Robb Elementary School shooting - May 2022

[conon394]

Setting aside gun control debates at this point why are these cops not just already fired?

[Cyclops]

They already have those rifles, they just dont carry them all the time so its not a real escalation, but that was not the point I was trying to make anyway.
My point is, a trained police officer armed with only a sidearm can stop an active shooter, even if the shooter wears body armor.
I think this is the same misunderstanding of guns like when people think that "silencers" can make guns literally silent (they cant) and now body armor should be banned because it can turn active shooters into undefetable juggernauts who are immune to bullets or something.

Probably the biggest element of the gun problem in the US is the saturation of guns. If you saturate the country with armour as well you create more problems. Also if your point is the armour isn't necessarily effective why is it used? I think its very effective and belongs in a law enforcement/combat environment, not a citizen's day clothes.

Im not talking about gun control or gun culture etc, I simply just dont understand what is the reason to ban a purely defensive item, how would that help anything? Inthe EU some countries have very strict gun laws yet (IIRC) body armor is legal everywhere, why shouldnt it be? They might wear a concealable body armor, or they might have enough time to put it on, doesnt matter, my point is why take away the option to wear a passive defensive item?

That's a very fair point. Possibly armour is being brought into the debate to sell more armour, or to muddy the issue?

Children, dinosaurs and guns: a little story,
American exceptionalism: the poison that cannot protect its ...

That kid needs a good clip on the ear.

My son plays with weapons, duelling and shooting targets etc. I make a strict rule "no shooting people with imaginary, toy or real weapons". Its extremely rude to pretend to kill someone and no child of mine will behave in such a crass and disrespectful way. He'll get some gun training when he's 12 or 13 from his grandfather, where the number 1 rule is "never point a gun at anything unless you mean to shoot it". Same goes for his toy bow, toy crossbow and slingshot.

[Coughdrop addict]

My son plays with weapons, duelling and shooting targets etc. I make a strict rule "no shooting people with imaginary, toy or real weapons". Its extremely rude to pretend to kill someone and no child of mine will behave in such a crass and disrespectful way. He'll get some gun training when he's 12 or 13 from his grandfather, where the number 1 rule is "never point a gun at anything unless you mean to shoot it". Same goes for his toy bow, toy crossbow and slingshot.

Yeah but this is the US, where education is seen as a communist plot. I regularly see gun owners walking around with their finger on the trigger and carelessly pointing their guns at other people, and many of them regularly leave loaded guns just laying around the house. Which is why accidental shootings are so common here.

[Cope]

Yeah but this is the US, where education is seen as a communist plot. I regularly see gun owners walking around with their finger on the trigger and carelessly pointing their guns at other people, and many of them regularly leave loaded guns just laying around the house. Which is why accidental shootings are so common here.

Meanwhile in reality, only 1% of the 45,000 firearm deaths in 2020 were caused by accidents. This was slightly less than the number of firearm deaths caused by law enforcement.

[Mithradates]

Probably the biggest element of the gun problem in the US is the saturation of guns. If you saturate the country with armour as well you create more problems. Also if your point is the armour isn't necessarily effective why is it used? I think its very effective and belongs in a law enforcement/combat environment, not a citizen's day clothes.

It is effective to keep you alive, youll suffer bruises, maybe a couple cracked/broken ribs, and deffinitely get the wind knocked out of you but it wont make you more lethal, soldiers are deadly because of their training and their weapons, not because they wear body armor.
Its a deffensive item like seat belts and air bags, they are there to keep you alive in a crash but they dont make anyone better or deadlier drivers.

That's a very fair point. Possibly armour is being brought into the debate to sell more armour, or to muddy the issue?

I have no idea, banning body armor makes no sense to me.

[Coughdrop addict]

Meanwhile in reality, only 1% of the 45,000 firearm deaths in 2020 were caused by accidents. This was slightly less than the number of firearm deaths caused by law enforcement.

Way to miss the point, that the US has a much higher rate of gun accidents and mass shootings than any other first world nation.

[Cope]

Way to miss the point, that the US has a much higher rate of gun accidents and mass shootings than any other first world nation.

It's clear that the intention was to complain about a supposed resistance to personal gun safety in the US (hence the eccentric allegation that education is viewed "communist plot" and the anecdote about regular brandishing/poor trigger discipline). As pointed out above, the number of accidental firearm deaths is a miniscule proportion of all firearm deaths, much less all accidental deaths, much less all deaths combined. The pivot to mass shootings and comparisons with countries which have, by and large, abandoned firearm ownership as a right, doesn't advance the initial claim.

[Coughdrop addict]

It's clear that the intention was to complain about a supposed resistance to personal gun safety in the US (hence the eccentric allegation that education is viewed "communist plot" and the anecdote about regular brandishing/poor trigger discipline). As pointed out above, the number of accidental firearm deaths is a miniscule proportion of all firearm deaths, much less all accidental deaths, much less all deaths combined. The pivot to mass shootings and comparisons with countries which have, by and large, abandoned firearm ownership as a right, doesn't advance the initial claim.

The education has been taken over by communist is a mainstream right-wing talking point, as you well know.

Okay, then what is an acceptable number of accidental shooting deaths for you? How many family members would you be willing to sacrifice?

[Prodromos]

ICYMI: In 6-3 ruling, SCOTUS strikes down New York’s concealed-carry law

The US Supreme Court struck down a New York gun law on Thursday requiring people to demonstrate "proper cause" to carry concealed firearms outside their homes. The court voted 6-3, arguing that the state law violated the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment by preventing "law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms," per the opinion. According to The Washington Post, the ruling could make it easier for people in at least a half-dozen states to legally carry loaded firearms in public.

The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 780 (plurality opinion). We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Very cool

[Cope]

The education has been taken over by communist is a mainstream right-wing talking point, as you well know.

There is concern about the politicization of the classroom in certain areas. This is unrelated to personal gun safety. I am yet to hear of a conservative movement/figure criticizing the prospect of firearm safety courses in schools.

Okay, then what is an acceptable number of accidental shooting deaths for you? How many family members would you be willing to sacrifice?

The same number as it would take for you to ban shoe laces, banana skins and staircases to reduce the number of accidental falls.

[Coughdrop addict]

Of course the difference is that there aren't people who would be willing to sacrifice their children to make sure falls keep happening, there isn't a massive and nearly all-powerful organization used to bribe Republicans with Russian money to keep falls happening because it is in Putin's interest for as many Americans to fall as possible, and no one claims they need shoe laces, banana skins and staircases to prevent the evil liberals from doing whatever it is the right is sure they're going to do this week.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's an especially deceptive argument as they wouldn't use the same for any other case. Would they be OK with abortion if its so rare? Not really.

[Cope]

Of course the difference is that there aren't people who would be willing to sacrifice their children to make sure falls keep happening, there isn't a massive and nearly all-powerful organization used to bribe Republicans with Russian money to keep falls happening because it is in Putin's interest for as many Americans to fall as possible, and no one claims they need shoe laces, banana skins and staircases to prevent the evil liberals from doing whatever it is the right is sure they're going to do this week.

1. No one wants to "make sure" that firearm accidents keep happening, least of all 2A advocates. Firearm deaths/injuries (other than of criminal assailants) damage, not advance, the interests of the gun owners/supporters.

2. The NRA is not "nearly all-powerful". There are plenty of wealthy/influential institutions and individuals (e.g. Michael Bloomberg) promoting and bankrolling anti-gun activism.

3. Blue Anon nonsense harms, not helps, any effort to make a coherent and/or convincing point. And since we've reached the point where defending the Bill of Rights is viewed as a Russian plot, I think this discussion has run its course.

[PointOfViewGun]

The problem is not just that 2A advocates are OK with kids dying left and right due to gun violence/availability in USA compared to many other developed countries in the world. Their attempts to treat massacres in schools as acceptable losses for gun manufacturers to be able to sell guns so easily without much scrutiny is a different problem. The real problem is much more fundamental as in USA it is not allowed for ATF to keep a searchable electronic database of gun registration by law. It is literally a crime to do that. Background checks are basically done by hand. Yet, in some cases background checks need to be done within 3 days of notice. Failure to provide the results in 3 days mean that you get an automatic approval. The gun issue is rotten from its core.

[Coughdrop addict]

1. No one wants to "make sure" that firearm accidents keep happening, least of all 2A advocates. Firearm deaths/injuries (other than of criminal assailants) damage, not advance, the interests of the gun owners/supporters.

2. The NRA is not "nearly all-powerful". There are plenty of wealthy/influential institutions and individuals (e.g. Michael Bloomberg) promoting and bankrolling anti-gun activism.

3. Blue Anon nonsense harms, not helps, any effort to make a coherent and/or convincing point. And since we've reached the point where defending the Bill of Rights is viewed as a Russian plot, I think this discussion has run its course.

I'd like an honest answer. If you were told your child had been killed in a mass shooting at their school, would you consider that an acceptable lose?

[Cope]

I'd like an honest answer. If you were told your child had been killed in a mass shooting at their school, would you consider that an acceptable lose?

The question is loaded with appeals to emotion, the assumption that anyone treats murder as "acceptable" and the inference that govt. policy should be an extension of personal tragedy.

The point of contention is not whether murder should be tolerated, its how to balance public safety against constitutional rights or, in the case of committed liberals, whether the 2A should exist in a meaningful sense at all.

[Coughdrop addict]

So, yes?

And why shouldn't personal feelings guide policy on guns? Personal feelings are the basis for much of right-wing policy. For instance, it is the personal feelings of the right that abortion is murder. It is their personal feelings that the election was stolen from Trump. It is their personal feelings LGBTQ+ people should be jailed, made into second-class citizens, or subjected to conversion therapy. And it is their personal feelings that civilians need assault rifles for reasons beyond wanting to commit a mass shooting.

[Cope]

So, yes?

The first part of my response was dedicated to exposing the question as being unreasonable and misleading. Though if I gave any direct answer, it was no, on the basis that murder isn't treated as acceptable by anyone.

And why shouldn't personal feelings guide policy on guns? Personal feelings are the basis for much of right-wing policy. For instance, it is the personal feelings of the right that abortion is murder. It is their personal feelings that the election was stolen from Trump. It is their personal feelings LGBTQ+ people should be jailed, made into second-class citizens, or subjected to conversion therapy. And it is their personal feelings that civilians need assault rifles for reasons beyond wanting to commit a mass shooting.

There's a difference between policy driven by personal trauma and policy informed by moral reasoning. But suppose I grant the provided examples, that would simply illustrate that your own emotionally-laced rationale is equivalent to that of the "right-wing policy" you relentlessly denounce.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The problem is not just that 2A advocates are OK with kids dying left and right due to gun violence/availability

False. Nobody is "OK" with people being murdered. What we are not "OK" with is constitutional and God given rights being curtailed due to the criminal actions of insane people.

The real problem is much more fundamental as in USA it is not allowed for ATF to keep a searchable electronic database of gun registration by law.

I would be very hesitant to wave the bloody shirt around while citing the ATF as the agency that will deliver us all from the horrific reality of child murder.

Background checks are basically done by hand.

Universal background checks are already a thing. If your argument is that they do not work, and clearly they do not work to keep guns out of the hands of people who are insane and intend to commit crimes without saying that part out loud, perhaps what you should be promoting is the extension of mental healthcare access which is woefully lacking. Then again, it seems that as often as not when these lunatics go on shooting sprees the perp was "known to law enforcement." So, when our institutions have clearly failed us and corralled children into a state-run education program that is a "gun free zone" and where they would rather taze, disarm, and detain parents rather than allow them to enter their state run building to defend their own children it causes one to wonder where exactly things went wrong. The second amendment seems well downstream of all these other failures.

[conon394]

with is constitutional and God given rights being curtailed due to the criminal actions of insane people

God given you got me there. So you are a member of a well regulated militia run the state and meet all it criteria and its requirements?