More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[timski 80]

On 4/3/2023 at 9:31 PM, billvon said:

Agreed.  And we can do that many ways:

-Keep shooters out of schools
-Keep guns away from shooters
-Reduce the number of shooters to begin with

There's no one problem to solve, and there's no one solution to any of those problems.  As Uvalde showed us, there are things that we know don't work.
 

It simply showed a soft spot in one particular location. Period. Learn from it... 

[BIGUN 1,314]

7 hours ago, timski said:

It simply showed a soft spot in one particular location.

Seriously. Then, it's safe to say we've found 377 "soft spots" since Columbine to indicate a systemic problem.

Imagine the last thing you do is hug your little girl before she went to school. The last thing she does is die from shots ripping through her body and you weren't there to protect her. 

That's my fucking "soft spot."

[Stumpy 284]

23 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

we've found 377 "soft spots" since Columbine to indicate a systemic problem.

 

The systemic problem being that you shouldn't need to treat a school like a fortress. It's tragic that this is viewed as "freedom"

[BIGUN 1,314]

1 minute ago, Stumpy said:

The systemic problem being that you shouldn't need to treat a school like a fortress.

You do until there's a Gun Responsibility Bill that passes. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

You do until there's a Gun Responsibility Bill that passes. 

How do you think that would stop school shootings?

"Cradle to grave tracking" wouldn't have stopped many of them. 
For the most part, the guns were legally purchased with a proper background check.

Storage requirements wouldn't have made a difference, it was the legal owner.

Training requirements wouldn't have made a difference at all. These people were deliberately violating every safety rule in the book, along with a lot of laws.

I understand it would have some benefits, we can argue on how effective it would be, but I don't see it having any effect on school shootings or other 'mass shooting' events.

[normiss 800]

11 hours ago, timski said:

FACT! 

Pretty much EVERY other nation on the planet is calling bullshit.

It IS possible. America just doesn't have the decency to do anything.

Thank again, to all of the families sacrificing their children to the alter of killing machines.

If we started a national lottery for sacrificing children, could we make it a cleaner, less painful process?

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

Pretty much EVERY other nation on the planet is calling bullshit.

It IS possible. America just doesn't have the decency to do anything.

Thank again, to all of the families sacrificing their children to the alter of killing machines.

If we started a national lottery for sacrificing children, could we make it a cleaner, less painful process?

I feel your pain and frustration.

[wmw999 2,447]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

It IS possible. America just doesn't have the decency to do anything.

And America is composed of Americans, some of whom (like former posters here), consider the casualties of gun violence to be an acceptable trade for their freedom to own guns, just as the casualties of automobiles are an acceptable trade for the benefits of transportation.

Yeah, you can talk to them about the controls on autos, but it's about like talking to a wall.

Wendy P.

[BIGUN 1,314]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

How do you think that would stop school shootings?

"Cradle to grave tracking" wouldn't have stopped many of them. 
For the most part, the guns were legally purchased with a proper background check.

Storage requirements wouldn't have made a difference, it was the legal owner.

Training requirements wouldn't have made a difference at all. These people were deliberately violating every safety rule in the book, along with a lot of laws.

I understand it would have some benefits, we can argue on how effective it would be, but I don't see it having any effect on school shootings or other 'mass shooting' events.

You're right. It's best we do nothing. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

I don't think it's 'best if we do nothing'.

But I think it would be worse to 'do something' that doesn't actually do ANYTHING to address the problem.

One more time:

What would your suggestion do to stop school shootings?

If the answer is 'nothing', then why do it?

To get people used to the idea of gun control?

I guess I see that as more counterproductive.

One of the NRA's biggest & loudest arguments against ANY gun regulation is that it won't do anything to effectively address the issues being raised (school shooting are the current 'big topic', there have been others in the past) and it will be a beginning of a 'slippery slope' to more rules, more controls, more restrictions until 'they come and take your guns away'.

People who are in favor of regulation dismiss this sort of thing as 'hysteria', but this is pretty much the plan for the anti-gun groups.

I'm nowhere near as militant about gun rights as I was 20 years ago, but I still think they are important.

 

[gowlerk 2,192]

11 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

You're right. It's best we do nothing. 

Well that certainly seems like exactly what will be done in the foreseeable future. SFA.

[billvon 2,991]

14 hours ago, timski said:

It simply showed a soft spot in one particular location. Period. 

Agreed.  And the soft spot is the thinking that by adding guns, gun deaths will go down.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

And America is composed of Americans, some of whom (like former posters here), consider the casualties of gun violence to be an acceptable trade for their freedom to own guns, just as the casualties of automobiles are an acceptable trade for the benefits of transportation.

Yeah, you can talk to them about the controls on autos, but it's about like talking to a wall.

Wendy P.

Former posters? You're too kind. Another facet of the problem is that there are a hell of a lot of dumb and uninformed people in rural America. You know, good folks who think people like Sarah Huckabee-Sanders would make a fine Governor, for example.

[billvon 2,991]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Former posters? You're too kind. Another facet of the problem is that there are a hell of a lot of dumb and uninformed people in rural America.

Thing is they are not uninformed.  They are just misinformed.  (They see it as "having done their research.")  The filters and content-creation in social media systems create news feeds, post feeds, memes etc tailored to that person, so in many ways it's a political persuasion amplifier. 

If you are a bit of a libertarian?  Click on enough libertarian memes and pretty soon it seems like the government is worse than Orwellian, that only libertarianism and guns can save people, that trans teachers are forcing little kids to have fake sex with them, and that Grafton was a libertarian utopia.  

Click on an ad for clothing that blocks cellphone rays?  Pretty soon you are getting stories about how 9/11 was a government plot, that the government is spraying chemtrails on everything, and how the COVID vaccine is what killed those million-plus people in the US.

Etc etc.  In the olden timey days it was harder to get that misinformed because most newspapers (for example) did not print regular stories about how the vaccine contains 5G Bill Gates tracker chips - you had to go to a library and go to the same section that had "Elvis was an alien" and "John Wayne shot JFK" books in it.  And that was a bit of a clue that you were in cloud cuckoo land.  Nowadays such material is cleaned up, meme-ized, colorized and presented right next to a story about (say) how there was a plane crash in LA.  So it looks like real news.

And many people (and yes, a lot of these are in rural America - but a lot of them aren't) don't have the tools to be able to quantify the validity of such news, and so start believing it.

So it's not that they are uninformed.  If anything they are overinformed by algorithms designed specifically to feed them misinformation.  Which is one reason that fact-checkers on social media are so important.  That little note on that Facebook post may not cause people to reject it immediately, but it is a way to provide people a link back to reality.

[gowlerk 2,192]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

And many people (and yes, a lot of these are in rural America - but a lot of them aren't) don't have the tools to be able to quantify the validity of such news, and so start believing it.

Half of all the people are of below median intelligence. And not just in the USA.

[StreetScooby 5]

On 3/26/2021 at 7:09 PM, gowlerk said:

That is absurd. Unless you add the qualifier "to me". Although there is a majority of Americans who feel that way there is a large minority who don't. On the other hand nearly everyone recognizes the importance of the 1st. The 1st an inspiration to the world. The 2nd is something the world either laughs or shakes it's head in disbelief at. And like I said there are many Americans who agree with the rest of the world. One day they will be the majority. That will not on it's own get the 2nd repealed, but likely fear of that happening will lead to a more sensible interpretation of it along with more sensible rules.

What do you consider to be a sensible interpretation?

[gowlerk 2,192]

3 minutes ago, StreetScooby said:

What do you consider to be a sensible interpretation?

This post is 2 years old. I have given up on SCOTUS since then. A sensible system of laws in today's world allows for responsible governments to impose sensible gun control laws. The US constitution does not allow for common sense laws around guns. I no longer believe that the 2nd is mis-interpreted. It is pretty clear. 

[StreetScooby 5]

5 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

This post is 2 years old. I have given up on SCOTUS since then. A sensible system of laws in today's world allows for responsible governments to impose sensible gun control laws. The US constitution does not allow for common sense laws around guns. I no longer believe that the 2nd is mis-interpreted. It is pretty clear. 

[reply]

The US constitution does not allow for common sense laws around guns

[/reply]

What are you thoughts on Castle Doctrines?

[gowlerk 2,192]

Just now, StreetScooby said:

[reply]

The US constitution does not allow for common sense laws around guns

[/reply]

What are you thoughts on Castle Doctrines?

I am not familiar enough to comment. My impression is that perhaps some of them may go too far, but the principle may be fine. The devil is always in the details. Calling a right to self defense a "castle doctrine" raises some red flags for me because it sounds like an effort to dress things up in pretty words.

[wmw999 2,447]

I don’t, however, extend the castle doctrine to a vehicle, outbuilding, or Treehouse.

Wendy P. 

[BIGUN 1,314]

28 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I don’t, however, extend the castle doctrine to a vehicle, outbuilding, or Treehouse.

True. It was always about _in your home_. It was easy to watch Texas sow a path to Constitutional Carry once they passed the vehicle security bill wherein castle doctrine extended to the vehicle. [I forget the actual name of the bill].

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by BIGUN

[billvon 2,991]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Half of all the people are of below median intelligence. 

Half of EVERYTHING is below median EVERYTHING.  By definition.

It's like saying that half the parachute harnesses out there are below median strength.  Going to sell your container because of that?

[gowlerk 2,192]

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Half of EVERYTHING is below median EVERYTHING.  By definition.

It's like saying that half the parachute harnesses out there are below median strength.  Going to sell your container because of that?

Thank you Bill.

[BIGUN 1,314]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

So it's not that they are uninformed.  If anything they are overinformed by algorithms designed specifically to feed them misinformation.  Which is one reason that fact-checkers on social media are so important.  That little note on that Facebook post may not cause people to reject it immediately, but it is a way to provide people a link back to reality.

This whole passage is no less than eloquent. I've stood at this pulpit so many times when talking to my fellow veterans about why I'm not on Facebook, etc. 

"But, I use it mostly to stay in touch with family and guys  I served with." Uh Huh and that's how they gotchya.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

2 hours ago, StreetScooby said:

[reply]

The US constitution does not allow for common sense laws around guns

[/reply]

What are you thoughts on Castle Doctrines?

Depends completely on how the Castle Doctrine is written.