Mass Shooting

[sunday]

Case in point:

[bojan]

Availability of firearms means nothing. It is a society, and has always been so.

[Stargrunt6]

16 minutes ago, bojan said:

Availability of firearms means nothing. It is a society, and has always been so.

Back in the 20s and 30s in Samland you could go to your local TrueValue Hardware Store and buy a pound of roofing nails and the nice tommy gun off the shelf.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

 

A vehicle is large common place tool that can kill. Nice France had a mass murder of 87 with a truck. 

Firearms are also common place tools that can kill. 

Legally speaking we compare various similar things and ideas to test the validity of the legal arguments. What other things are parents going to be criminally liable for if their kids obtain and misuse them? 

Well, the kid is going to know where it's at. He/she lives there. I knew where my father's guns were. My wife knows where my guns are. I expect any resident to know such things. But then not all firearms are hidden away. My carry piece goes into my night stand. A friend has firearms around his house and his daughter knows where they are including the ones that are hers. 
 

In the US, licenses to own or carry are not consistent across the nation. In Georgia there's no license required to own ANY firearms. There is a license to carry but that's optional for various reasons and to grant carry in other states. More than 25 states in the US have what's called constitutional carry. You can carry a firearm, hand gun really, around on your person with out a license. 

Well, if you don't have legal access it is stealing. Complaint or not. It's a crime whether or not they press charges. That you steal a car when you have a license doesn't change the nature of the theft. 

But if it was stolen, how are they liable? If someone with or without a license steals your property you're criminally guilty? How's that work at all? 

The problem here is you have a second person who's the actor. You're trying to attribute guilt, potentially mens rea to that person for the acts of a third person whom they have no control over. 
 

These people that go on spree shootings are out to destroy god as it were. This latest one was willing to shoot 9 year old children and then go after her parents too. Presuming that these disturbed children or adults don't want to cause their parents problems is quite honestly, exceedingly mistaken. 
 

 

There's no need to play dumb. You knew exactly what I meant, and trying to compare a car to a tool designed for the sole purpose of bodily harm, is just deflection because you think I attacked your precious ideology, of which I have 0 interest.

There is factual evidence that shows if mass shooters could not obtain firearms, the number of victims would be lower. And no, it doesn't mean firearms need to be banned - just better regulated. The fact that you say in some states a child can legally obtain a gun without any license or training, just demonstrates the problem.

Perhaps if every person needed a license to carry, and had to secure it in a safe while at home, things would be a bit safer. 

And I still do believe that any person that gives their child an AR-15 to go play in the park with the other kids, is definitely liable for anything that happens.

Edited March 29, 2023 by Mighty_Zuk

[rmgill]

Its not playing dumb. Nationally in the US there are more accidents deaths due to cara than there are total deaths to firearms. Both are licensed and comparisons between the two are profligate in conversations about liability, legality, controls and everything else. 
 

If you're so mentally inflexible that you can't do the comparative and extrapolative thinking then I don't know how I can lead you to water on this. 
 

As to precious ideology, how the hell would Israel exist if it were not for small arms held by your rebels to British rule and Arab subjugation attempts? Talk about myopic AND stupid. 

[rmgill]

16 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Back in the 20s and 30s in Samland you could go to your local TrueValue Hardware Store and buy a pound of roofing nails and the nice tommy gun off the shelf.

Yep. No background check needed. No NFA either. Mass shootings have gone up as gun control has increased. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 minutes ago, rmgill said:

As to precious ideology, how the hell would Israel exist if it were not for small arms held by your rebels to British rule and Arab subjugation attempts? Talk about myopic AND stupid

How's Israel related to this? You really think in today's Israel everyone can just carry a gun? Because for at least the vast majority of Israelis, the only time they actually touch a gun is during their military service and that's it. To actually get a gun you need to meet a lot of criteria, and even then there's a lot of regulation after you get your pistol.

By the way, those "rebels" were militants. It was their job to carry firearms.

6 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Its not playing dumb. Nationally in the US there are more accidents deaths due to cara than there are total deaths to firearms. Both are licensed and comparisons between the two are profligate in conversations about liability, legality, controls and everything else. 

And why do you think police give more attention to a murder case than to a suffocation case? Because the former scares the hell out of people, and the latter is just a sad tragedy that otherwise won't affect anyone.

When you see a car accident, you're not suddenly scared of driving. You feel pity for the guy and move on. And if you are in an accident yourself, you'll just keep driving after you recover physically and financially.

But when there are mass shootings in your local schools, you're too afraid to send your children there, and your children know someone has made it their life's goal to kill them. This disrupts people's way of life. 

[rmgill]

15 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

How's Israel related to this? You really think in today's Israel everyone can just carry a gun? Because for at least the vast majority of Israelis, the only time they actually touch a gun is during their military service and that's it. To actually get a gun you need to meet a lot of criteria, and even then there's a lot of regulation after you get your pistol.

We are comparing laws and effectiveness and experience here.  You have you preconceived notions of what works. You are assuming we have the same ideas or liabilities here. I don't know what legal system is used in Israel, but in English common law, we have a lot of comparisons between one legal set and another as part of the mental task of figuring out what is reasonable. Read some case law from the US you will see piles of comparisons between seemingly unrelated but not dissimilar laws.  
 

As to laws in Israel, do those laws stop Palestinian militants whos job it is to kill Israelis and doing so by carrying guns? 

15 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

By the way, those "rebels" were militants. It was their job to carry firearms.

I suspect the British would have disagreed and argued it was illegal. 

15 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

And why do you think police give more attention to a murder case than to a suffocation case? Because the former scares the hell out of people, and the latter is just a sad tragedy that otherwise won't affect anyone.

If someone does something by Accident, and it suffocates another we call that a possible manslaughter case. Criminal and civil liability possibly attaches there. 
 

You are attaching criminal liability to a third person for the actions of another person who made a Deliberate choice. 
 

If a Palestinian militant steals a car and runs down a bunch of school kids is the owner of the car criminally liable? Why not? 

15 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

When you see a car accident, you're not suddenly scared of driving. You feel pity for the guy and move on. And if you are in an accident yourself, you'll just keep driving after you recover physically and financially.

Silly. People suffer ptsd from accidents and serious injury same as if they were shot. 

But you have the same dismissive attitude to cars that people here do. 40,000 accidental deaths is just yawn worthy, even if it involves children in many cases. But have a gun homicide and people suddenly wake up? 
 

Also silly. Both types of deaths are quite possibly avoidable but solving it is not  in the interest of folks. 

 

15 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

But when there are mass shootings in your local schools, you're too afraid to send your children there, and your children know someone has made it their life's goal to kill them. This disrupts people's way of life. 

People react to threats. You have rocket and mortar attacks. You used to have mass shootings. You know how you solved those? 

Edited March 29, 2023 by rmgill

[Mighty_Zuk]

16 minutes ago, rmgill said:

As to laws in Israel, do those laws stop Palestinian militants whos job it is to kill Israelis and doing so by carrying guns? 

Yes, actually. Living in an area designated as dangerous in terms of terror attacks is one of the main criteria for obtaining a license. Policemen are also encouraged to carry firearms off-duty, and can do so anywhere. Combat soldiers may also carry firearms off-duty as long as they're uniformed, and of course travel with a firearm (to and from their base).

Palestinians are not subjected to Israeli civilian law, but to military laws (or a mix of both in some places) unless they are citizens. They are not allowed to carry firearms unless they're employed as security, and cannot pass either firearms or cold weapons through military checkpoints.

 

The rest I won't answer since it's clearly bait.

[bojan]

57 minutes ago, rmgill said:

...Mass shootings have gone up as gun control has increased. 

Have they really gone that up or just perception of going up was created by media and more lose criteria about what is a "mass shooting"?

[rmgill]

16 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yes, actually. Living in an area designated as dangerous in terms of terror attacks is one of the main criteria for obtaining a license. Policemen are also encouraged to carry firearms off-duty, and can do so anywhere. Combat soldiers may also carry firearms off-duty as long as they're uniformed, and of course travel with a firearm (to and from their base).

And off duty military personnel ALSO carry. Considering there's widespread conscription it's just a different threshold set. The US is not under a constant state of war with it's neighbors so  we actually, wrongly I think restrict military personnel from carrying weapons as a matter of routine. We however have a far higher crime issue so we have a different threshold. Remember, the US is VASTLY larger than Israel with vastly different types of issue by region. 

 

16 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Palestinians are not subjected to Israeli civilian law, but to military laws (or a mix of both in some places) unless they are citizens. They are not allowed to carry firearms unless they're employed as security, and cannot pass either firearms or cold weapons through military checkpoints.

What if they're Israeli Citizens? 

16 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The rest I won't answer since it's clearly bait.

No, I'm trying to get you to think about the larger issue of where firearms exist in your society and what sort of place they present. If you lived not in Israel, but in say Alaska, or any of the US western states where critters could be a threat you'd have a different view. 

We can't erect walls around the high crime parts of the US. Imagine if Israel was one country with the West Bank, Gaza, the Gaza strip, the East Bank, trans Jordan and Lebanon as one county. With freedom of movement through out the entire area. And the Islamic adherents who want to kill jews able to move to your neighborhood.  How would you want gun laws then for citizens? Do you think you'd want constrained firearms ownership then? 

[rmgill]

24 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Yes, actually. Living in an area designated as dangerous in terms of terror attacks is one of the main criteria for obtaining a license.

Oh. I asked if the laws STOP the Pally Militants from obtaining guns and using them. Do the _laws_ stop them or do aggressive defensive measures attempt to intercept them and put them down? It's been noted that attempts to effect mass shootings in Israel are unsuccessful because you have such a large armed security presence of conscripted military AND reservist who are all able to be armed as they are 'police/or/military'. Which is why car bomb and other attacks are the preferred choice for militants. 

Put differently, if Israel passed a law saying "no rockets attacks are allowed without a license" would that work or would you need to actually effect a physical solution vs say punishing someone by arrest/trial/punishment? 

[Wobbly Head]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Have they really gone that up or just perception of going up was created by media and more lose criteria about what is a "mass shooting"?

It all falls under the lies, damn lies and statistics. People are using and abusing facts to suit their narrative. Thier belief in the cause has become dogma so even presenting a well thought out argument supported by facts will not change thier minds. 

 I miss the old days where you could have an argument and end up agreeing to disagree.

[Skywalkre]

1 hour ago, bojan said:

Have they really gone that up or just perception of going up was created by media and more lose criteria about what is a "mass shooting"?

The bigger question in the statement you were referencing was this notion that gun control has gone up.  Rs have been in control at the state level in many places for quite a while now (despite their lack of control at the Fed level) and have eased gun control laws.  At the Fed level Ds are calling for bans to come back that lapsed years ago.

I'd love to see how 'gun control has gone up' is quantified and explained because I'm not seeing it.

[rmgill]

24 minutes ago, Wobbly Head said:

It all falls under the lies, damn lies and statistics. People are using and abusing facts to suit their narrative. Thier belief in the cause has become dogma so even presenting a well thought out argument supported by facts will not change thier minds. 

 I miss the old days where you could have an argument and end up agreeing to disagree.

Hard to agree to disagree when you're a step away from police coming around to confiscate property because someone changed their mind. 

[DB]

16 hours ago, Angrybk said:

"nutpicking" is the term -- you'll always find a dumbass on social media who says something completely offensive and ridiculous. 

There's more than a handful of these floating about. Lots of complaints about "deadnaming", with absolutely no irony. Brett Cooper shows a few.

[rmgill]

7 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

The bigger question in the statement you were referencing was this notion that gun control has gone up.  Rs have been in control at the state level in many places for quite a while now (despite their lack of control at the Fed level) and have eased gun control laws.  At the Fed level Ds are calling for bans to come back that lapsed years ago.

At the federal level a clear showing of how the '86 assault weapons ban succeeded would be useful. That's yet to be done by any reasonable measure. If the argument was winnable, the left would not need to resort to hyperbole and insults. 

7 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

I'd love to see how 'gun control has gone up' is quantified and explained because I'm not seeing it.

Sullivan Laws, NFA '34, GCA '68, Tiahrt Amendment, AWB '86, various more strict state laws with greater and greater degrees of licensure requirements. Federal attempts to go further are thankfully blocked by saner heads in congress and progress in the courts since Heller v DC. 

From the 1900s to today, crime went up and gun laws increased across the nation. The peak for violent crime was nationally in the 70s. With the recent summer of love it was back up there again.  There's been a dialing back across many parts of the country, but not in places like New York or New Jersey. Hell, New York, DC, New Jersey, California, Colorado, etc have all passed increased gun control of magazine capacity, assault weapons, and the like. Does that all count or are you JUST looking At Georgia finally getting rid of Jim Crow era gun control as not going up. Frankly I'd think that any liberal worth their salt would look askance at may issues laws or Jim Crow era prohibitions as entirely wrong headed and indefensible. 
 

[BansheeOne]

I guess I don't see that. I mean, you have court decisions for gun rights even in places like NY and DC, with the attempts to counter with even more restrictive regulations looking sure to create an even bigger judicial backlash.

[Skywalkre]

31 minutes ago, rmgill said:

At the federal level a clear showing of how the '86 assault weapons ban succeeded would be useful. That's yet to be done by any reasonable measure. If the argument was winnable, the left would not need to resort to hyperbole and insults.

🤣 You're rich, sometimes... Hard to do research to see if stuff works when the Dickey Amendment quashed research for nearly 25 years.

[Skywalkre]

27 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

I guess I don't see that. I mean, you have court decisions for gun rights even in places like NY and DC, with the attempts to counter with even more restrictive regulations looking sure to create an even bigger judicial backlash.

Thank you.  The last 25 years have seen gun control measures rolled back in many R states and as you mentioned several initiatives in D areas have lost court battles.  At the Fed level in that time there's basically been... nothing.  As such it's peculiar to see an argument that gun control has led to increased numbers of mass shootings. 

[Murph]

Media calls for moment of silence for deranged psychotic mass murderer who was misgendered.

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-calls-for-moment-of-silence-for-shooter-who-was-misgendered

[rmgill]

16 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

🤣 You're rich, sometimes... Hard to do research to see if stuff works when the Dickey Amendment quashed research for nearly 25 years.

You can do research. You just can't orient it to gun control and get it paid for by the CDC. 
 

DOJ can study this. NCVS categories could be adjusted. Private research can happen. 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by rmgill

[rmgill]

8 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

Thank you.  The last 25 years have seen gun control measures rolled back in many R states and as you mentioned several initiatives in D areas have lost court battles.  At the Fed level in that time there's basically been... nothing.  As such it's peculiar to see an argument that gun control has led to increased numbers of mass shootings. 

The shootings always seem to happen where guns are forbidden the most though. Which is again a peculiarity. If the law and sign saying no guns will work, why not just have a sign up that prohibits crime? 

Point being, that prior to much of the gun control we didn't have these kinds of mass shootings. Their rise was not incipient with the rise of freely accessible firearms as folks assert. 
 

[Skywalkre]

23 minutes ago, rmgill said:

You can do research. You just can't orient it to gun control and get it paid for by the CDC. 
 

DOJ can study this. NCVS categories could be adjusted. Private research can happen.

The majority of research is funded by the government in this country.  You dry up a source of Fed funding, you effectively dry up the research (which was the point of the Dickey amendment).  If Rs don't want to get good data on what's happening, that's fine.  They then can't turn around and say "oh look, there's no data so no issue" like you just did.  🙄

22 minutes ago, rmgill said:

The shootings always seem to happen where guns are forbidden the most though. Which is again a peculiarity. If the law and sign saying no guns will work, why not just have a sign up that prohibits crime?

Mass shootings happen in R states, too, which have some of the most friendly gun rights laws.

24 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Point being, that prior to much of the gun control we didn't have these kinds of mass shootings. Their rise was not incipient with the rise of freely accessible firearms as folks assert.

No one said lax gun laws led to a rise in mass shootings.  We're merely pointing out how the notion that 'more gun control has led to more mass shootings' is basically hogwash.

[Skywalkre]

29 minutes ago, Murph said:

Media calls for moment of silence for deranged psychotic mass murderer who was misgendered.

https://babylonbee.com/news/media-calls-for-moment-of-silence-for-shooter-who-was-misgendered

Murph, you know this is from the babylonbee and didn't actually happen... right? 🙄