What causes the school shootings?[W:462]

[Kelfuma]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

The over protection of children and the pro individual culture of America

 

[Ancient Herald]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

The over protection of children and the pro individual culture of America

America is not pro individual. Don't believe the rhetorical nonsense.

Americans' value conformity. And at the risk of sounding like a joke, they just can't agree on what to conform to.

Such as your call for conformity to anti firearm bias.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Cars, no matter their design, kill more people than guns.

Guns work quite well for self defense, and I will continue to do so.

You should cry more for cancer research and abolishing abortion instead.

And you're making the classic false equivalency. Very few of deaths by automobile are DELIBERATE. Deaths by firearms are - with the occasional exception - DELIBERATE.

 

[Ockham]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Of course not. All I want is:

- universal background checks for all sales, including in stores, shows, personal, and over the internet;

- universal registration of all firearms (including keeping a bullet fired by each gun, just as people are fingerprinted), with the owners being legally responsible for what is done with their firearms;

- required notification to local law enforcement whenever firearms are stolen;

- required safety training (which can be done by the NRA) for anyone purchasing a new class of firearm; and

- a hefty tax on all firearms and ammunition to defray the costs of gun-related crimes (which OUGHT to be common sense).

Of course, we could instead do what Switzerland requires (they're significantly stricter than what I listed above), but I doubt the Right would even consider what they do.

What you're saying is you want to repeal the 2A because that's what it would take for most of that to occur.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Death is death - all the same in the end.

Same end, different means.

Still statistically insignificant when looking at the causes of death in the US.

Wrong. Death by auto is almost always NOT deliberate...but deaths by firearm are almost always DELIBERATE.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Fat chance of any of this happening, as it should be.

Yeah, it would be real tyranny to do anything to make it harder for sociopaths, violent racists, drug pushers, and terrorists to purchase whatever firearms they want, whenever they want, huh?

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Of course not. All I want is:

- universal background checks for all sales, including in stores, shows, personal, and over the internet;

- universal registration of all firearms (including keeping a bullet fired by each gun, just as people are fingerprinted), with the owners being legally responsible for what is done with their firearms;

- required notification to local law enforcement whenever firearms are stolen;

- required safety training (which can be done by the NRA) for anyone purchasing a new class of firearm; and

- a hefty tax on all firearms and ammunition to defray the costs of gun-related crimes (which OUGHT to be common sense).

Of course, we could instead do what Switzerland requires (they're significantly stricter than what I listed above), but I doubt the Right would even consider what they do.

I see. So all you want is:

1. A method of allowing the government to monitor who is trying to possess a gun tied to a hoop allowing the government to prevent it, but eliminating the Constitutional link to interstate commerce which binds the Federal law.

2. A method of finally identifying every legally owned gun and who owns them, along with all the ammunition ever purchased. (So as to control them and more easily confiscate any the government has decided the citizen no longer need access to).

3. A method of holding the original owner accountable for whatever happens if their gun is stolen.

4. A government approved training program which can then be made more and more stringent in order to be granted permission to exercise a right.

5a. A tax which would serve as a financial barrier to the majority of less affluent citizens obtaining a weapon, and the wherewithal to train on it or use it.

5b. A tax which would penalize legal owners for crimes committed by criminal possessors.


Nope. I sure don't see any violations of the Second Amendment in that list of requirements. (That was HEAVY sarcasm if you didn't catch it.) :doh

 

[Ancient Herald]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Wrong. Death by auto is almost always NOT deliberate...but deaths by firearm are almost always DELIBERATE.

So what?

They are still inanimate objects that can not act without human operation.

We do have an inalienable right that shall not be infringed when it comes to firearms. We do not have a right to automobiles. That is a liberty.

And your focus is not about saving lives. You are actually placing one groups' lives over the others since you refuse to allow them to defend themselves.

And you really don't know how problematic your stance is when you say that only professionals should be allowed to defend people.

But it really doesn't matter to you anyway.

 

[SMTA]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Wrong. Death by auto is almost always NOT deliberate...but deaths by firearm are almost always DELIBERATE.

Hmm, high degree of reading incomprehension.

Death is death.

None of your whining will bring the changes in gun laws that you want.

Next.

 

[SMTA]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Yeah, it would be real tyranny to do anything to make it harder for sociopaths, violent racists, drug pushers, and terrorists to purchase whatever firearms they want, whenever they want, huh?

We have laws preventing all of this at both state and federal level, and they even have penalties!!

Why don't you complain about the lack of enforcement for those laws??

How many times have you contacted your representatives about their enforcement?

I'll bet that the answer is none.

 

[SMTA]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

And you're making the classic false equivalency. Very few of deaths by automobile are DELIBERATE. Deaths by firearms are - with the occasional exception - DELIBERATE.

And still statistically insignificant.

 

[Lursa]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Problem is, among the masses of humanity we will ALWAYS have such sick, twisted individuals. The key is to not let them get the tools that would allow them to do what they want to do. This is also known as "gun control"...but of course, in America, any mention of "gun control" is automatically followed by accusations of tyranny and assumptions that such automatically results in dictatorship followed by holocaust.

How do you keep them from knives and compost and pipes and cars and pressure cookers and....?

The thing is, most of these losers, officially mentally ill or not, all spend loads of time planning. Take away one option, they'll find another. Most believe they'll die anyway, so they actually *live* in the planning and imagining the damage they'll cause. In the creating of their (convoluted, warped, "justification") message to leave behind.

I havent seen evidence that many of these are impulsive sprees. I can however, think of 2 here in WA St (that may have been impulsive) that were done by men that were already identified as mentally ill and dangerous...and even tho family tried to get them commited or get help from the state/county, there were no laws in place that would do so. One was the Cafe Racer shootings (5 or 6 shot) and a guy up north a bit that took a gun and his car (forget where he got the gun) and just drove around shooting and killed 6 people.

So more emphasis on the already identified mentally ill *could* potentially help. As for these other losers, as something else I just read agreed....they need to be engaged socially by society rather than further isolated and we need to stop enabling the 'glorification' and notoriety of these losers. I dont get that personally but the 4Chan comments that were linked to recently proves these losers get some gratification out of it, in their pathetic minds, and others 'live' off of their acts and then plan for themselves, all the while egging the others on.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

How do you keep them from knives and compost and pipes and cars and pressure cookers and....?

The thing is, most of these losers, officially mentally ill or not, all spend loads of time planning. Take away one option, they'll find another. Most believe they'll die anyway, so they actually *live* in the planning and imagining the damage they'll cause. In the creating of their (convoluted, warped, "justified" I can ) message to leave behind.

I havent seen evidence that many of these are impulsive sprees. I can however, think of 2 here in WA St (that may have been impulsive) that were done by men that were already identified as mentally ill and dangerous...and even tho family tried to get them commited or get help from the state/county, there were no laws in place that would do so. One was the Cafe Racer shootings (5 or 6 shot) and a guy up north a bit that took a gun and his car (forget where he got the gun) and just drove around shooting and killed 6 people.

Remember, ALL nations have such "losers", most likely at about the same proportion of population as we have here in America. But the key question is, if these "losers" are going to kill other people anyway whether they have guns or not, WHY are the losers in other nations not doing so to anywhere near the extent that they do in America?

What you should bear in mind is that the "losers" are generally (though certainly not always) lazy. Guns make it easy for them. The ones who are NOT lazy are likely to do what they're going to do anyway, but lack of access to guns keeps the lazy ones from easy access to something that will enable them commit their crimes.

 

[SMTA]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

remember, all nations have such "losers", most likely at about the same proportion of population as we have here in america. But the key question is, if these "losers" are going to kill other people anyway whether they have guns or not, why are the losers in other nations not doing so to anywhere near the extent that they do in america?

What you should bear in mind is that the "losers" are generally (though certainly not always) lazy. Guns make it easy for them. The ones who are not lazy are likely to do what they're going to do anyway, but lack of access to guns keeps the lazy ones from easy access to something that will enable them commit their crimes.

Death to lazy people!!

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

What you're saying is you want to repeal the 2A because that's what it would take for most of that to occur.

No, I want people to consider the clear context of the preparatory clause of the 2A, especially given the debate at the time the 2A was included, which debate was over whether we should even have a standing army at all.

 

[Ancient Herald]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

No, I want people to consider the clear context of the preparatory clause of the 2A, especially given the debate at the time the 2A was included, which debate was over whether we should even have a standing army at all.

So you've read Federalist paper no. 46 then.

 

[Lursa]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Remember, ALL nations have such "losers", most likely at about the same proportion of population as we have here in America. But the key question is, if these "losers" are going to kill other people anyway whether they have guns or not, WHY are the losers in other nations not doing so to anywhere near the extent that they do in America?

What you should bear in mind is that the "losers" are generally (though certainly not always) lazy. Guns make it easy for them. The ones who are NOT lazy are likely to do what they're going to do anyway, but lack of access to guns keeps the lazy ones from easy access to something that will enable them commit their crimes.

Do they? Do they have the same culture that we do? Same pressures, same beliefs, same social media impacts? Same expectations?

No, they dont. If the societal parallels are there, I'd like to see proof of that.


And some proof that these losers are 'lazy.' That's a new one on me.

 

[SMTA]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Do they? Do they have the same culture that we do? Same pressures, same beliefs, same social media impacts? Same expectations?

No, they dont. If the societal parallels are there, I'd like to see proof of that.


And some proof that these losers are 'lazy.' That's a new one on me.

Based upon that logic, the Armed Services need to put their laziest recruits in charge of the most deadly weapons!!

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

I see. So all you want is:

1. A method of allowing the government to monitor who is trying to possess a gun tied to a hoop allowing the government to prevent it, but eliminating the Constitutional link to interstate commerce which binds the Federal law.

No, I want the government to keep guns out of the hands of sociopaths, violent sex offenders, drug dealers, and terrorists...because without government action, the private sector won't do a damn thing to prevent it.

2. A method of finally identifying every legally owned gun and who owns them, along with all the ammunition ever purchased. (So as to control them and more easily confiscate any the government has decided the citizen no longer need access to).

No, I want a method to prevent gun trafficking like that which is making it hell to live in northern Mexico. And there is ZERO evidence that in the modern world there would be any such 'confiscation' - we are NOT a dictatorship - it wasn't registration that enabled Hitler to confiscate weapons - it was the degree of the power he wielded, effectively making his government a dictatorship. A better example is Switzerland - Switzerland's required registration of all firearms for much longer than you or I have been alive - was there any confiscation? Of course not. All your "confiscation" claim is, is fear-mongering based on ZERO evidence.

3. A method of holding the original owner accountable for whatever happens if their gun is stolen.

Which is why he's required to inform the police when his firearm is stolen, so he wouldn't be responsible for it.

4. A government approved training program which can then be made more and more stringent in order to be granted permission to exercise a right.

Yeah, since when is ensuring safety training of something that can kill someone a good idea? I mean, since when should we require safety training for those who drive cars?

5a. A tax which would serve as a financial barrier to the majority of less affluent citizens obtaining a weapon, and the wherewithal to train on it or use it.

5b. A tax which would penalize legal owners for crimes committed by criminal possessors.

By your 'logic', then, vehicle drivers shouldn't be paying taxes for HOV lanes they never use, or construction of bus lanes or bus stops or weigh stations.

Better yet, you don't commit crimes - by your 'logic', that means you shouldn't pay taxes that go towards police and prisons. But you do.

And when it comes to this making prices higher, this can be done with the same logic that's applied to cigarettes which, if used as they are designed to be used (and guns are designed to shoot without regard to whether they're used in the commission of a crime), will probably harm someone.

Nope. I sure don't see any violations of the Second Amendment in that list of requirements. (That was HEAVY sarcasm if you didn't catch it.) :doh

If the 2A is taken in its proper context, considering the preparatory clause and the debate that was going on during the Constitutional Convention over whether we should have a standing army at all, NOTHING I've proposed above would violate the 2A. But y'all are determined to ignore the obvious context - the thought that "shall not be infringed" might not be as open-ended as you want to believe...is simply inconceivable to you.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Do they? Do they have the same culture that we do? Same pressures, same beliefs, same social media impacts? Same expectations?

No, they dont. If the societal parallels are there, I'd like to see proof of that.


And some proof that these losers are 'lazy.' That's a new one on me.

Do yourself a huge favor and go overseas and visit - or better yet, live (as I have) - among the people...and you'll find out that regardless of social and religious mores, people are people are people. Give them more access to guns, there will be more homicides and suicides. Give them less access to guns, and there will be less homicides and suicides. Plain and simple.

 

[DDD]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

No, I want the government to keep guns out of the hands of sociopaths, violent sex offenders, drug dealers, and terrorists...because without government action, the private sector won't do a damn thing to prevent it.

In my proposal I state that the technology of brain scans available today should be used in background checks. The fMRI technology can identify most of the above whom I call "2A abusers." After identification they would go for either illegal guns or try to commit mass murder with non-guns.

At which point the risks get higher than mere pulling triggers. Should they go for the black market they can get arrested. Should they try to commit mass murder with non-guns they can be shot dead from people with guns (i.e., 2A users that use guns to defend).

 

[Ancient Herald]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

No, I want the government to keep guns out of the hands of sociopaths, violent sex offenders, drug dealers, and terrorists...because without government action, the private sector won't do a damn thing to prevent it.



No, I want a method to prevent gun trafficking like that which is making it hell to live in northern Mexico. And there is ZERO evidence that in the modern world there would be any such 'confiscation' - we are NOT a dictatorship - it wasn't registration that enabled Hitler to confiscate weapons - it was the degree of the power he wielded, effectively making his government a dictatorship. A better example is Switzerland - Switzerland's required registration of all firearms for much longer than you or I have been alive - was there any confiscation? Of course not. All your "confiscation" claim is, is fear-mongering based on ZERO evidence.



Which is why he's required to inform the police when his firearm is stolen, so he wouldn't be responsible for it.



Yeah, since when is ensuring safety training of something that can kill someone a good idea? I mean, since when should we require safety training for those who drive cars?



By your 'logic', then, vehicle drivers shouldn't be paying taxes for HOV lanes they never use, or construction of bus lanes or bus stops or weigh stations.

Better yet, you don't commit crimes - by your 'logic', that means you shouldn't pay taxes that go towards police and prisons. But you do.

And when it comes to this making prices higher, this can be done with the same logic that's applied to cigarettes which, if used as they are designed to be used (and guns are designed to shoot without regard to whether they're used in the commission of a crime), will probably harm someone.



If the 2A is taken in its proper context, considering the preparatory clause and the debate that was going on during the Constitutional Convention over whether we should have a standing army at all, NOTHING I've proposed above would violate the 2A. But y'all are determined to ignore the obvious context - the thought that "shall not be infringed" might not be as open-ended as you want to believe...is simply inconceivable to you.

When people go to prison, they do lose the right to own firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

And that's actually pretty strict.

so, if this law has failed, then why would even stricter laws do what you want them to do?

Stricter laws don't do anything but hurt law abiding people. They do not stop criminals in any capacity.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

Forgive me for ignoring all the straw man and red herring points in your post.

If the 2A is taken in its proper context, considering the preparatory clause and the debate that was going on during the Constitutional Convention over whether we should have a standing army at all, NOTHING I've proposed above would violate the 2A. But y'all are determined to ignore the obvious context - the thought that "shall not be infringed" might not be as open-ended as you want to believe...is simply inconceivable to you.

Sorry, but the debate over a standing army was an ancillary issue, not the primary issue regarding the addition of the Second Amendment. Just because delegates were rightly concerned with allowing a standing army as the enforcement arm of a new central government after only recently winning independence by fighting a standing army of the last government does not mean the argument was completely based on a need for a citizens militia.

The inherent right of a citizen to keep and bear arms forms the foundation of a militia, not vice versa. This is something that so many advocates of gun control keep misunderstanding.

The key phrase is: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This so they have the ability to organize into militias, not because they must actually be in one in order to obtain the right.

The "shall not be infringed" interpretations are what these arguments are all about as far as I am concerned. To me, this means if I can carry it for personal defense then I can own it.

I can't carry a tank (it carries me); I can't carry an ICBM or the nuclear warhead and neither can be considered weapons of personal defense; I can't carry an artillery piece either. Explosives are an iffy proposition so I have no clear position on them. (Besides, I can make my own if it ever comes to that.)

Firearms? I am absolutely responsible for my own self-defense in this great nation of ours, at least as far as Court rulings on the actual responsibility of law enforcement personnel are concerned. But that is okay because that is exactly how it should be.

 

[SMTA]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

In my proposal I state that the technology of brain scans available today should be used in background checks. The fMRI technology can identify most of the above whom I call "2A abusers." After identification they would go for either illegal guns or try to commit mass murder with non-guns.

At which point the risks get higher than mere pulling triggers. Should they go for the black market they can get arrested. Should they try to commit mass murder with non-guns they can be shot dead from people with guns (i.e., 2A users that use guns to defend).

Bull**** it does.

Brain Imaging, functional (fMRI)

Physicians perform fMRI to:

• examine the anatomy of the brain.
• determine precisely which part of the brain is handling critical functions such as thought, speech, movement and sensation, which is called brain mapping.
• help assess the effects of stroke, trauma or degenerative disease (such as Alzheimer's) on brain function.
• monitor the growth and function of brain tumors.
• guide the planning of surgery, radiation therapy, or other surgical treatments for the brain.

Your proposal is a sieve that cannot hold water.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: What causes the school shootings?

In my proposal I state that the technology of brain scans available today should be used in background checks. The fMRI technology can identify most of the above whom I call "2A abusers." After identification they would go for either illegal guns or try to commit mass murder with non-guns.

At which point the risks get higher than mere pulling triggers. Should they go for the black market they can get arrested. Should they try to commit mass murder with non-guns they can be shot dead from people with guns (i.e., 2A users that use guns to defend).

I disagree - your proposal is a step down the 'eugenics' road, and that's a very dangerous path indeed.

Don't get me wrong - I do understand what you're saying. I've written before how studies have shown how those who are conservative are significantly more likely to have a larger amygdala, that part of the brain which identifies and reacts to perceived threats...which is IMO why conservatives are much more likely to want access to guns and increased funding for the military. However, for the same reason I listed above - the danger of the path towards 'eugenics' - such physical features of the brain, no matter how they may affect our behavior, must not in and of themselves be used as a reason to treat them any differently.