Mass Shooting

[BansheeOne]

On 4/8/2023 at 7:50 PM, Ivanhoe said:

Why the flip would you send a message of solidarity with the shooter's community? 😳

[DB]

7 hours ago, rmgill said:

Pretty simple I think.

Track incidence of accidental deaths due to gun accidents. 
Then track over the same time series the incidence of lawful firearms carry. 
 

If your assertion of increased risk of accidental deaths bears out, you should see a clear rise in such in each state. 

Which "assertion" would that be Ryan? I'm at most speculating whether there is a statistically significant benefit (or detriment) from allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools where this was previously forbidden. I have no intention of skewing my data sources to give an answer that I want, whereas as seems to often be the case, you skew your reading comprehension to allow you to take issue with anything I post, even on other areas of this debate where anyone without that chip on the shoulder would acknowledge that we were in broad agreement.

Now you've turned it into your usual online fight, I've lost interest, so I guess you'll add that additional kill ring to the fake gun on your "little tank".

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, DB said:

Which "assertion" would that be Ryan?

Ok, fine, perambulatory speculation...

1 hour ago, DB said:

I'm at most speculating whether there is a statistically significant benefit (or detriment) from allowing teachers to carry firearms in schools where this was previously forbidden.

Well, you CAN in fact find states where it's legal now and where teachers are doing so now. Data sets might be small. 
 

1 hour ago, DB said:

I have no intention of skewing my data sources to give an answer that I want, whereas as seems to often be the case, you skew your reading comprehension to allow you to take issue with anything I post, even on other areas of this debate where anyone without that chip on the shoulder would acknowledge that we were in broad agreement.

FBI and CDC aren't exactly great gun supporting data sources. They are however, as far as I know, reliable data sources and they tend to show that most of the concerns in your speculation are without merit or foundation. 

1 hour ago, DB said:

Now you've turned it into your usual online fight, I've lost interest, so I guess you'll add that additional kill ring to the fake gun on your "little tank".

Well, when we had liberalization of carry laws there was a constant worry that there'd be lots of accidents, more road rage incidents and other sorts of incidental crime because more people were carrying guns where they were previously not allowed to. Suffice to say the blood in the streets didn't materialize. Such hand wringing is a shibboleth of the gun fearing left. So, your perambulatory speculation follows that. Sorry if it sounds like the same kind of logical speculation that's lacking an actual foundational data set. 

[DKTanker]

3 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Why the flip would you send a message of solidarity with the shooter's community? 😳

Questions for the President and Vice President of the United States of American, both of whom have given implicit support to the current outbreak of Tranny Terrorists.

[BansheeOne]

I was actually referring to the "Christian community". Apart from the question why you would call members of a faith including very nearly two thirds of the US population a "community" like they're one of the other one-percent religions or some ethnic/sexual/whatever minority, for all we know the shooter was a member of same, too.

She had after all attended that school and was doing what most spree shooters do: running amok in their in-group, killing family members, co-students, workplace colleagues, congregation members, fellow gangsters, etc. The few cases who deliberately go for outsiders of different religion, race or politics by shooting up mosques, synagogues, black churches or socialist youth camps typically make damn sure everyone gets the point by dumping their manifesto on the net first and/or livestreaming themselves.

In fact, pending revelations from her private records, so far I see the whole trans angle merely as a symptom of the distraught mind of someone who reportedly obsessed over the members of the sports club which made an effort to reach out to her in middle school, and lost it after the second of those died in a short span, which is when she changed pronouns. The "non-binary" type who shot up a drag show in Colorado is probably a better example for a trans-related rampage (notably, it would have happened to an in-group again).

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, BansheeOne said:

I was actually referring to the "Christian community".

Question, is it possible to be a member of two communities? 

Why send a message of solidarity to the victim community while sending messages of solidarity to the terrorist community?  That's the question you seem to be asking. 

[BansheeOne]

It certainly is. I even suspect that board and staff of all the companies virtue-signalling their support for the LGBTQWERTY+ community are majority Christian themselves, in line with society in general. Which makes assigning the shooter to one particular "community" another exercise in the usual exculpatory dichotomic motivation exegesis I've noted before - he/she was a left-winger/right-winger/Muslim/Christian/tranny/gangster/insert bogeyman group of your choice, so it's not our problem; no need to change anything about guns/mental health/schools/whatever would inconvenience us.

[Markus Becker]

I could not find a "Because Australia" so this gies here:

 

Ok, in California I'd get it: Assault Bong but in the land down under where they got the biggest bongs in the world? That's downright unpatriotic.  

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

I could not find a "Because Australia" so this gies here:

 

Ok, in California I'd get it: Assault Bong but in the land down under where they got the biggest bongs in the world? That's downright unpatriotic.  

Here you are:

 

[Markus Becker]

My search fu is weak but Kangaroo bacon is actually not a bad idea. 

[urbanoid]

Had to limit to 'titles only' in advanced search options.

[Ivanhoe]

20 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

My search fu is weak but Kangaroo bacon is actually not a bad idea. 

"BaconRoo strips; they're heart-healthy!"

 

[Skywalkre]

On 4/6/2023 at 5:12 PM, rmgill said:

ok?

The point is you were expanding the scope of firearm related deaths.  Ok, let's do that.  When you look at everything it's not like most of these deaths are caused by gangbangers and the news just doesn't cover it.  Rather the majority of deaths are from suicide... and then after that domestic violence is the next biggest category out of what remains.

On 4/6/2023 at 5:12 PM, rmgill said:

We are going to see ways to challenge these red-flag orders,  right?

 

Right Skywalkre? 

Yep.  Every serious discussion I've seen about this has ways to challenge and court procedure involved.  You can cling a little less to that strawman, now. (I hear they itch, anyways, so not the smartest thing to do in the first place.)

[Skywalkre]

On 4/7/2023 at 1:35 PM, Burncycle360 said:

Red flag laws are abhorrent. If you believe the citizen to be too dangerous to possess a firearm despite no crime having been committed, why strip them of some of their rights and permit them to remain free in society? If the claim is that they are a clear and present danger to those around them then drop the pretense and make the argument to remove them from society through charging them with something or involuntary committing them. Shit or get off the pot, this halfway stuff is nonsense.  Everyone knows it will be abused and many involved will be false positives with very little redress.

What if someone shares that they're thinking of suicide... you wouldn't want guns taken away from them temporarily til they're helped?  As long as it seems clear they would only hurt themselves then leave them be with their guns or the ability to purchase them?  That's abhorrent.  When I've seen this issue of red flag laws it's as often been in relation to attempting to address the suicide situation in this country as much as in response to some of these mass shootings.

On 4/7/2023 at 1:35 PM, Burncycle360 said:

So harden schools, reform mental health and access to it, address the upstream causes of violence, poverty, whatever. I am open to any and all of it. Conservative approaches, progressive approaches, I am results oriented and entirely happy to entertain them all... as long as it doesn't involve stripping the citizenry of their rights, and as long as you understand that no matter what you do you'll never eliminate crazy people intent on doing harm to others, you'll only ever get closer to the baseline.

Two points.

First, what conservative approaches have really been pushed?  Allowing teachers to be armed?  Ok, as already pointed out TX has allowed this and the overwhelming majority of schools still don't have teachers who have chosen to do this (which is pretty understandable when you look at who becomes a teacher).  The issue I'm seeing is that conservatives don't really have an approach outside of just shrugging.  I've warned that I see the US going towards universal healthcare not because it's the right thing or the best thing but because conservatives offer no solution which makes universal healthcare more appealing every year to more Americans.  I'm starting to think the same will happen with the 2nd Amendment.  Conservatives doing nothing about this (when there are reasonable measures that could be looked at) makes me think we could see some change to the 2nd Amendment in my lifetime.

Second, I've never seen any serious discussion about this that doesn't factor in the fact you have to be careful with people's rights.  Look at our current criminal system.  Are you telling me every person convicted and sent to jail is guilty?  We all know that's BS as almost weekly we hear some tale of someone released after false imprisonment.  I doubt any of you are going to argue we should tear down and throw out our criminal system because of that.

[Burncycle360]

6 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

What if someone shares that they're thinking of suicide... you wouldn't want guns taken away from them temporarily til they're helped?  As long as it seems clear they would only hurt themselves then leave them be with their guns or the ability to purchase them?  That's abhorrent.  When I've seen this issue of red flag laws it's as often been in relation to attempting to address the suicide situation in this country as much as in response to some of these mass shootings.

The precedent here for suicidal people is the 72 hour / emergency holds, which is essentially temporary involuntary commitment. It goes without saying that during this time you don't have access to firearms, so this doesn't conflict with shitting or getting off the pot, it's just shitting.

Only 22 states require judicial review in the process and something like 9 require a judge to certify prior to the person being hospitalized.  The effectiveness of this is debatable and we can argue the moral and ethical aspects of involuntary commitment without having committed a crime in general, but assuming we agreed that involuntary commitment has its place in an implicit social contract in a society, the difference between this and red flag laws is that generally with red flag laws the firearms are confiscated while the person remains free (the specifics vary from state to state).

My point was that this is nonsensical. How can we claim that a person is simultaneously is such a clear and imminent danger to themselves or those around them that it warrants suspension of their very rights under the constitution without having actually committed a crime, yet aren't so dangerous that they warrant removal from society writ large for their protection and the protection of others?  That's why I said shit or get off the pot.  If they're so dangerous they can't be trusted with firearms despite not having committed a crime, why are you letting them roam free?  Now, that isn't to say we should "fix" it by involuntarily committing anyone you'd otherwise just red flag, it's to say that behavior that is construed as warranting red flag action is vague and nebulous enough to be abused ("I'll know it when I see it"), and it will trend towards abuse not just because of the polarized environment we live in, but because even without that, liability acts as a perverse incentive. 

Basically the first time someone kills themselves or others and investigators start combing through the actions that led to the event, the question by the media and loved ones of the victims of "why didn't you red flag them?" will pop up, and officials will start erring towards red flagging anyone they can link to exhibiting potentially dangerous behavior six-degrees-of-kevin-bacon style.  Behavior like believing there are two genders.  Remember, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization, this is not far fetched.  Before you know it, a system that is ostensibly a scalpel is turned into a sledgehammer to be wielded by gun control advocates, a legal means to a desired end. Just wait until everyone is somewhere on the spectrum of mental illness (don't worry, Pfizer has a lucrative solution for each and every one of... well, ideally the entire population of the US)

 

Quote

Two points.

First, what conservative approaches have really been pushed?  Allowing teachers to be armed?  Ok, as already pointed out TX has allowed this and the overwhelming majority of schools still don't have teachers who have chosen to do this (which is pretty understandable when you look at who becomes a teacher).  The issue I'm seeing is that conservatives don't really have an approach outside of just shrugging.  I've warned that I see the US going towards universal healthcare not because it's the right thing or the best thing but because conservatives offer no solution which makes universal healthcare more appealing every year to more Americans.  I'm starting to think the same will happen with the 2nd Amendment.  Conservatives doing nothing about this (when there are reasonable measures that could be looked at) makes me think we could see some change to the 2nd Amendment in my lifetime.

The fundamental problem here isn't that conservatives don't offer solutions, it's that the solutions they offer do not satisfy someone with unrealistic expectations.

In the wake of any event, parties that run on the platform that they can "solve" the problem if only we yield enough power to them will capitalize on the outrage to collect more power, and liberals will believe it.  The problem here is that you cannot legislate out criminal behavior to include homicide (not even the threat of the death penalty will deter everyone), you can only get closer to some baseline -- criminals do not follow the law by definition.  But people aren't satisfied with baseline, they want zero, and that isn't ever going to happen. Even if we could eliminate all firearms in a society, the number of people willing and intent on harming themselves or others remains the same.  The worst school attack in US history was done in 1927.... with explosives, not firearms.  Nobody is talking about needing background checks for diesel and fertilizer, or to rent a truck in Nice.

The reason this is so frustrating for liberals is that they are so narrowly focused that the solution seems obvious: all we have to do is get rid of the guns.  If they killer cannot access an effective tool, they will not kill. If someone with suicidal ideation cannot access a gun, they will not kill themselves.

This is actually a super common argument, more broadly speaking. Fewer guns equal fewer gun deaths (water is wet), and even further, fewer guns equal fewer deaths in general because in some cases the killings are opportunistic and guns made it easier than another method. ie, impulsive suicide.

That's not wrong, in general, and 2A advocates need to acknowledge this if we're going to have a good faith discussion. However, this isn't case closed as anti-gun advocates proclaim, because it's not the entire story, and if we are going to have a good faith discussion anti-gunners also need to acknowledge that it isn't the entire story.

Fewer guns also mean fewer successful defensive use of firearms, and this is what anti gun advocates invariably leave out any time they bring up the number of rate of criminal or suicidal use by firearms. It's true that defensive uses of firearms are more difficult to track because they often aren't reported, and in many cases the presence of a gun deescalated the encounter without shots ever having to be fired or people killed, so the result is a wide range of estimated defensive use of firearms, but even the conservative figures by the CDC under Obama suggest that defensive use of firearms outnumber criminal violence and suicides by firearms by over an order of magnitude. Importantly, even if they didn't, it doesn't justify banning firearms.

We must zoom out and look at the whole picture at a societal level through a lens of principle. There is more to a society than mere raw numbers of gun related deaths (which is just a subset of violence and crime in general), which ebb and flow and serve only as a lagging indicator of the underlying health of the society. Now I am deeply saddened by the prevalence of suicide for instance, gun related or otherwise, but attempts to curtail that do not trump my right to self defense, nor should it trump my ability to choose firearms as a means of self defense. This statement is not meant to come across as insensitive, but I insist we take the more arduous route of addressing the upstream causes of suicidality and gun related crime in an effort to reduce the numbers to closer to baseline.

There comes a point in which the laws and best practices are appropriate with regards to the balance between freedom and security, beyond which point further changes are unnecessary even after an event occurs (and it will) and instead individuals are held to account for their actions. Address the person who broke it, if they're still alive, review best practices in procedure and tactics if necessary, and drive on. It's a hard truth that the wise understand, despite the bleating of the mob to do more... but it places politicians in an extremely difficult position because it's career suicide to acknowledge that beyond a certain point there isn't anything they can do to regulate out the outliers that will always exist, and once they start exceeding the bounds of their authority by stripping everyone of their rights to take an ineffective swing at those outliers you're well beyond the point of diminishing returns. The next logical step when that doesn't work is throwing out the principle of innocent until proven guilty with red flag laws, and even then they won't get them all... but they will drive gun saves far closer to zero than they will the outliers to the baseline, then the very same people will not discuss those who are killed because of it (they'll call it tragic but unavoidable for the public good). No thank you.

Murders, mass shootings and suicides are potential risks of having a society that recognizes that human beings have a right to self defense, since even a hypothetically benevolent state cannot always be there to protect you. Nobody said the tradeoffs were all positive, just that they are worth it in a free society.

Why? Because the alternative is worse. It's an alternative in which people who were never the problem are effectively stripped of both their human rights (self defense), and simultaneously subject to oppression by their own government. To allow the opportunity for either of these eventualities to occur, much less both, regardless of whether or not these dangers are manifest in that moment, is reprehensible by any moral framework worth considering.  If you think armed criminals are dangerous, wait until you see what a state can do. 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't take measures to reduce the likelihood or severity of those incidents, it just means we need to do so while respecting the two constraints above. Therefore, I don't focus on gun related deaths specifically, including suicides by gun, because of course I want to reduce all cause homicides and suicides (regardless of tool used) to as close to the baseline as possible, as long as the two constraints above are respected. This doesn't fit the heartless gun owner narrative of course, but we shephard the principles of our society forward with good reason, so that future generations are less likely to be subject to the horrors of the 20th century and so that they may have a chance to go home if they find themselves encountering the wrong person at the wrong place and time.

So that's basically it. Liberals are hyper focused on the pothole in front of them and how it'll affect the left tire, while conservatives are focused on the bridge that's out in the distance and how that will affect the whole car.

[Rick]

53 minutes ago, Burncycle360 said:

The precedent here for suicidal people is the 72 hour / emergency holds, which is essentially temporary involuntary commitment. It goes without saying that during this time you don't have access to firearms, so this doesn't conflict with shitting or getting off the pot, it's just shitting.

Only 22 states require judicial review in the process and something like 9 require a judge to certify prior to the person being hospitalized.  The effectiveness of this is debatable and we can argue the moral and ethical aspects of involuntary commitment without having committed a crime in general, but assuming we agreed that involuntary commitment has its place in an implicit social contract in a society, the difference between this and red flag laws is that generally with red flag laws the firearms are confiscated while the person remains free (the specifics vary from state to state).

My point was that this is nonsensical. How can we claim that a person is simultaneously is such a clear and imminent danger to themselves or those around them that it warrants suspension of their very rights under the constitution without having actually committed a crime, yet aren't so dangerous that they warrant removal from society writ large for their protection and the protection of others?  That's why I said shit or get off the pot.  If they're so dangerous they can't be trusted with firearms despite not having committed a crime, why are you letting them roam free?  Now, that isn't to say we should "fix" it by involuntarily committing anyone you'd otherwise just red flag, it's to say that behavior that is construed as warranting red flag action is vague and nebulous enough to be abused ("I'll know it when I see it"), and it will trend towards abuse not just because of the polarized environment we live in, but because even without that, liability acts as a perverse incentive. 

Basically the first time someone kills themselves or others and investigators start combing through the actions that led to the event, the question by the media and loved ones of the victims of "why didn't you red flag them?" will pop up, and officials will start erring towards red flagging anyone they can link to exhibiting potentially dangerous behavior six-degrees-of-kevin-bacon style.  Behavior like believing there are two genders.  Remember, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization, this is not far fetched.  Before you know it, a system that is ostensibly a scalpel is turned into a sledgehammer to be wielded by gun control advocates, a legal means to a desired end. Just wait until everyone is somewhere on the spectrum of mental illness (don't worry, Pfizer has a lucrative solution for each and every one of... well, ideally the entire population of the US)

 

The fundamental problem here isn't that conservatives don't offer solutions, it's that the solutions they offer do not satisfy someone with unrealistic expectations.

In the wake of any event, parties that run on the platform that they can "solve" the problem if only we yield enough power to them will capitalize on the outrage to collect more power, and liberals will believe it.  The problem here is that you cannot legislate out criminal behavior to include homicide (not even the threat of the death penalty will deter everyone), you can only get closer to some baseline -- criminals do not follow the law by definition.  But people aren't satisfied with baseline, they want zero, and that isn't ever going to happen. Even if we could eliminate all firearms in a society, the number of people willing and intent on harming themselves or others remains the same.  The worst school attack in US history was done in 1927.... with explosives, not firearms.  Nobody is talking about needing background checks for diesel and fertilizer, or to rent a truck in Nice.

The reason this is so frustrating for liberals is that they are so narrowly focused that the solution seems obvious: all we have to do is get rid of the guns.  If they killer cannot access an effective tool, they will not kill. If someone with suicidal ideation cannot access a gun, they will not kill themselves.

This is actually a super common argument, more broadly speaking. Fewer guns equal fewer gun deaths (water is wet), and even further, fewer guns equal fewer deaths in general because in some cases the killings are opportunistic and guns made it easier than another method. ie, impulsive suicide.

That's not wrong, in general, and 2A advocates need to acknowledge this if we're going to have a good faith discussion. However, this isn't case closed as anti-gun advocates proclaim, because it's not the entire story, and if we are going to have a good faith discussion anti-gunners also need to acknowledge that it isn't the entire story.

Fewer guns also mean fewer successful defensive use of firearms, and this is what anti gun advocates invariably leave out any time they bring up the number of rate of criminal or suicidal use by firearms. It's true that defensive uses of firearms are more difficult to track because they often aren't reported, and in many cases the presence of a gun deescalated the encounter without shots ever having to be fired or people killed, so the result is a wide range of estimated defensive use of firearms, but even the conservative figures by the CDC under Obama suggest that defensive use of firearms outnumber criminal violence and suicides by firearms by over an order of magnitude. Importantly, even if they didn't, it doesn't justify banning firearms.

We must zoom out and look at the whole picture at a societal level through a lens of principle. There is more to a society than mere raw numbers of gun related deaths (which is just a subset of violence and crime in general), which ebb and flow and serve only as a lagging indicator of the underlying health of the society. Now I am deeply saddened by the prevalence of suicide for instance, gun related or otherwise, but attempts to curtail that do not trump my right to self defense, nor should it trump my ability to choose firearms as a means of self defense. This statement is not meant to come across as insensitive, but I insist we take the more arduous route of addressing the upstream causes of suicidality and gun related crime in an effort to reduce the numbers to closer to baseline.

There comes a point in which the laws and best practices are appropriate with regards to the balance between freedom and security, beyond which point further changes are unnecessary even after an event occurs (and it will) and instead individuals are held to account for their actions. Address the person who broke it, if they're still alive, review best practices in procedure and tactics if necessary, and drive on. It's a hard truth that the wise understand, despite the bleating of the mob to do more... but it places politicians in an extremely difficult position because it's career suicide to acknowledge that beyond a certain point there isn't anything they can do to regulate out the outliers that will always exist, and once they start exceeding the bounds of their authority by stripping everyone of their rights to take an ineffective swing at those outliers you're well beyond the point of diminishing returns. The next logical step when that doesn't work is throwing out the principle of innocent until proven guilty with red flag laws, and even then they won't get them all... but they will drive gun saves far closer to zero than they will the outliers to the baseline, then the very same people will not discuss those who are killed because of it (they'll call it tragic but unavoidable for the public good). No thank you.

Murders, mass shootings and suicides are potential risks of having a society that recognizes that human beings have a right to self defense, since even a hypothetically benevolent state cannot always be there to protect you. Nobody said the tradeoffs were all positive, just that they are worth it in a free society.

Why? Because the alternative is worse. It's an alternative in which people who were never the problem are effectively stripped of both their human rights (self defense), and simultaneously subject to oppression by their own government. To allow the opportunity for either of these eventualities to occur, much less both, regardless of whether or not these dangers are manifest in that moment, is reprehensible by any moral framework worth considering.  If you think armed criminals are dangerous, wait until you see what a state can do. 

That doesn't mean we shouldn't take measures to reduce the likelihood or severity of those incidents, it just means we need to do so while respecting the two constraints above. Therefore, I don't focus on gun related deaths specifically, including suicides by gun, because of course I want to reduce all cause homicides and suicides (regardless of tool used) to as close to the baseline as possible, as long as the two constraints above are respected. This doesn't fit the heartless gun owner narrative of course, but we shephard the principles of our society forward with good reason, so that future generations are less likely to be subject to the horrors of the 20th century and so that they may have a chance to go home if they find themselves encountering the wrong person at the wrong place and time.

So that's basically it. Liberals are hyper focused on the pothole in front of them and how it'll affect the left tire, while conservatives are focused on the bridge that's out in the distance and how that will affect the whole car.

Candidate for best post of the year!

[Tim the Tank Nut]

that really is very good, clear thinking.  He'll never make it in politics!

[rmgill]

16 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

The point is you were expanding the scope of firearm related deaths.  Ok, let's do that.  When you look at everything it's not like most of these deaths are caused by gangbangers and the news just doesn't cover it.  Rather the majority of deaths are from suicide... and then after that domestic violence is the next biggest category out of what remains.

ok. How are you going to stop suicide s? Those are consistently high From Japan, the US/Canada to Europe. Even bowling for Columbine noted that. 

16 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Yep.  Every serious discussion I've seen about this has ways to challenge and court procedure involved.  You can cling a little less to that strawman, now. (I hear they itch, anyways, so not the smartest thing to do in the first place.)

So then discuss it and define the examples. Not doing so as part of your 'that's a strawman' is evasive. 

Extend the red flag procedure to some length of incarceration. Does that make a straw man too? 

[Murph]

Red Flag laws are just gun control with a pretty wrapper, they do nothing.  If they had required mental health assistance, and screening, and a LOT of 2nd Amendment protections built in, I might, repeat MIGHT support them.  As it is, they are just a way to steal peoples guns under the guise of dubious legality.

[rmgill]

17 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

What if someone shares that they're thinking of suicide... you wouldn't want guns taken away from them temporarily til they're helped?

Are guns the only way to commit suicide? 
If you are willing to take their guns away, are you willing to commit them against their will? Id you are able to suspend one right, why not another? 

17 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

  As long as it seems clear they would only hurt themselves then leave them be with their guns or the ability to purchase them?  That's abhorrent. 
 

So they go an suicide by cop with a knife. Thats better? Or park their car on a passenger rail line crossing? Or jump off a bridge into traffic? 
 

Thats less abhorrent? 

17 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

First, what conservative approaches have really been pushed?  Allowing teachers to be armed?  Ok, as already pointed out TX has allowed this and the overwhelming majority of schools still don't have teachers who have chosen to do this (which is pretty understandable when you look at who becomes a teacher).  The issue I'm seeing is that conservatives don't really have an approach outside of just shrugging.

Recidivist felons stay in prison. Mentally ill who are a danger get committed. 
 

 

17 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

Second, I've never seen any serious discussion about this that doesn't factor in the fact you have to be careful with people's rights. 
 

Well. You do. 

17 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

 

Look at our current criminal system.  Are you telling me every person convicted and sent to jail is guilty?  We all know that's BS as almost weekly we hear some tale of someone released after false imprisonment.  I doubt any of you are going to argue we should tear down and throw out our criminal system because of that.

Multiple violent felonies are what we are talking about here in part. 

[rmgill]

On 4/17/2023 at 4:33 AM, Burncycle360 said:

This is actually a super common argument, more broadly speaking. Fewer guns equal fewer gun deaths (water is wet), and even further, fewer guns equal fewer deaths in general because in some cases the killings are opportunistic and guns made it easier than another method. ie, impulsive suicide.

That's not wrong, in general, and 2A advocates need to acknowledge this if we're going to have a good faith discussion. However, this isn't case closed as anti-gun advocates proclaim, because it's not the entire story, and if we are going to have a good faith discussion anti-gunners also need to acknowledge that it isn't the entire story.

This isn't really ignored by gun rights proponents but just baked into the cake of reality that we understand that sure, you may have some level of reduced incidental gun homicides, but you're not going to get rid of all other types of homicides and you'll see a dramatic shift from gun homicide to knife, hammer, pipe, boot and other tool homicide. With a considerable remainder of gun homicides because you cannot make guns disappear without a magic wand which does not exist. 


Guns were banned for decades in Chicago and DC, that didn't stop the homicide rate there. 

That's really key, how do you make the guns dissapear? How do you ban them all and take them out of circulation. What does that society look like? House to house searches? Seizure of property without compensation? More families burned out of homes and whole neighborhoods turned into larger warzones? 

And as you note, the defensive gun use will drop through the floor which will embolden criminals in their predations. Which will increase crime and violent victimization type crimes. 

Edited April 18, 2023 by rmgill

[Burncycle360]

Exactly

[Stargrunt6]

On 4/11/2023 at 9:14 AM, BansheeOne said:

I was actually referring to the "Christian community". Apart from the question why you would call members of a faith including very nearly two thirds of the US population a "community" like they're one of the other one-percent religions or some ethnic/sexual/whatever minority, for all we know the shooter was a member of same, too.

She had after all attended that school and was doing what most spree shooters do: running amok in their in-group, killing family members, co-students, workplace colleagues, congregation members, fellow gangsters, etc. The few cases who deliberately go for outsiders of different religion, race or politics by shooting up mosques, synagogues, black churches or socialist youth camps typically make damn sure everyone gets the point by dumping their manifesto on the net first and/or livestreaming themselves.

In fact, pending revelations from her private records, so far I see the whole trans angle merely as a symptom of the distraught mind of someone who reportedly obsessed over the members of the sports club which made an effort to reach out to her in middle school, and lost it after the second of those died in a short span, which is when she changed pronouns. The "non-binary" type who shot up a drag show in Colorado is probably a better example for a trans-related rampage (notably, it would have happened to an in-group again).

You think the shooter is a christian?  You don't think she at all renounced her faith?

 

[Stargrunt6]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:03 AM, BansheeOne said:

It certainly is. I even suspect that board and staff of all the companies virtue-signalling their support for the LGBTQWERTY+ community are majority Christian themselves, in line with society in general. Which makes assigning the shooter to one particular "community" another exercise in the usual exculpatory dichotomic motivation exegesis I've noted before - he/she was a left-winger/right-winger/Muslim/Christian/tranny/gangster/insert bogeyman group of your choice, so it's not our problem; no need to change anything about guns/mental health/schools/whatever would inconvenience us.

Err, there's "christian" and there's christian. And no, I'm not pulling a one true scotsman.

You have one type that is devout. Lives their life Genesis to Exodus.  Missing church is like going a week without food for them.  Prays every day, private Bible study every day as well.

Then you have CEO christians: Christmas and Easter Only.  They went through the motions because their parents made them. Otherwise in private lives,  christianity is as real as Santa Claus.

In the army of the Lord, they don't wear a uniform,  don't know their breech from muzzle, never go to drill, never picked up a field manual, may have never even sworn an oath to defend their country.

When Jesus says "you must be born again," he's referring to the 2nd group.

The first group, I can tell them about some big decision in my life and say "I'll see what God wants me to do about it (work, life decisions, etc), and they wouldn't even flinch. They'd likely offer to pray for me.

The second group would look at me like I was on bath salts, then go back to bragging about their sexual conquests, both before and after they were married,  while having their 4th or 5th drink.

Tl;dr: many who call themselves christians have disembodied ideas.

Come down to New Orleans and you'll meet the 2nd types by the bushel.  

 

[Ivanhoe]

52 minutes ago, Stargrunt6 said:

Come down to New Orleans and you'll meet the 2nd types by the bushel.  

Sunday Christians. One day a week they follow the program, the rest of the week they act like they play for the other team without remorse. 

As for educational institutions, how many students/graduates of the University of Notre Dame have ever gone to Mass?