Off-Topic Mass killings

[MidnightCane]

Here's one of my main issues: the inability of people to cross the aisle.

I consider myself a left-leaning independent, but certainly a moderate/centrist. I belive there are things that both parties do right and do wrong. I can't help but feel that too many people's opinions are shaped by what their party or source of news says they should do/think.

My brother's father-in-law has a stash of weapons that could arm a small country. He has them locked up in the basement, some crazy lock system so no kids/grandkids can get in, none of the guns are loaded, no one goes down there without him present. He is a big game hunter, and he likes to shoot the semi-automatic weapons on acreage he owns, taking the kids and grandkids with him. This guy is exactly what one is supposed to be as a gun owner. Is it fair to take his guns? I mean, no, not really. Or not at all. That is what he is into. It'd kinda be the same as taking Miami Hurricanes football away from me (yes, I know Canes don't kill people... guns are his hobby and Canes are mine, you get my point).

But where is the tradeoff between what is essentially a hobby - I don't think he ever, realistically, intends for his gun stash to protect him from Al Queda or aliens - vs kids dying in school shootings? Something has to give here.

I've said it several times in this thread, and I have no idea if there is any merit to it (i.e., if any politicians/talking heads have said anything like this, or if it is even viable), but if I had to offer a solution, a hypothetical:

-December 31, 2027 is the last day you can buy a gun in the US.
-Buy all the guns you want before this day, they are yours and they are legal
-Jan 1, 2028 - register all your guns; failure to register them renders them illegal and you in breach of the law
-All sales of guns (private party to private party) after 1/1/28 must be registered and approved in advance - something like title insurance when buying a house
-By doing this, you aren't taking away the hobby/"rights" of present-day gun owners; guns then become essentially a family heirloom that get passed down generation to generation
-Concurrently, the gov't starts a buyback program like they did in England; kid that inherits a gun can turn right around and sell if for cash to the US government
-The next generation (and the one after that) then won't even know what it is to "lose" their right to purchase a firearm, because they never had that right to begin with; just like kids today can't imagine that black people weren't allowed in the same schools and had to ride in the back of the bus
-The gun companies eventually consolidate or go out of business, but **** them anyway
-Eventually, the trickle-down effect will kick in, and the school shootings and senseless murders will reduce

Will the shootings go away? No, not for a long time, and not totally. But it is SOMETHING. And I think that is all that most reasonable folks are looking for right now... SOMETHING.

You had me until this:

Jan 1, 2028 - register all your guns;

 

[scrantoncane]

I'd prefer 0.

Should we not continue cancer research because it won't prevent ALL cancer deaths, but merely SOME cancer deaths?

(Just messing with you.. you love to answer a question with a rhetorical question )

 

[scrantoncane]

You had me until this:

Jan 1, 2028 - register all your guns;

I was shooting from the hip. Why did I lose you there?

The inability of someone that disagrees (you, in this case) and can't "reach across the aisle" (as I put it) to air their grievances, is exactly what I was referring to in my post. Instead of saying "you had me until this", tell me why I lost you and what about what I said made me lose you.

If politicians could just do this, **** would get solved at a much higher clip.

 

[Trafficante]

I just don’t think we have a monopoly on mental health issues, but we do have a monopoly on killing 8 year olds at school. So, something’s got to give.

The morons in this thread who continue to blame gun violence on mental health, are suffering from illusory truth. Smh

There is simply no factual link between mental illness and violence against others. In fact, individuals with mental health disorders are more likely to be victims of a violent crime, than to be perpetrators of one. People with mental illness are actually more likely to hurt themselves than others, because two-thirds of gun deaths in this country are suicides.

Only about 4% of all violence is committed by individuals who suffer from mental illness, and contribution to the gun related variety is even less. There is a much stronger correlation & risk for gun violence in individuals who have a history of violence, including domestic; alcohol & drug abuse, being a young male; or being a victim of physical or sexual abuse & trauma. Mental illness alone is not a predictor of violence, and incorrectly linking mass shooters to mental illness, stigmatizes the millions of individuals in this country with mental health struggles who are not violent. It also prevents this country from making actual progress in the prevention of gun violence, because the root cause of this issue is related to structural inequality, addiction, and most importantly firearm accessibility.

Mental Illness Too Often Wrongly Associated With Gun Violence

People with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrators, but mass shootings are often incorrectly associated with psychiatric illnesses. Psychiatrists can help ed...

psychnews.psychiatryonline.org

Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy

This article describes epidemiologic evidence concerning risk of gun violence and suicide linked to psychiatric disorders, in contrast to media-fueled public perceptions of the dangerousness of mentally ill individuals, and evaluates effectiveness of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[JD08]

Should we not continue cancer research because it won't prevent ALL cancer deaths, but merely SOME cancer deaths?

(Just messing with you.. you love to answer a question with a rhetorical question )

Do I?

 

[MidnightCane]

I was shooting from the hip. Why did I lose you there?

The inability of someone that disagrees (you, in this case) and can't "reach across the aisle" (as I put it) to air their grievances, is exactly what I was referring to in my post. Instead of saying "you had me until this", tell me why I lost you and what about what I said made me lose you.

If politicians could just do this, **** would get solved at a much higher clip.

Any type of National Registry like that has so many potentially negative consequences. In my book any kind of registry coupled with a buy back program ( fancy term for legal confiscation) Is a non starter.

 

[scrantoncane]

You had me until this:

Jan 1, 2028 - register all your guns;

I was shooting from the hip. Why did I lose you there?

The inability of someone that disagrees (you, in this case) and can't "reach across the aisle" (as I put it) to air their grievances, is exactly what I was referring to in my post. Instead of saying "you had me until this", tell me why I lost you and what about what I said made me lose you.

If politicians could just do this, **** would get solved at a much higher clip.

In my hypothetical, if Senator BenicioDelToro comes to Senator scrantoncane and says "I would support your bill if you would pull out the part about registering the guns," then Senator scrantoncane would say "you have a deal." And Senator scrantoncane would tell his contemporaries and constituents that they need to be happy with any progress, and not expect to get everything at once.

Politics are ****ed up, and they **** everything up.

 

[scrantoncane]

Any type of National Registry like that has so many potentially negative consequences. In my book any kind of registry coupled with a buy back program ( fancy term for legal confiscation) Is a non starter.

If it is voluntary, is it confiscation?

Can't we just take those surrendered weapons and give them to the black ops middle eastern/african militias we are already arming, rather than giving them new **** paid for by the US taxpayer?

 

[LeavingJesusland]

There was a guard outside of the school before the shooter entered. I guess good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

I'd prefer 0.

We all would, but I think we all can agree that one is still better than 20.

 

[scrantoncane]

Any type of National Registry like that has so many potentially negative consequences. In my book any kind of registry coupled with a buy back program ( fancy term for legal confiscation) Is a non starter.

I think most Americans, including gun owners, would disagree.

Most people that own guns have nothing to hide.

In fact, aren't most new purchases tracked already? Isn't that how guns are traced back to the purchaser?

I don't really see why this would be an issue that is more important than saving childrens' lives. But again, I am open to discussion.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

So half are over the hill.

The charter school my kids went to had all young teachers. When they moved to the local elementary school, it was like this is where old teachers went for their sunset years. Which do you think a scrawny incel would target? Let's solve the problem instead of hoping for the best.

Well often times they just target their school. I have no problem with solving the problem. I think we should, but you also are just hoping for the best. You can have the best mental health system in the world and you still may get some guy who just enjoys killing and slips through the cracks and decides to shoot up a school.

So I can say to you, you are just hoping for the best, that all the school shooters post their thoughts on facebook or give warning signs to the teacher. Plenty of serial killers in the past. Have not given any signs in the past that they were killers.

 

[Ajcane8]

I defined 2A for you.

You gave me your definition of the second amendment. Thanks, I guess.

 

[88]

I'm all for strict tests and evaluations for ownership. There are so many illegal guns in circulation already though. Where there's a will, there's the dark web.

Again, there’s still a way. But reduce the chances any way you can on all facets

 

[Roncaneefc]

What do you consider easy access? Are you going to take my Beto Challenge?

Also I'm not a citizen so can't be president

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

There was a guard outside of the school before the shooter entered. I guess good guys with guns don't stop bad guys with guns

All the "good guy with guns" guys need to spend a few days at their local firing range. You have 2 main types of "good guys with guns". You have the guys that will say "I am going to run away the second the shooting stops and will only fire on the guy if I have no escape route, or he is to close for me to escape". This is actually what is even taught in most classes.

Then you have he other type. Which is the 300lb guy that gets winded after waddling from his first target to his second target. Talks about how he would have joined the army, but *insert excuse*. Has all sorts of cheap tactical things for every situation and brings them all to the range with him every time. And constantly talks about how if he was in that situation, the hard armour wouldn't have stopped him since "I would have shot him right in the pelvis, its hard to shoot back when your balls are laying in the dirt".

In other words, the odds of a "good guy wit a gun" actually stopping something like this are slim, because fatso is going to miss his first shot or hit him center of mass and end up getting dropped as he waddles for cover.

 

[TemplarCane]

Then why not legalize heroin, crack, grenades, etc?

If the old “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument is applied, should everything just be free will? Or do pro-gun guys just shape the argument to fit their stance/agenda?

None of this is black or white, right or wrong.

There are many arguments for legalizing drugs. One legitimate argument is the 'War on Drugs' has been a multi-trillion dollar failure. The prize accomplishment was creating multi-trillion dollar criminal empires, militarized domestic law enforcement, and mass incarceration.

A ban on all guns, even if possible, and even if limited to only hand guns, only provides yet another underground criminal growth economy.

 

[OriginalGatorHater]

None of this is black or white, right or wrong.

There are many arguments for legalizing drugs. One legitimate argument is the 'War on Drugs' has been a multi-trillion dollar failure. The prize accomplishment was creating multi-trillion dollar criminal empires, militarized domestic law enforcement, and mass incarceration.

A ban on all guns, even if possible, and even if limited to only hand guns, only provides yet another underground criminal growth economy.

They can't even keep drugs out of fully locked down prisons. How do they expect to keep it out of a relatively free country. However, I disagree that the war on drugs was a failure. It was a great success, it accomplished its goal.

Get a ton of blacks and other undesirables off the street/no longer able to vote. Fill up prisons for labor reasons and keeping COs employed/receiving overtime. Justify spending more on police equipment, overtime, salaries, etc. Among other things.

 

[LeavingJesusland]

How about you lay off bull**** comments like that for a while and focus on keeping the families of those children and the teacher in your thoughts for ***** sake?

Sorry to inform you...our thoughts aren't going to bring these kids back

 

[Ajcane8]

The morons in this thread who continue to blame gun violence on mental health, are suffering from illusory truth. Smh

There is simply no factual link between mental illness and violence against others. In fact, individuals with mental health disorders are more likely to be victims of a violent crime, than to be perpetrators of one. People with mental illness are actually more likely to hurt themselves than others, because two-thirds of gun deaths in this country are suicides.

Only about 4% of all violence is committed by individuals who suffer from mental illness, and contribution to the gun related variety is even less. There is a much stronger correlation & risk for gun violence in individuals who have a history of violence, including domestic; alcohol & drug abuse, being a young male; or being a victim of physical or sexual abuse & trauma. Mental illness alone is not a predictor of violence, and incorrectly linking mass shooters to mental illness, stigmatizes the millions of individuals in this country with mental health struggles who are not violent. It also prevents this country from making actual progress in the prevention of gun violence, because the root cause of this issue is related to structural inequality, addiction, and most importantly firearm accessibility.

Mental Illness Too Often Wrongly Associated With Gun Violence

People with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrators, but mass shootings are often incorrectly associated with psychiatric illnesses. Psychiatrists can help ed...

psychnews.psychiatryonline.org

Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy

This article describes epidemiologic evidence concerning risk of gun violence and suicide linked to psychiatric disorders, in contrast to media-fueled public perceptions of the dangerousness of mentally ill individuals, and evaluates effectiveness of ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I would just say in response, not necessarily in disagreement, that a person capable of murdering a dozen school children probably isn’t playing with a full deck.

I fully agree with you wrt accessibility being the most important issue, though.