vast, vast amount of gun related homicides are from handguns, not AR-15's. It's a terrible situation.
Look guys, Chicago isn't the cesspool you have been lead to believe. It's 10th. So this trope that Chicago is some sort of daily massacre situation is an objective fallacy and a narrative pushed by a lot of people around here. In 2021, it wasn't even in the top 20, and in 2022 it was 10th.
Additionally, let's stop the lie that it is only cities with Democrat mayors and governors.
-
https://www.instagram.com/tv/CeAfWQXAztm/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Whole lot of body armor and guns, not a lot of protecting.
-
Look guys, Chicago isn't the cesspool you have been lead to believe. It's 10th. So this trope that Chicago is some sort of daily massacre situation is an objective fallacy and a narrative pushed by a lot of people around here. In 2021, it wasn't even in the top 20, and in 2022 it was 10th.
Additionally, let's stop the lie that it is only cities with Democrat mayors and governors.
Well it's no St Louis in terms of rate, but in terms of number of murders it did lead the pack-.797 murders in 2021, New York and LA combined for 872-to put it into perspective.
-
Stop with the ideas for any kind of gun reform, people. There is absolutely nothing any country can do about this stuff, which is why just about every country in the world has the same kind of mass-shooting problems America does.
Oh wait ...
(https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2022%2F05%2F25%2Fbriefing%2F25morning-mass-shootings-chart%2F25morning-mass-shootings-chart-articleLarge.png&t=1653566264&ymreqid=3c8d0d78-3338-e941-1c83-0107e3013600&sig=NryE3Co90eKDuYtvarmLTg--~D)
(And that doesn't even count all of our deadly mass shootings the last 3 years. But hey, it's a mental health issue. Which we won't really try to do anything about, either. 'Murica!)
-
Breaking News
NRA Agrees To Gun Ban - oh, it's only at the NRA convention in Texas this week.
Is your suggestion that guns are allowed in elementary schools?
-
Something that we haven't seemed to discuss here is that 99% of mass murderers are males and women are buying more guns than ever. Including AR-15's which I've read tend to be their weapon of choice. I'm all for extensive mental health checks before gun purchases but maybe men 35 and under should be profiled based on the statistics?
-
From German Lopez of the NYT:
Where there are more guns, there are more gun deaths. Studies have found this to be true at the state and national level. It is true for homicides, suicides, mass shootings and even police shootings.
It is an intuitive idea: If guns are more available, people will use them more often. If you replaced “guns” in that sentence with another noun, it would be so obvious as to be banal.
Stricter gun laws appear to help. They are associated with fewer gun deaths, in both a domestic and global context, while looser gun laws are linked with more gun deaths.
But federal laws are lax. Other developed countries typically require at least a license to own a gun, if they allow someone to get a firearm at all. In the U.S., even a background check is not always required to buy a gun — a result of poor enforcement and legal loopholes.
The U.S. is always going to have more guns, and consequently more deaths, than other rich countries. Given the Second Amendment, mixed public opinion and a closely divided federal government, lawmakers face sharp limits on how far they can go.
But since America’s gun laws are so weak, there is a lot of room to improve — and at least cut some gun deaths.
To reduce mass shootings, experts have several ideas:
++ More thorough background checks might stop some gunmen, like those in the church shootings in Charleston, S.C., in 2015 and in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in 2017.
++ “Red flag” laws allow law enforcement officials to confiscate guns from people who display warning signs of violence, like threatening their peers or family members. The laws might have applied to the gunman in the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in 2018.
++ Assault weapon bans would restrict or prohibit access to the kinds of rifles shooters often use. A ban could at least make mass shootings less deadly by pushing gunmen toward less effective weapons, some experts argue.
-
Not sure what you're getting snarky about, Wags. I'm agreeing with you.
I've been on the receiving end of you agreeing with me as well.
It barely feels that way. 8-)
-
Scalise being #2 on that list is rich given he himself was shot by a lunatic…but given that he’s a moronic dinosaur, not entirely surprising he’s lacking sense.
I was going to say the same... but Steve is only 56 years old. :-X
-
1. The Thin Blue Line was too thin
2. Uvalde didn’t back the blue enough
3. They were majority hispanic
-
Well it's no St Louis in terms of rate, but in terms of number of murders it did lead the pack-.797 murders in 2021, New York and LA combined for 872-to put it into perspective.
That's cherry picking of the worst order. We are talking murder RATE, not total numbers. As a lawyer, I'm sure you can appreciate why this matters.
-
3. They were majority hispanic
Saw the video of the cops holding the parents back. They did a pretty good job of it. That funding was well spent.
-
Something that we haven't seemed to discuss here is that 99% of mass murderers are males and women are buying more guns than ever. Including AR-15's which I've read tend to be their weapon of choice. I'm all for extensive mental health checks before gun purchases but maybe men 35 and under should be profiled based on the statistics?
And most are White.
-
https://twitter.com/paleofuture/status/1529689677749534721
I could only watch a small part of this. Just awful.
-
https://twitter.com/paleofuture/status/1529689677749534721
I could only watch a small part of this. Just awful.
I'm not a parent, and there is no chance I can watch even 10 seconds of something like that.
I saw a tiny snippet of video of a man who couldn't find his daughter that afternoon... turned my stomach upside down.
-
That's cherry picking of the worst order. We are talking murder RATE, not total numbers. As a lawyer, I'm sure you can appreciate why this matters.
I dont know who this "we" is. I was sinply pointing out that in terms of number of murders, Chicago tops the list. Almost twice as many as New York or LA. I dont know why people want to minimize that number. Its not all Chicago's fault, as guns travel interstate.
-
I'm not a parent, and there is no chance I can watch even 10 seconds of something like that.
I saw a tiny snippet of video of a man who couldn't find his daughter that afternoon... turned my stomach upside down.
Maybe the doors were locked by the killer? Once a door is locked from the inside, it’s impossible to get in
-
I dont know who this "we" is. I was sinply pointing out that in terms of number of murders, Chicago tops the list. Almost twice as many as New York or LA. I dont know why people want to minimize that number. Its not all Chicago's fault, as guns travel interstate.
Sorry, I was the one that brought it up, and then you changed the way that murders are represented. I'll accept that maybe I was going for the royal We there, but I think we are both having a conversation about how the murder rate in Chicago is grossly inflated on this board and widely in the national media.
Consider why that narrative is constantly pushed. Chicago is in a solidly Democrat state, run by a Solidly Democrat governor, and managed by a Democrat mayor. It is going to be the scapegoat for all murder stories pushed by the right because it is the perfect story for them. They'll ignore NYC and LA... because the story doesn't fit well enough to push to their base.
-
I dont know who this "we" is. I was sinply pointing out that in terms of number of murders, Chicago tops the list. Almost twice as many as New York or LA. I dont know why people want to minimize that number. Its not all Chicago's fault, as guns travel interstate.
"Maybe mentally ill 18-year-olds shouldn't have easy access to AR-15s."
"But what about Chicago?"
"It sure would be nice if elementary school kids could be sent to school without their parents having to worry about them being murdered in their classroom."
"But there was a shooting last night in Chicago!"
"It's awful that 10 people were killed while grocery shopping because a radicalized teenager was taught to hate Black people."
"Yeah, but Black people get shot every day in Chicago!"
Nobody here disagrees that Chicago has a gun violence problem, and that more can and should be done about it. But it's objectively not nearly as bad as some here - and in certain corners of the media - would have you believe.
But more than that, the people who incessantly bring up Chicago violence don't really care about Chicago violence, beyond its utility as a dog whistle and a distraction. When I've specifically asked what policies should be enacted or changed, they either misstate reality ("They should reinstate cash bail" ... uh, cash bail still exists in Chicago) or it's crickets.
So yeah, gun violence is a significant problem in Chicago. And the people who talk about it most here don't care.
-
IDK if this actually means anything, but I have seen more “we gotta do something” comments from the conservative, Trump supporters on my Facebook feed the last couple of days than I have after previous incidents like this. Perhaps this was so horrific, and so many of the myths around these incidents have been shown to be wrong, that there actually might be movement on some sensible legislation.
I remember the groundswell after Sandy Hook and all that's come of that is things getting worse. I won't believe in anyone "doing something" until we see improved outcomes. Even passing legislation is meaningless until the enforcement is proven to matter.
-
IDK if this actually means anything, but I have seen more “we gotta do something” comments from the conservative, Trump supporters on my Facebook feed the last couple of days than I have after previous incidents like this. Perhaps this was so horrific, and so many of the myths around these incidents have been shown to be wrong, that there actually might be movement on some sensible legislation.
I’m hoping things finally start moving but not optimistic. Based on the chart showing what the public actually wants, I’m not sure what it takes for the politicians to do something. Other than the NRA changing course.
-
"Maybe mentally ill 18-year-olds shouldn't have easy access to AR-15s."
"But what about Chicago?"
"It sure would be nice if elementary school kids could be sent to school without their parents having to worry about them being murdered in their classroom."
"But there was a shooting last night in Chicago!"
"It's awful that 10 people were killed while grocery shopping because a radicalized teenager was taught to hate Black people."
"Yeah, but Black people get shot every day in Chicago!"
Nobody here disagrees that Chicago has a gun violence problem, and that more can and should be done about it. But it's objectively not nearly as bad as some here - and in certain corners of the media - would have you believe.
But more than that, the people who incessantly bring up Chicago violence don't really care about Chicago violence, beyond its utility as a dog whistle and a distraction. When I've specifically asked what policies should be enacted or changed, they either misstate reality ("They should reinstate cash bail" ... uh, cash bail still exists in Chicago) or it's crickets.
So yeah, gun violence is a significant problem in Chicago. And the people who talk about it most here don't care.
Well, when people tend to minimize the sheer number of murders, not to mention how many shootings there were (how many shootings were there in 2021? Those injured by gun violence would like to be considered, I am sure), I am sure that's driven politically as well. It is Objectively bad, 2 murders a day in 2021. I don't care about the rate, and the victims families dont either. I am not blaming the violence in Chicago on Chicago laws, or police enforcement. It's a national problem. Those who want to defend Chicago's murder rate aren't helping the problem
Edit for googling: 508 shootings in Chicago Jan -March 2022. Down from 2021 time period, but up from 2019, and 2020.
-
My daughter-in-law is a 5th grade teacher in the Chicago burbs. She and I had a text exchange last night.
She said that she worries more as a parent after she drops off her kids at preschool than she does as a teacher who could get shot. "I try not to think about it (getting shot) because it would make it impossible to do my job. These kids need us to remain focused on teaching them."
And she said that in class yesterday, none of her 5th-graders even mentioned the Texas shooting. "These things happen so often that the kids are numb to them. There have been more school shootings this school year than we've had field trips."
Wow.
-
Those who want to defend Chicago's murder rate aren't helping the problem
Yeah, no one is doing that.
-
Zara Rahim
@ZaraRahim
·
May 24
insane how the only notable change since Sandy Hook is that kids are now formally trained to hide, barricade doors, fight, or run for their lives. that was the solution. to literally put the responsibility on them to figure it out and wish them luck.
-
Yeah, no one is doing that.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on Today at 06:25:24 AM
Look guys, Chicago isn't the cesspool you have been lead to believe. It's 10th. So this trope that Chicago is some sort of daily massacre situation is an objective fallacy and a narrative pushed by a lot of people around here. In 2021, it wasn't even in the top 20, and in 2022 it was 10th.
Additionally, let's stop the lie that it is only cities with Democrat mayors and governors.
-
I don’t know enough about his politics overall. I do know that he was working with Manchin on bipartisan gun violence legislation but his party wouldn’t let it happen.
That's the really frustrating and disappointing part. When 75% of your own voters favor something, but you are unwilling to pass it because 1) The crazies will primary you , 2) the titular head of your party will say insane things about you, 3) your media will actively destroy you, and 4) you'll lose that sweet, sweet NRA money...it's a unnatural carnal knowledgeed up system.
-
Guns are a public health crisis. The spin for personal power and wealth, is to gaslight and say that guns are a political issue.
The leading cause of death for those under age 20, is guns.
Teen drunk driving? Nope. Not any more. There have been a lot of new safety features and policies the past 20 years to address teen drunk driving.
-
Sorry, I was the one that brought it up, and then you changed the way that murders are represented. I'll accept that maybe I was going for the royal We there, but I think we are both having a conversation about how the murder rate in Chicago is grossly inflated on this board and widely in the national media.
Consider why that narrative is constantly pushed. Chicago is in a solidly Democrat state, run by a Solidly Democrat governor, and managed by a Democrat mayor. It is going to be the scapegoat for all murder stories pushed by the right because it is the perfect story for them. They'll ignore NYC and LA... because the story doesn't fit well enough to push to their base.
NYC has pretty strict gun laws, but I guess they don't apply to juveniles. Pass all the gun control laws you want. If Prosecutors are not going to enforce them what is the point.
https://www.complex.com/music/charges-dropped-against-16-year-old-bronx-rapper-c-blu
-
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on Today at 06:25:24 AM
Look guys, Chicago isn't the cesspool you have been lead to believe. It's 10th. So this trope that Chicago is some sort of daily massacre situation is an objective fallacy and a narrative pushed by a lot of people around here. In 2021, it wasn't even in the top 20, and in 2022 it was 10th.
Additionally, let's stop the lie that it is only cities with Democrat mayors and governors.
So long as people allow the response of "but what Chicago has gun violence too" to derail a discussion and leap to defend Chicago/point out the whataboutism's irrelevance, then the tactic of citing something other than mass shootings in schools has been successful.
-
I’m hoping things finally start moving but not optimistic. Based on the chart showing what the public actually wants, I’m not sure what it takes for the politicians to do something. Other than the NRA changing course.
Nothing will be done. War weapons will continue to be more and more prevalent.
That’s what big money wants and that is what the people in this country want - especially the pro-forced birthers.
And thus, I say f*** you to every republican on this board.
-
Well, when people tend to minimize the sheer number of murders, not to mention how many shootings there were (how many shootings were there in 2021? Those injured by gun violence would like to be considered, I am sure), I am sure that's driven politically as well. It is Objectively bad, 2 murders a day in 2021. I don't care about the rate, and the victims families dont either. I am not blaming the violence in Chicago on Chicago laws, or police enforcement. It's a national problem. Those who want to defend Chicago's murder rate aren't helping the problem
Edit for googling: 508 shootings in Chicago Jan -March 2022. Down from 2021 time period, but up from 2019, and 2020.
This is one heck of a straw man.
-
NYC has pretty strict gun laws, but I guess they don't apply to juveniles. Pass all the gun control laws you want. If Prosecutors are not going to enforce them what is the point.
https://www.complex.com/music/charges-dropped-against-16-year-old-bronx-rapper-c-blu
Which the USSC is preparing to weaken
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2022/05/14/new-york-officials-prepare-for-worst-as-supreme-court-gun-ruling-looms
-
This is one heck of a straw man.
Not sure what strawman you are talking about. The issue was the gun violence in Chicago. Included shootings, and not just murders.
-
Not sure what strawman you are talking about. The issue was the gun violence in Chicago. Included shootings, and not just murders.
Was it?
Anyway, congrats on the misdirection.
-
NYC has pretty strict gun laws, but I guess they don't apply to juveniles. Pass all the gun control laws you want. If Prosecutors are not going to enforce them what is the point.
https://www.complex.com/music/charges-dropped-against-16-year-old-bronx-rapper-c-blu
Congratulations, you found 1 exception so let's continue to do nothing.
-
Was it?
Anyway, congrats on the misdirection.
yes, it was. was responding to Hards
-
"Maybe mentally ill 18-year-olds shouldn't have easy access to AR-15s."
"But what about Chicago?"
"It sure would be nice if elementary school kids could be sent to school without their parents having to worry about them being murdered in their classroom."
"But there was a shooting last night in Chicago!"
"It's awful that 10 people were killed while grocery shopping because a radicalized teenager was taught to hate Black people."
"Yeah, but Black people get shot every day in Chicago!"
Nobody here disagrees that Chicago has a gun violence problem, and that more can and should be done about it. But it's objectively not nearly as bad as some here - and in certain corners of the media - would have you believe.
But more than that, the people who incessantly bring up Chicago violence don't really care about Chicago violence, beyond its utility as a dog whistle and a distraction. When I've specifically asked what policies should be enacted or changed, they either misstate reality ("They should reinstate cash bail" ... uh, cash bail still exists in Chicago) or it's crickets.
So yeah, gun violence is a significant problem in Chicago. And the people who talk about it most here don't care.
So, let me get this straight. You care about Chicago and inner city violence but some people that have brought it up here do not? Is your point that people are only mentioning this to distract from what happened in the Texas elementary school and Buffalo?
We have a significant problem Pakumi. As horrible as these last two events have been, and people like Steve Kerr and Pop shouting from the rooftops, the fact is homicides in Chicago and other places dwarf the number of those killed in school shootings and mass murders. Why shouldn't this be discussed as well? Aren't you just as upset when a 7 yr old kid is shot at McDonald's two blocks from her home? Or a 6yr old girl is murdered doing homework in her bedroom?
And no, this isn't coveted by the media with anywhere near the level or passion as horrific mass murders which happen way, way, way, less frequently . Is Steve Kerr pounding on the table and breaking down over horrific incidents that happen most every weekend? Shouldn't we as a society not be "numb" to all of these murders? And no, you, and all of the echo chamber here don't care more than anyone else or those sharing a different viewpoint. I'm equally upset and horrified if a little girl is shot in Chicago, or people are mowed down at a Wakesha parade, or a grocery store, or at their elementary school as I assume everyone here is as well.
-
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on Today at 06:25:24 AM
Look guys, Chicago isn't the cesspool you have been lead to believe. It's 10th. So this trope that Chicago is some sort of daily massacre situation is an objective fallacy and a narrative pushed by a lot of people around here. In 2021, it wasn't even in the top 20, and in 2022 it was 10th.
Additionally, let's stop the lie that it is only cities with Democrat mayors and governors.
Yeah, that's not "defending a murder rate." Nice try.
-
Whew - I appreciate that *some* parts of this are a good conversation. And I'm happy that you're all passionate about it.
But really, lots of stupid political stuff here. Perhaps we need to ban politics, and shooting conversations...