OT: Gun Control / School Shootings what would you do if you could?

[ckDOG]

Cool. Ban those too.

The first two guns listed say “semi automatic”. Both of those are fully automatic guns.

The aesthetics part of that law was stupid. Banning high capacity/high rate is the right spirit. Don't care long gun or pistol. Citizens don't need guns that make it easy to mow down a classroom, grocery store, movie theater, nightclub, concert space, etc.

 

[BossDawg78]

Weird how Australia gave up civilian assault weapon ownership and they haven’t had a high body count mass shooting since.

They do. You just often don't hear about these things because the world is so focused on the US. Further, an "assault weapon" ban would accomplish exactly nothing considering how, again, many more people are killed by handguns than by rifles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ife-three-young-children-killing-himself.html

 

[Ralph Cramden]

The first two guns listed say “semi automatic”. Both of those are fully automatic guns.

You can not purchase a full auto weapon. It is illegal for you to purchase or modify your weapon to full auto. Has been for years and years

 

[Ralph Cramden]

I think we should just pass a law making it illegal to commit murder. Very simple. Look what making heroin and meth illegal have done. Totally fixed that problem. And since they finally made lynching illegal we haven't had any lynching. I can't understand why the " gun free zone " sign didn't deter him.

 

[paindonthurt]

Less than 10% are by rifles. This says 2.6% but shows 23% unknown.

https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/

 

[grinningmule]

Less concerned about aesthetics than I am about capacity and how rapid you can fire off shots. That should be the focus. But it is hard to ignore the increase after 2004. Correlation/causation. I know. But easier it is to find high capacity/rate weapons, easier it is to mow down a lot of people. Tired of so many folks having that as an option...and tired of folks poo pooing every political effort... "oh, well, you can still do this or that, bad guys gonna bad guy, etc." It's counterproductive to even small improvements. We've stalled too long.

If you want to create carnage you can create carnage. People who only get upset when the evil black rifle gets used are blind to the overall ills of society. You saw how fast the Christmas parade massacre disappeared from the news cycle. Not raising generations of self loathing mentally weak kids would help tremendously. If you want to ban something, then ban all social media.

 

[paindonthurt]

Yes I understand. So my point is that bill ending in 2004 didn’t really change much.

 

[MagnoliaHunter]

the US ranks much higher than Australia in crimes & violent crimes that don't involve guns too. So we just have more 17ed up people than Australia.

 

[ckDOG]

Agree. There's always arson or bombing.

If you want to create carnage you can create carnage. People who only get upset when the evil black rifle gets used are blind to the overall ills of society. You saw how fast the Christmas parade massacre disappeared from the news cycle. Not raising generations of self loathing mentally weak kids would help tremendously. If you want to ban something, then ban all social media.

Doesn't exempt society and policy makers from giving a damn though. It's very bizarre we've brainwashed ourselves into a "woe as me, can't do nuffin' bout these guns" mentality. We don't tend to do that with other problems. Why guns? Why just accept the incremental risk by doing little or nothing?

Social media? Again...USA is gun violence outlier. Social media is everywhere. Gotta explain it with something else.

 

[GloryDawg]

Maybe they will maybe they won’t, but why not put something in place to make it harder for them to do awful **** instead of saying “aww shucks thoughts and prayers” each time an avoidable tragedy? Before you call me a commie or some **** I own guns. Come from a gun owning family. There’s no reason to own a military grade weapon except for “having fun”. The using them against government angle is dumb as **** because guess what? We outspend every nation in the world in military spending, your *** ain’t making it out.

Another dumbass suggestion is arming teachers, like what 17ing school did you go to? My 75 year old science teacher wouldn’t have been able to defend **** and neither would’ve most of the others.

You need to go rant on somebody else. I have never called anyone on this board a name. I also didn't **** about arming teachers or anything else you preaching to me about . All I said was crazies will always find a way.

 

[ckDOG]

Anarchy it is!

I think we should just pass a law making it illegal to commit murder. Very simple. Look what making heroin and meth illegal have done. Totally fixed that problem. And since they finally made lynching illegal we haven't had any lynching. I can't understand why the " gun free zone " sign didn't deter him.

Somebody let God know his Commandments are a crock of **** too. 17 rules and some resemblance of order.

 

[TrueMaroonGrind]

Because we live in a hyper-partisan country, and both sides are scared to blink. One side wants everyone to have a gun and take it everywhere. The other wants guns made illegal, no exceptions. There are decent people on both sides, but those folks are scared to negotiate in fear of their base and the next primary election. It has become one of the most awful aspects of this country* and created a government ruled by bureaucracy and executive orders. However, this is the most egregious lack of action as children are dying.

*ETA: Reworded this part because I do not think "this country is awful", but this is certainly an awful characteristic of where we are as a society.

It’s so sad that our “leaders” have lost the ability to compromise completely. Normal conversations that would improve our society have been lost to always trying to win the debate or headlines. We lose as a country when we can’t address the issues that really hurt us because we have no forum to talk and meet in the middle. Violence, poverty, mental illness, healthcare are all major issues in our country that the greatest country in the world cannot even begin to deal with because we refuse to discuss anything.

I hope and pray for my children’s sake that we can begin to discuss mental illness and guns. At least try to find a solution at least for mass shootings. Not trying is not an option anymore.

 

[paindonthurt]

In your example that would be pretty easy for 1 armed guard to defend.

 

[paindonthurt]

So ban long guns with high capacity magazines and regular pistols? Good luck.

The point is the law you mentioned had almost 0 affect on mass shootings.

 

[paindonthurt]

We have a second amendment too. Just as important as the first.

 

[paindonthurt]

Yeah that’s exactly what he said.

 

[Leeshouldveflanked]

In the time it took to read this thread 20 Abortions were performed in the US.

 

[ronpolk]

There are two key problems that have to be addressed before any progress can be made:

1) Constructive debate cannot be had due to fanboy politics and idiots on both sides of the political spectrum. If anyone can figure out how that gets fixed, we can move onto #2.

2) Even those willing to engage in constructive debate suffer from biases of “if this doesn’t totally solve the problem, it’s not worth doing at all”. Its a terrible mindset. We drive cars every day. We obey speed limits, wear seat belts, practice safe following distances, don’t drink and drive, etc. Doing any one of those things or even all of those things and then some doesn’t prevent accidents or death. But nobody disputes their individual or collective contributions to promoting public safety.

For some reason (mostly media and social programming / brainwashing) people have a mental block applying the same logic to gun safety. Will extensive background checks for all citizens buying guns (both publicly and privately) 100% prevent mass shootings or even individual shootings or suicides? Of course not. Will banning bump stocks and cartoonish ammunition capacity magazines prevent the same things from happening? Of course not. Are both of those things simple, potentially effective, common sense solutions that could both limit the number and impact of mass shootings, without any law abiding gun owners losing any basic rights of being able to protect themselves? Absolutely.

The ultimate problem is an unwillingness to do anything. Its a tragedy of our time that identity politics and media influeces (both social media and actual media) have reduced our once civil society to a state where not even the death of children will get people to just sit down and talk about actionable reform that makes sense for all parties.

One of the better takes in the thread. The fact is something needs to be done. As someone else mentioned, it’s probably time to start trying some of these things “that wont work”.

 

[engie]

It’s amazing to me the same people that always want to ban things turn the page and assure a constant supply of illegal and unchecked goods come into the country constantly across open borders.

Fix immigration, get some semblance of control over the flow of illegal goods, and we will have an honest conversation. Until that time, it makes about as much sense as the pseudoephedrine ban Mississippi finally got smart and repealed after it didn’t do one single thing to fix the actual problem, just compounded it with demand being filled by much more deadly and effective criminals.

 

[ronpolk]

In the time it took to read this thread 20 Abortions were performed in the US.

I likely have very similar views as you on abortion but really what good does that comment do in this thread?

 

[Hugh's Burner Phone]

Somebody let God know his Commandments are a crock of **** too. 17 rules and some resemblance of order.

That's not what he's saying but you know that. Some people are just inherently evil. Now whether that's because of a mental disorder or just their personality it's the case. Those people don't care about laws. Laws only work for a civilized society. They take those that aren't civilized out of society but they can only do so once they have broken the rules. You can't make what that demented dipshit did any more illegal than it already was. He didn't care. Adding more laws won't change people like that. People like that will always find a way to try to do what they want to do. But the answer is not to make it harder for honest people to defend themselves from pure evil like this kid. For those arguing to make guns and ammo more expensive you are making it harder for the poorest among us to defend and protect their families. And they live in the highest crime areas. A single mom of 5 on welfare and working a minimum wage job isn't going to be living in a gated community in the burbs. She's going to be in the inner city probably walking or taking a bus to her job. Her kids are going to be home alone in a crime infested, gang controlled world where she's walking home at night by herself. Don't make it harder for her to protect herself and her family. Or my mom. She's 78 and had 7 back surgeries. My dad died back in 2003 and she lives alone. She couldn't fight off a home invader. Her only way of protecting herself is a firearm. You going to tell her she can't have the one thing that gives her the best chance to stay alive? 17 that and 17 anybody that says they'd take her right away.

Yes, it's a tragedy when these shootings happen. My heart literally breaks when I hear about them. But the solution isn't to make people easier victims.

 

[engie]

We drive cars every day. We obey speed limits, wear seat belts, practice safe following distances, don’t drink and drive, etc. Doing any one of those things or even all of those things and then some doesn’t prevent accidents or death. But nobody disputes their individual or collective contributions to promoting public safety.

And when said cars become the new fad weapon of choice? They’ve been used in a notable number of horrific acts of mass murder also.

You are right. The problem with giving an inch is taking a mile. Do you trust either party in govt not to abuse the absolute hell out of any additional power they are given? After what we’ve just been through?

Here is you a story. 28 year old engie goes to buy a 22 pistol a decade ago. Has his background check denied for no apparent reason having never been in any kind of real trouble. So he reads up on the appeals process and calls the number given on the denial form. No one answers a phone at the n appeals division that Obama had gutted to the point of it being months and months of backlog. Maybe even furloughed altogether if memory serves. Just in attempt to mainly get an explanation. So, essentially my second amendment rights were violated for what actually ended up being a couple of years, for no reason, in our current system. And I shouldn’t feel trepidation about the possibility of making this even easier for them to accomplish?

 

[grinningmule]

Video games, including FPS, do not create killers. My 15 year old plays all of them. He is not a violent young man. He also has been raised around guns, and we bird hunt a few times a year with a variety of shotguns. My friends bring all of their "toys" (AR-15s, modified long guns, etc.) to our bird hunts. We usually spend a half hour wasting ammo with those before we get bored. They are unnecessary and only useful for mass casualties, unless you're just popping off 100 rounds at a target.

Someone explain to me why owning a AR-15 is necessary, other than the "to defend against tyranny" argument. As has been said many times, if anyone thinks that they are going to band together to overthrow the US military, they are being unrealistic and living in a fantasy, which is an entirely different problem that we have in America.

The fact you acknowledge that the government could easily use our military as a cudgel against American citizens is the exact reason the 2nd Amendment exists. I can write down pages of things neither you or I "need" but it is neither your place or anyone else's to tell me that I do or do not need or find necessary to own.

 

[ArcherSPS]

They don’t. Australia hasn’t had a shooting like we have on the regular since their instituted their ban. It’s a fact. They don’t have folks coming into their schools shooting them up.

 

[ckDOG]

Horse ****

That's not what he's saying but you know that. Some people are just inherently evil. Now whether that's because of a mental disorder or just their personality it's the case. Those people don't care about laws. Laws only work for a civilized society. They take those that aren't civilized out of society but they can only do so once they have broken the rules. You can't make what that demented dipshit did any more illegal than it already was. He didn't care. Adding more laws won't change people like that. People like that will always find a way to try to do what they want to do. But the answer is not to make it harder for honest people to defend themselves from pure evil like this kid. For those arguing to make guns and ammo more expensive you are making it harder for the poorest among us to defend and protect their families. And they live in the highest crime areas. A single mom of 5 on welfare and working a minimum wage job isn't going to be living in a gated community in the burbs. She's going to be in the inner city probably walking or taking a bus to her job. Her kids are going to be home alone in a crime infested, gang controlled world where she's walking home at night by herself. Don't make it harder for her to protect herself and her family. Or my mom. She's 78 and had 7 back surgeries. My dad died back in 2003 and she lives alone. She couldn't fight off a home invader. Her only way of protecting herself is a firearm. You going to tell her she can't have the one thing that gives her the best chance to stay alive? 17 that and 17 anybody that says they'd take her right away.

Yes, it's a tragedy when these shootings happen. My heart literally breaks when I hear about them. But the solution isn't to make people easier victims.

Laws are meant for the worst of us, not the decent people of the world who have judgment and act right. The second you argue that laws and orderly society do no good in preventing bad things from happening is the first step to giving up and the living with chaos that may follow (maybe we are already there?)

A common theme among many responses in this thread is completely defeatist and overly cynical. Arguing over the best way to react is healthy, but the "Aw shucks we shouldn't try bc people are bad and not going to listen to no dang gun law" is unique and bizarre.

What other context do so many folks hold this hands off view? My state legislators are spent quite a bit of effort in rolling back abortion rights and banning books from public school libraries last session. Are those laws going to prevent all unnecessary abortions or a kid from reading To Kill a Mockingbird? Hell no. Did it stop those folks from passionately arguing for legislative change? Nope. Ask those same folks to make some common sense firearm reforms and they'll pull that defeatist **** out with a swiftness then run away from you like you have the plague.

 

[ronpolk]

That's not what he's saying but you know that. Some people are just inherently evil. Now whether that's because of a mental disorder or just their personality it's the case. Those people don't care about laws. Laws only work for a civilized society. They take those that aren't civilized out of society but they can only do so once they have broken the rules. You can't make what that demented dipshit did any more illegal than it already was. He didn't care. Adding more laws won't change people like that. People like that will always find a way to try to do what they want to do. But the answer is not to make it harder for honest people to defend themselves from pure evil like this kid. For those arguing to make guns and ammo more expensive you are making it harder for the poorest among us to defend and protect their families. And they live in the highest crime areas. A single mom of 5 on welfare and working a minimum wage job isn't going to be living in a gated community in the burbs. She's going to be in the inner city probably walking or taking a bus to her job. Her kids are going to be home alone in a crime infested, gang controlled world where she's walking home at night by herself. Don't make it harder for her to protect herself and her family. Or my mom. She's 78 and had 7 back surgeries. My dad died back in 2003 and she lives alone. She couldn't fight off a home invader. Her only way of protecting herself is a firearm. You going to tell her she can't have the one thing that gives her the best chance to stay alive? 17 that and 17 anybody that says they'd take her right away.

Yes, it's a tragedy when these shootings happen. My heart literally breaks when I hear about them. But the solution isn't to make people easier victims.

Perhaps I’ve missed it but is anyone in this thread calling for banning all guns period? I think what has been suggested in this thread is reasonable. Reasonable people don’t want to take away the right for someone to own a gun. It is a good debate to have on the reasonable need for a civilian to have an AR 15 though.

I’ll admit I’m looking at this through the lens of someone who is not a gun enthusiast. I own 6 guns, all used for hunting except for a 9 mm pistol.

 

[DAWG61]

You clearly don't value women equally

 

[ArcherSPS]

No he didn’t Kohl of Wisconsin did. At least get basic facts right.

 

[8dog]

Has a civilian ever been helped by owning an AR 15? I just dont get what we gain there. What is the point of owning one? Has anyone ever been like “damn. Glad I had my AR 15 or I would have never made it out of there?”

 

[BoomBoom.sixpack]

I think we could probably cut out this type of mass shooting if we confiscated guns, but the tradeoff is we'd have more deaths in routine violence, and leave a lot of people helpless, which seems immoral to me although I get the desire after somethign like this. Even if we thought it would reduce violent deaths on net, I still wouldnt' be comfortable with the tradeoff because the risk wouldn't be equally spread across the population.

But, regardless, that's obviously not constitutional or feasible.

How else could it have been avoidable? This is not a smart *** question, I'm genuinely curious as to what people think could be done and what they think the tradeoffs would be.

I'm pretty sure there's a high probability that this scumbag would have killed less kids if he was limited to less lethal weapons. Some weapons are more lethal than others, and making it more likely that a would-be mass killer kills less people when armed with lower lethality weapons is kinda what lethality and statistics mean.

There's an obvious reason why mass shooters almost always have AR-15s, and not Vulcan guns or grenade launchers or any other number of weapons that are more lethal, and that's availability.

Mass shooters tend heavily to not have deep black market connections, nor large amounts of money. If we limited heavily who can purchase AR-15s and their ammo, then scumbags like this one likely won't have them.

I suggest making certain firearms, and most forms of public carrying, available only to those who register for public service, and I don't mean the draft, and it comes with training and psych evaluation. Then actually call on these people for public service. Let it be free in exchange for service, but backcharge any who shirk the service.

 

[ckDOG]

The gun manufacturers are here. This is an argument for drugs.

It’s amazing to me the same people that always want to ban things turn the page and assure a constant supply of illegal and unchecked goods come into the country constantly across open borders.

Fix immigration, get some semblance of control over the flow of illegal goods, and we will have an honest conversation. Until that time, it makes about as much sense as the pseudoephedrine ban Mississippi finally got smart and repealed after it didn’t do one single thing to fix the actual problem, just compounded it with demand being filled by much more deadly and effective criminals.

But your tangent is still fair. We have a southern border security problem and it needed fixing decades ago.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Agreed.

 

[Cooterpoot]

Raise gun ownership age to 21(minus military and LE) Drop drinking age back to 18. Legalize weed.
Bring back NCAA Football.

 

[goodknight]

Gun control doesn’t stop evil people from doing evil things. Cities with the strictest gun control laws are some of the most violent deadly cities in the country.

 

[Hugh's Burner Phone]

Laws are meant for the worst of us, not the decent people of the world who have judgment and act right. The second you argue that laws and orderly society do no good in preventing bad things from happening is the first step to giving up and the living with chaos that may follow (maybe we are already there?)

A common theme among many responses in this thread is completely defeatist and overly cynical. Arguing over the best way to react is healthy, but the "Aw shucks we shouldn't try bc people are bad and not going to listen to no dang gun law" is unique and bizarre.

What other context do so many folks hold this hands off view? My state legislators are spent quite a bit of effort in rolling back abortion rights and banning books from public school libraries last session. Are those laws going to prevent all unnecessary abortions or a kid from reading To Kill a Mockingbird? Hell no. Did it stop those folks from passionately arguing for legislative change? Nope. Ask those same folks to make some common sense firearm reforms and they'll pull that defeatist **** out with a swiftness then run away from you like you have the plague.

It's not horseshit. I wouldn't shoplift, rob, murder, or rape anybody even if there were no laws against it. I dare say 99.999% of society feels likewise. But laws exist to punish those that would do it. And they do it regardless of the laws. That's why laws exist to punish and remove those who choose not to be a part of civilized society. But the moment you start passing laws punishing innocent people then you've crossed the line.

 

[Hugh's Burner Phone]

Has a civilian ever been helped by owning an AR 15? I just dont get what we gain there. What is the point of owning one? Has anyone ever been like “damn. Glad I had my AR 15 or I would have never made it out of there?”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/amp/

 

[8dog]

Yeah. I think most of those would have been successful with any gun. Most intruders see a gun and flee. Just no sense in civilians having them. Way more harm.

But I have to laugh at the guy who was the subject of the drive by and just happened to have his AR 15(though the article never says its an AR 15). Im sure he was just an innocent civilian.

 

[ckDOG]

I've had a lot of fun shooting them

Has a civilian ever been helped by owning an AR 15? I just dont get what we gain there. What is the point of owning one? Has anyone ever been like “damn. Glad I had my AR 15 or I would have never made it out of there?”

can't think of an actual practical reason to have one though. I would never have that with me aside from locked up at the house or with me at a range.

Do you need it or similar for hunting? Nah. Can you be well protected with other less capable weapons? Absolutely. It's just a man toy thing and the marketers are well aware of it. There's some incredible marketing out there for folks that haven't emotionally matured past 12.

It's similar with me and guitars. I have too many. Do I need all of them and an amplifier that absolutely will make your ears bleed when I'm not even in a band? No. But they look and sound badass so I like it and something appeals to the young ckDOG that lives in the back of my brain. Unfortunately guns can literally rip your face off instead of figuratively as they do in the guitar/amp world.

 

[aTotal360]

Let's say we ban all guns. Now what?

 

[ckDOG]

Precisely why I said this

It's not horseshit. I wouldn't shoplift, rob, murder, or rape anybody even if there were no laws against it. I dare say 99.999% of society feels likewise. But laws exist to punish those that would do it. And they do it regardless of the laws. That's why laws exist to punish and remove those who choose not to be a part of civilized society. But the moment you start passing laws punishing innocent people then you've crossed the line.

Laws are meant for the worst of us, not the decent people of the world who have judgment and act right.

I'm not anti gun nor have I implied that I am. I'm saying it is possible to make things better for the innocent with policy change and the defeatist we can't do anything stance serves no good. You and I differ in that you view a restriction on certain firearms (or the process to get one) as a negative to an individuals liberty. It's an acceptable argument. I view it as being a restriction on a murderer's convenience in obtaining weapons to easily eliminate your life (the ultimate restriction of liberty). I think both could be a means to an end (innocent people stop getting murdered with firearms) and there's always more than one way to skin a cat, but I keep looking at gun statistics and our outlier status and can't help but not think "maybe more guns isn't the answer here?" We've already doubled and tripled down on this theory and it's not working.