You always do a great job of playing the seemingly moderate. I woudn’t expect anything less.
Yeah, this debate has been had over and over. Let’s start with hypotheticals (not directed at TB but the whole forum),
1.There is a deranged young man planning to kill as many of his classmates as he can next year. He already owns the rifles and handguns he plans to use.
Same as 1. but the young man in this scenario plans to rob his uncle’s safe to acquire weapons.
Same as scenario 1. but the young man is going to buy rifles and handguns from a friend.
Is it possible to craft legislation that will stop them? If so, how? If not, what other ways can we stop them?
@ Homicidal men motivated by fame, fantasies of being known for carrying off a mass shooting.
This is from a friend of mine. He is a former officer in the Marine Corps, now Clinical Psychologist on that topic.
Intervene: Employ counselors and mental health professionals to work with schools to help at-risk students before situations escalate to tragedies. Fund community mental health centers for at-risk adults.
His Response:
There are many, many paths to arrive at what we might consider the fundamental preconditions for mass murder, not the least of which seem to be isolation, mistreatment, and resentment. Brooding in isolation while segregated from others is a worthy thing to target, but one that is unlikely to be done away with. The autobiography of Carl Panzram, as well as the notes from the Columbine shooters are worth reading…
Contributing to their dark fantasies, is the appeal of post-hoc fame and how ‘unable to ignore them’ it will be, following their actions. It is irrelevant that they might be dead during the actual media storm; it fuels fantasy while they are alive and brooding.
I liked Steven Pinker’s suggestion that the top 5-6 media outlets agree with each other to not share the photographic images or demographic data of a perpetrator if slain. NPR already redacts demographics, race, and ethnicity where they see fit in stories, in accordance with their agenda. This would be no different, but would be fueled by a different focus (intervention vs. ideology). It would rob them of fame, and perhaps reduce or de-incentivize what appears to be an aspect of this problem where the perpetrators feel like they are in competition.
Most of you are probably aware, but I don’t think anyone has brought this up in the thread. There is a bit of a tech-race involved. The first gun to be 3D printed is already two years old. Remember, every release of the iPhone is accompanied by a 17-year-old posting how to ‘hack it.’
The Liberator and 3D Printed Firearms.
Reason TV - About 8 minutes
If we’re trying to protect schools, why not lock them up? Why not have people/students go through at least what you have to in an airport, to enter a school?
Some schools have done that. I worked at a high school near Compton where we had high fencing around the school, and a front gate at the entrance with metal detectors and security guards. Most of our campuses here attempt to have one entry during school hours, one point of ingress, but it can be hard to do with large open campuses in warm climates like CA.
At some point, the schools begin to look like a prison which might be OK with people, but getting serious about retrofitting doors and glass, building fencing to be meaningful barriers would take time and money.
We could prioritize scanners/ detectors. Staff with a non-lethal option like a tasers or pepper spray at least, if people dislike the idea of armed personnel. Armored if not armed security as a stop gap while we try to make the school campuses easier to secure.
Idk man but no reason to make it easy for people. Seems like when I turn on news I rarely see mass fires, bombs, or car killings. Lets be honest most of these turds would blow them selves up or catch their nuts on fire. Any dipshit with $$$ can buy guns. Between this mook & the church shooter they dont strike me as guys that could split atoms.
If we can deprive them of the fantasy of having their names and photographs all over the news, something that has motivated some of these sick young men then that might be worthwhile to take that motivation from them.
NPR, and other new sources sometimes redact, choose not to mention, the race, religion, or other demographic information of some assailants. We had a situation in Oakland where people were being robbed on the subway. They choose not to broadcast the race of the minors who were robbing them. That became a bit of a controversy since they declined to report that the perpetrators were AA, in order to NOT fuel racism about something that isn’t racially motivated. Does the public have a right to know their race, and does it serve a purpose in protecting the public. Maybe, or maybe not. You can decide if not mentioning that someone is Muslim is part of a political agenda or not, depending on the situation. It may or may not be important in reporting the incident.
What? I don’t understand.
Is it always important to announce the assailant’s race, ethnicity or religion, particularly when it has not bearing on the crime? Do you need to know if the shooter is a Catholic, if religion was not a motivator? A Hispanic shooter, if the crime has nothing to do with the person’s ethnicity? If someone commits credit card fraud, do we need to announce that they are Baptist? NPR, and other credible news outlets sometimes redact/ choose not to broadcast this kind of information when it just sows bigotry. Depending on the situation, I think that’s responsible journalism.
Gonna rant a bit: living in Europe, I can tell the data posted above is bullshit. There were an average of a terroristic attack every month and a half in the last few years, which makes up for almost every mass shooting in Europe to recent date. It’s just much easier for people from Africa and Middle East to reach Europe since we’re at the other side of the sea, which makes Europe much more subject to terroristic attacks. You could bet your stars and stripes asses that if America wasn’t conveniently located at the other side of the world, they’d be coming to you too.
Comparing terroristic attacks to school shootings is an obvious logical fallacy, school shootings are a US trademark. Everytime people say that “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” they’re going full murikan and you never go full murikan, it’s dumb.
It’s obvious that inanimate objects don’t kill people on themselves. It’s equally obvious that firearms make it much easier for people to kill other people.
You don’t get the same lethality with a fire in a public place, people would just go outside one way or another.
You don’t get to build a bomb so easily, we had a few bombings here in Europe and many were discovered ahead of time because it’s easier to spot who’s piling up the materials needed, plus quite a few wannabe bombers ended up blowing themselves up at home during the process, which is always nice.
You don’t get to drive a car or a truck in a school because, you know, walls and stuff on the way.
You don’t get to kill a shit ton of people with a knife because you need to close distance with every potential victim and make sure you’ve actually killed them and not just wounded, which doesn’t have the same carnage potential of pulling a trigger on everything that moves from the distance.
The talks about a cultural issue and mental health are legit and have their place of course, but it’s obvious that the firearms spread in the US is the main issue. It’s just too easy for people to own multiple firearms because yes and it’s too easy for people to defend this stance for some kind of washed out sense of patriotism.
Making it even easier for self defense purpose is bullshit. The dumbest argument of them all is the good ol’ “if those people had a gun they could defend themselves”. No, that’s false. Real life is not Die Hard and as much as people like to idenfity themselves as a potential hero, they’re not, not even close.
Get out of this hollywoodian bubble, it hurts the sense of reality.
And mass stabbings are a very real very horrible thing. People with nothing more than a knife have managed to stab and slash upwards of 30 people in a single event (including in schools). While they aren’t as bad as bombs, cars, fires, or guns swapping one of these events for 30 stabbing victims isn’t the ultimate solution.
I think you probably need to go and do some research.
A few years back an elderly local “character” living a few houses down the road from my home snapped after his wife passed away and went to the local mall carrying a large hatchet in a bag - he pulled it out in a crowded food court and started randomly attacking people.
He was in his seventies and not exactly in the peak of physical fitness so most of the patrons managed to evade his wild swings and run for cover - he only grazed one woman on the shoulder before being subdued by the police roughly five minutes later.
So the murderous intent stemming from mental issues was definitely there - most of the patrons in the food court were young mothers and toddlers as it was mid-morning and it could have been a carnage.
If he had a handgun he could have killed at least a dozen people in those five minutes.
So yes, you can kill a lot of people with a knife (London attacks) but in the eyes of an untrained lunatic guns trump knives.
Similar to what @carbiduis was saying. I also think the negative aspect of this, and the time lapse on the restraint if not properly evidenced is an allowable restraint on the 2A. Thoughts?
Moderates have to do the grown-up work of explaining why the modern problems of a complex post-industrial world can’t be solved by libertarian bumper sticker slogans. That’s a full time job around here.
Can’t do much about 1, but as for 2 and 3, create a cause of action under the law that creates third party liability if adequate steps weren’t taken.
In 3, the friend is required (same as any commercial enterprise) to run a lengthy background check. If he doesn’t, it’s per se negligence, and he can be held liable, both for the unlawful sale and any harm caused by the person he unlawfully sold the weapon to.
Perfect solutions? No. There are none. But better is ok.
Actually, this whole “hallowed 2A” things seems to be a fairly recent phenomenon, just look at this anti-gun legislation dealing with taboos such as government control of gun sales and purchases from that famously anti-gun organization…oh wait
In the 1920s, for instance, the NRA drafted handgun regulations not too dissimilar from those that they campaign against today: regulations requiring a permit for concealed weapons, a mandatory waiting period, and making records of gun sales available to law enforcement. In the 1930s, they went further and sponsored both the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, which, among other things, banned felons from owning guns, required gun sellers and owners to register with the government, and placed heavy tax levies on guns associated with the likes of Bonnie & Clyde, and John Dillinger.
the NRA sponsored the Mulford Act, which banned the carrying of loaded weapons across California. They also sponsored the Gun Control Act of 1968, a piece of legislation which restricted the shipping of firearms and ammunition, placed a minimum age requirement on gun purchases, and banned drug addicts and the mentally ill from owning firearms
Let’s get this straight and cut off the crap - all kind of violent crimes are a very horrible thing. This is given for granted and the kind of rethoric “X is bad, but Y is bad too so let’s call it a draw” is moot. You always have to factor in the modality of a violent action.
I’d take 30 wounded but alive people over 50 (60? 70? 80? Even more?) dead people every day without a second thought, that’s how valuable human life is and should be.
There is just no proof that these kids would do the same thing if they didn’t have easy access to firearms. There’s no proof they’d set up fires, drive cars over people o stab left and right. This goes back to the modality of the action, oddly enough the rest of the civilized world doesn’t have the easy firearms access that the US has and violent people don’t spend the time setting up fires and bombs.
On the other hand, it’s a proven point that firearms make it actually easier for them to kill people and that they are ridicolously easy to acquire in the US, not just illegally, but they’re handed in a perfectly legal way to people with diagnosed mental issues. The lack of control and screening is astounding.
I’d also take a factual proof over a wild speculation every day with no second thought, btw.
Poor reasoning against an argument I didn’t make. There are also times people fail in mass murder with guns, doesn’t mean guns don’t work for that purpose. Regardless, I already stated guns were worse than blades. However, the notion that you can’t get horrible mass casualty events with knives is plain false.